Thanks for the reference (are there similar ones for the FS, btw?), but under 6.0 we did not have a technical panel there to call the jumps and review them in slow motion, writing "e" and < for jumps with those errors (or I don't remember there being one, correct me if I'm wrong), so it was possible for someone like Hughes to do her Lutz in the far corner in the hope that a nearsighted judge would overlook it.
Y'know, I don't think it's a big deal to be wrong about something, as long as we're arguing and debating in good faith. I kind of doubt that you're arguing in good faith here. It just seems like you'll keep twisting the argument so that you don't have to concede a single point. Disappointing.
The original argument was that the technical flaws that Mao had in her jumping technique weren't universally acknowledged as flaws under 6.0. I have cited numerous examples and evidence to show that that is not true. Flutzing and underrotating were clearly and specifically against the rules under 6.0. This isn't even about Mao and her coaches or blaming or whatnot. It's about a scoring system that is being inaccurately described here.
The fact that there was no technical panel back then and whether or not judges consistently noticed skaters making such errors is a separate, independent issue from whether or not those flaws were universally recognized as flaws per the scoring system and the rules of the time. They were absolutely recognized as errors and flaws. Case in point: in 1998, Frank Carroll never denied that flutzing was an error back then; he merely denied that Michelle Kwan flutzed. There's a distinct difference between the two.
Also, it didn't have the 90 degree rule; "rotation not complete" (less than required revolutions is for doubling/popping, I think) is more vague than the current under-rotation rules. Both wrong edge and rotation incomplete left the exact deduction up to the judges. It is less specific, as there are varying degrees for each kind of error.
...Um, the exact deduction for wrong edges and underrotations is still left up to the judges under the current IJS. They can choose to give a skater a GOE like 0, -1, or -2 for a flutz after taking all qualities of the jump into account. They were given a range of deductions under 6.0 that they could apply depending on the severity of the error and they're given similar flexibility under IJS.
You're really nitpicking now with this argument about the rules back then being "more vague" or "not as clear." No, the rules back then are not the same as the rules now, and they were not as detailed. They were different systems. However, the rules back then were clear enough that there should be specific deductions for the flaws that inskate said weren't universally recognized as flaws. Nope. They were clearly punishable flaws under 6.0. It was in the rules. There were deductions spelled out. The end.