Welcome to GS Citrus! And in welcoming you, the first thing I'm going to do is disagree with you If the scores for every element under the COP were posted at the event, I think it would just look like a mess. I don't know of any scoreboard that could even handle that many numbers! Plus, with the two high, two low, and two random scores thrown out, at least under the current system, that means the scores of 11 judges would be shown, but only five would count. Also, in the ladies final at Trophee Lalique, the winner had 13 technical elements. That's 143 different numbers to put up on the scoreboard or on the TV screen. And having looked at the detailed results, no score has ever jumped out at me as "WHAT?" They're all within a reasonable and justifiable range. Sure, there have been mistakes, but I think this has been due to the problem of the technical caller. [EDIT: Thanks for the correctoid Hockeyfan Once again you've saved me from complete COP humiliation. I've edited the following sentences to fix my mistake.] If the TC misses a two-foot landing or a significantly pre- or underrotated jump, the judges have to go by the TC. This problem needs to be fixed in the COP system, but I don't think it's cheating by the TC and certainly not by the judges who are supposed to go by what the TC says. I think it's usually just error, that is, the TC missed it. And error is going to be in any system of judging, no matter what you do. The best you can do is try to account for it so that error does not adversely affect the outcome of the event. As for flutzing and lipping, the judges can deduct -1 to -3 from the base mark. As I said once before, I think there are degrees of flutzness. One judge may see a flutz as a -3 whereas another may have legitimate reasons for believing -1 is correct. This season I've only seen the judges deduct for the most severe flutzes and rarely for lipping. But I have seen them add points to true Lutzes for the women, which is perhaps the way most judges are handling it--no or minimal deductions for minor flutzing, but added points for true Lutzes. I don't know that that's what they're doing or if I agree with that approach, but as long as the true Lutzers get more points than flutzers, whether minor or severe, that's what counts for me. OTOH, I think it sends the wrong message. If the judges start deducting for all flutzing, then I think we'll start to see more skaters correct it. Same with lipping, though that doesn't seem to be as common.
Under the COP, I thought all the outcomes were spot on, which is really what I'm interested in, not whether somebody flutzed or not--at least as far as the event is concerned. I can express my opinion here that Skater A should fix her flutz, but as long as the whole of a skater's performance and program justifies his/her final placement and most significant errors are accounted for in the scores, then I think the COP is doing its job.
When skaters are very close in technical and presentation ability, which happened in pairs a couple of times, I hope all mistakes made by the skaters are caught, but that's hoping for the impossible. Human systems just can't do that. For example, there was one event where the final result between first and second in pairs was separated by only a few tenths of a point. People on the forum, some of whom saw the event live, argued in favor of both teams--some thought the result was right, some thought the silver medalists should have won the gold. With six of 11 judges' scores thrown out, I find it virtually impossible for a group of judges to get together to preplan any outcome under the COP unless ALL 11 judges are in on it, plus the TC, plus the referee. Sure, it's possible. But is it probable? Not to me. Also, sometimes things just happen. Referees in football and basketball make bad calls. We try to make the judging as fair as possible, but human error is always going to be present. At least under the COP I find it far less likely for judges to be able to truly cheat than under the 6.0 system. And it's not like there haven't been plenty of close results under the 6.0 system (Nancy and Oksana anyone?)
I think it's taken the judges time to get the hang of the COP and that the system itself has weaknesses that definitely need to be addressed. But having read through all the detailed results for all the GP events, I personally have not seen any evidence of cheating. If somebody has in the COP, I'd be interested to hear the specifics--really--because I don't want to have missed cheating. Some judges have scored higher than others in the compoenent scores, but at most by .5. And the good thing about the COP is that if two judges "cheat" by giving unfarily high scores to a skating, their marks are thrown out. Same thing if judges try to give blackball a skater with low scores--they're out.
Anyway, here it is your third post and I write this long disagreement. Sorry! It's nothing personal, of course. I hate cheating judges, believe me, but sometimes I think people see a judge who gives a mark they think is too high or low and think "Cheating!" when the final outcome of not only the entire event, but of that judge's placement, indicates no cheating at all.
Welcom again and don't worry, you'll rarely get responses that are long and boring like this one, even from me, I promise