Actually, I just noticed that without a 2A-3T, she can do 7 triples + 2 2As while repeating both Lutz, and Flip. Both of which she is good at and uses correct edges on (applause to her).
This is from a lay viewers perspective, of course. Would there be a downside from skaters' and/or judges' perspective if sequences with 2a became more common and a lot of skaters without 3-3 combos (which, in this scenario, would have 10% bonus on base value) would be doing them?
I love the 3A combinations and it's pity that so very few skaters still execute the 3A-3T combo.
Anyhow, my favourite combo is 3A-3T-3L executed by Plushenko at the end of Olympic gala in 2006: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChZMc1UvxRI (min. 2:30)
Combos are underrated. They say it is as difficult to perform 4-3 as 4 then 3. They also say it is easier to perform 4seg3A than 4 then 3A. Silly rules. Combos should get 10% and sequence 5% plus I think.
At season 2011/2012 Polina Shelepen had 3Lz+3T and 3S+3T combos in FS. It was exotoc, but at next seasons became more popular.
At JrWorlds-2014 Evgenia MEDVEDEVA landed 3F+3T and (in second half of program!) 3S+3T.
At Worlds-2014 Anna POGORILAYA and Polina EDMUNDS had 3+1Lo+3 combo in FS. Both also landed 3Lz+3T.
At JrWorlds-2014 Elena RADIONOVA, Serafima SAKHANOVICH, Alaine CHARTRAND also had 3+1Lo+3 combo in FS.
Jumping content in Ladies FS
(performed in different times by Shelepen, Lipnitskaia, Pogorilaya, Drynkina of Russian Ladies)
is much easier than content with two 3+3 combos, performed now by Edmunds, Pogorilaya, Radionova, but has almost the same base value.
If they want to include 7 triples, they have to get two of the difficult jumps, including double axel, into one jump pass.
3T+2A+SEQ is the easiest possible way to do that.
It's worth more than 2A+2T, which is what it would take the place of.
So the system already makes it more valuable to do that kind of sequence than any double-double combo. Only if they did 2A+2Lo+2Lo would the base value of a combo with no triples exceed 3T+2A+SEQ even with the sequence multiplier.
The reason why skaters don't choose that option is probably because it's risky to put the only axel in the program at the end of a sequence -- if they miss the first jump, they won't get credit for the axel, and because an axel is required they will lose credit for the whole last jump pass. With 2A+double(s) combo, at least if they have a bad landing on the first jump at least they still get some credit for the flawed axel.
But for those who are doing two 2A jump passes because they don't have the ability to do 7 triples (5 kinds with 2 repeats), the system itself already rewards the sequence with triple more than it does the double-double combo.
ETA: Well, I explained why from the skater's perspective there would be a downside to including triple+2A sequence as the only axel in the program.This is from a lay viewers perspective, of course. Would there be a downside from skaters' and/or judges' perspective if sequences with 2a became more common and a lot of skaters without 3-3 combos (which, in this scenario, would have 10% bonus on base value) would be doing them?
The way the system works now, judges just judge each element and the program components -- they have no reason to think about what the sequence penalty does to the base value or whether an element will get credit it all (until they see the asterisks on the screen) -- that's the tech panel's responsibility. And the tech panel just identifies what the skater did, with some room for interpretation if there's a break in the rhythm but no extra steps between two jumps in an intended sequence.
If something is unusual, judges have the option to reward it under the "Originality" criterion of the Choreography program component. I doubt that one unusual jump sequence would make much different in that mark, but theoretically it could. And then if it started becoming common instead of uncommon, it would no longer inspire any such reward.
If a skater were to do two difficult jumps (double axels, triples, and or quad) with a couple of steps or turns in between -- the sort of thing that might have been considered a jump sequence under the less-restrictive definitions in the 6.0 era -- then the two jumps would fill two separate jump slots. No sequence penalty, but also one less open slot available for other jump elements elsewhere in the program. However, judges could reward two jumps so close together in the GOE especially for the second jump (difficult/unexpected entrance) and also in the Transitions component.
Skaters will really only care about how they can maximize their points -- which includes not only the base values of the jumps but also the likely GOE, likelihood of underrotations/downgrades or other costly failures, possible second half bonus . . . and also any possible advantage they might earn in program components for an unusual jump layout.
Since PCS are entirely up to the judges' discretion and therefore unpredictable, skaters are less likely to take risks in hopes of that kind of reward.