Fans have different perspectives. I've written about this before. As I've become a decades-long fan, I've become far less tolerant of these sorts of things. I've seen the true greats do these moves correctly, so there's no use trying to sell me on the notion that this is all just fine, or excusable, or acceptable. And I still believe that if the penalties were harsh enough, the skaters would clean these up or replace the flawed content with elements they can achieve honestly.
Keep in mind:
The same rules apply both to skaters who are aiming for elite medals and the right to be considered true greats, and also to skaters at developmental levels
There is a wide range of quality possible between not performed/completely failed and perfect/flawless. Execution of these elements is not an either/or variable. Why do you want to award credit for attempts on an either/or basis?
Are you willing to give partial credit to flawed attempts at junior level and below, to encourage skaters to work on these jumps and work on perfecting them while not expecting them to be perfect when first attempted?
No iteration of skating judging in the past, either under IJS or 6.0 judging, ever awarded zero credit for an identifiable jump attempt based on failure to execute the jump from a flawed takeoff. Only if the flaws were such that it appears the skater executed too many of the same takeoff (because intended different takeoffs looked almost identical) would whole jumps have been invalidated.
There was never any golden age when all jump attempts were beautiful and technically correct. There have always been flawed jumps. The harder the jumps being attempted are, the more likely that there will be flaws.
IJS in particular limits the number of jumps that can be attempted or repeated and does not offer opportunities to make up for leaving out a problematic jumps. If skaters want to be competitive, they will want to include jumps that are on par with the rest of their own and their competitors' difficulty content, rather than leaving a jump slot completely empty with no way to make up for it in other elements, or by executing a much easier jump with much lower base value.
If you want skaters to omit elements that they can't execute perfectly in all respects, then you need to give them options to earn points elsewhere on the elements that they can do excellently.
Just telling them to leave the element out of their programs is not going to make them able to execute the element perfectly. Some skaters will just never be able to reach perfection on elements that are expected at their general overall skill level, often because of general body type or temporary injury. This is even more obvious when it comes to jump rotation. Currently jumps underrotated by >180 degrees earn the value of the jump with one less revolution than attempted. By your logic, should downgraded << jumps earn no value at all? In that case, what about underrotated < jumps? What about q?
Right now, it's "I'm going to get an edge call on that, but in the big scheme of things point-wise, it's still the best decision."
And NO, to answer a comment from another contributor. I cannot do these moves. But I am not appearing in major international competitions pretending that I can, either.
And neither are all the skaters who are being judged under IJS. Many of them are just trying to compete at whatever level they are at. Which may be levels where beginning triples are normal but perfect ones are rare or nonexistent.
I don't disagree with the main point, but camel spins can be invalidated if only 80 degrees in many circumstances.
Yes, if the skater does not achieve at least 2 consecutive revolutions at at least 90 degrees, the camel position will not count. If it's just a solo camel spin, then the whole element gets no value. If it's a combination spin, then the skater can still earn points for the other positions. And if there are camel positions on both feet, it's possible one will count and the other won't. If the skater just manages 2+ revs at 90 degrees but the free foot is otherwise too low, the skater may get credit for the camel position, but they won't earn level features in that position.
The failure that leads to no credit at all (a solo camel spin without 2+ consecutive revs at least 90 degrees) is a much higher bar for losing all credit than an unclear edge or last-second edge change on an otherwise completed jump.
because I get annoyed when people minimize the importance of proper edges on takeoff and landing, all the while sniveling that so-and-so was robbed by at least a point in PCS.
