Apparently, all errors are evil but someerrors are less evil. What is wrong about making the deduction uniform like it is for a Fall?
I'm not sure what you're asking.
Why don't all errors of whatever kind get exactly the same deduction (e.g., flawed takeoff should lose the same as a hand down on the landing, which should lose the same as a fall?)
Do we really need to answer that one?
Or why don't all errors of the same kind (e.g., change of edge on takeoff) always earn the same deduction?
The answer to that is that the same general category of error might occur in various degrees of severity.
For example, traveling in a spin -- sometimes a spin might curl around with the loops overlapping each other slightly to form a circle about 2 feet in diameter; another spin might be strung out along a line with each loop on the ice 6 inches away from the last one, and the exit from the spin a good 6 feet or more away from the entrance. We might describe those two spins as suffering from "minor traveling" and "severe traveling." Why should the element with the minor error be punished equally to that with the severe error?
Similarly, a skater might perform a clear outside edge setup for a lutz and just as the other toe picks into the ice rock over to the inside edge for only half a blade length. Another skater (or the same skater on a different occasion, if her technique is inconsistent) might rock over onto a deep inside edge several feet before she actually gets her toepick into the ice, or she might use the LFI mohawk and cross step approach that ant described and fail on a particularly bad occasion to get onto the outside edge at all. Why should the skater whose jump mechanics were basically correct with a tiny error be punished as severely as one whose error is blatant and severe?
Also, the final GOE reflects the element as a whole, not just the reduction for the change of edge. As of this year, if the technical panel calls a change of edge, the judges are required to give negative GOE, but they do also take the rest of the element into account.
Skater X performs a beautiful sustained LBO spiral, lowers her free leg still on a clear outside edge and counterrotates the upper body, picks, rotates neatly 3 times in the air with nice flow out, reaches back with the left foot and picks in for a double toe loop, which she performs with one arm overhead.
Did she change edge at the moment of picking in for the lutz takeoff? Probably, but if so the change was probably minor.
There are eight phases to a two-jump combination (approach, takeoff, rotation, and landing for each of the two jumps). Seven of those phases were satisfactory, good, or very good.
One phase -- the actual takeoff of the first jump -- had a small flaw but it happened to be exactly the kind of flaw that requires that the final GOE of the jump be negative if called by the tech panel.
From his angle, Judge A didn't see a change of edge at all -- looked like a fine outside edge takeoff, shallower than the spiral approach but satisfactory to meet the definition of the lutz. Because the other phases were good to very good, Judge A wants to award this combination +1 GOE and is even considering +2.
From Judge B's angle, there appears to be a small change of edge. The technical panel doesn't make the edge-change call, though. Judge B would have given +1 to this combination if she were sure the takeoff edge was correct, but because it was a borderline flutz -- not blatant, but enough to make Judge B suspicious -- she reduces the total GOE to 0.
Next competition, the same judges are sitting in the same seats and Skater X does her spiral into lutz-toe combination at the same point on the rink. Only this time she's more tired or distracted going into the lutz, and she changes edge quite significantly. No one could miss that S-shaped tracing -- however, to Judge A it looks like only a moderate change whereas from Judge B's angle it looks like one of the worst she's ever seen. The entering spiral was beautiful, though, as were the air positions and the landings of both jumps.
The technical panel calls the change of edge.
Judge B thinks, as a whole element that jump combo was worthy of at least +1 before the reduction for the change of edge. I think that was a moderate change of edge, worthy of -2 reduction. I need to give a negative GOE anyway because of the edge call. Therefore, final GOE is -1.
Judge A thinks, wow, that was a horrible flutz, definitely worthy of -3. On the other hand, the entry, air, and landing phases were all quite good. So -2 final GOE for the combination.
Later in the program skater X performs a solo triple lutz without any preceding spiral or arm-enhanced second jump; the air position and landing are all fine but not special, and the edge change on the takeoff is just as bad as on the first lutz and called by the tech panel. Everything else about the solo jump is worthy of 0, from Judge A's angle the edge change is moderate and worthy of -2, from Judge B's angle it's severe and worthy of -3, so those are the GOEs they give to that element.
