I believe there is no slow-motion review for flutz/lip at all.
Actually, I'm not sure I like the idea of only slow-mo'ing called UR jumps. If the tech panel thinks there's any chance that a skater under-rotates a jump, they'll call it and later correct it if it's not, because they know they'll have no opportunity to downgrade it otherwise. That's particularly disadvantageous for skaters who have established a reputation of UR's, even if they've really worked hard on it -- they'd never get as much of benefit of doubt as others who are not already stigmatized with UR.
I say, do away with the slow-mo altogether. UR calls should be done like the edge calls. If it's not obvious to experienced tech callers that a triple jump is UR'ed in real time, then it shouldn't be penalized like it's a very badly done double! And in fact, I want them to institute something like the "!" for potentially UR'ed jumps as they do for the flutz/lip now. I want the judges to be given a little more authority/control over how to evaluate a jump. They should be given individual opportunity to decide whether a jump is really fully rotated or not, and how any potential under-rotation balances out any other merit/fault of jump to arrive at an overall evaluation in the GOE mark. Ten pairs of eyes from different angles can see more than a single tech panel. I really hated all along that COP took more and more authority away from the judges and gave them to tech controllers and pretending they don't have human flaws or individual biases.
IMHO, the institution of "!" for edge deduction this year was a good idea -- at most, tech panel's assessment of wrong-edge take-off should be advisory and be a component of evaluating a jump, not mandatory and over-riding other aspects of the jump. We saw mostly !'s handed out at SA, not "e". But really, if it's such an obvious edge call to merit an "e", judges don't need the "e" to notice it, they have their eyes for that!
The same should be done with under-rotations. This would also deal with the double penalty for downgrades, and instead allow a system that penalizes more severe UR's more severely.
In addition to instituting something like "!" for UR, they should do away with automatic downgrades, and give the judges an opportunity to assign GOEs that vary across the full range, down to -3, plus an opportunity to impose an extra one-point deduction (as in a fall) if they felt the jump really shouldn't even be counted as a triple (if a triple is intended).
biggrin
: if you want to convince others to agree with you on something, it is always more effective to present your views in a civil, logical manner and put your emotions aside. This works particularly well when arguing with your spouse...
