So many posts since last night!
Let me make two points floating through the previous posts.
Viewing one jump in isolation, if you call the actual takeoff edge, a flutz is not an error and no penalty is appropriate. The skaters are not require to do any specific jumps (except the Junior SP). They are not required to do any specific jump setups. If they do a Lutz setup and then flop the edge at the take off, purists by definition say that is a flip. Since a flip is allowed (and a flip with any setup is allowed), the correct scoring is a flip (BV 5.5, GoE 0). Similarly if the flip changes edge, they did a Lutz by definition of a Lutz, and the correct scoring is a Lutz (BV6.0, GoE 0).
The problem comes in with the repeat rule as mentioned in Joe's post. What do you do if the skater ends up with 3-4 flips or Lutz, or you get two flips in the SP, if you call the take off edge?
The ISU discussed this at length. There are two approaches. One is to say, call the actual takeoff, and if the skater ends up violating the repeat rule, they lose the repeated element and all points associated with that element. There is then no penalty for the jump that changed edge, because whatever edge they took off of, is a permitted jump type (Lutz or flip) regardless of the setup edge prior to the take off edge. In this case the skater is potentially penalized in the loss of elements (if they break the repeat rule). Last season the callers in the U.S. were calling the actual take off edge, and the repeat rule was used to drop elements that violated it.
The second approach is to call the intent, and say that the change of edge at the take off is an error. The repeat rule then not only applies to the number of attempts, it applies to the intent of the attempts. In this case, the skater does not lose any subsequent elements and is penalized in the GoE for the element with the change of edge (every time they do it).
I know that the ISU discussed this for an extended period of time this year, and the decision was that the first approach (penalizing if the repeat rule was violated) was too harsh, and the second approach (penalizing in the GoE) was adopted with the introduction of the change in edge call.
I would also speculate another reason the ISU did not stick with the original approach (call the take off edge and apply the repeat rule ) is that ISU technical panels were not vigilant in calling the take off edges and ISU judges were not vigilant in reducing the GoE. Now that the skater will not be crucified for the wrong edge, I think the technical panels will be more consistent in calling the wrong edge, and the judges will be more consistent in reducing the GoE. My prediction is the skaters will now be more consistently penalized for the change of edge. Just not as harshly as some of you would like.
And to be a bit redundant. Since the reward for not flutzing over to a flip edge is so small compared to the base value of a flip, I think a -1 GoE for a small change of edge is appropriate. If it was huge I would go to -2. I don't think I would every go to -3 (even though I am allowed) because I don't think the change of edge error is as bad as a fall.
That's just my view, and if someone wanted to kill the skater with a -3, the guidelines for the GoEs allow it. So those of you who think the flutz should get the maximum penalty possible, would be allowed to do that to the skater if you were on a panel, though I think most judges stick with the -1 and occasional -2. At a -3, the jump is worth less than every triple and the double Axel. So for those of you who want to go that far, we are already there in terms of what a judge is allowed to do.
Except for those who want the jump to get no credit, or a mandatory -3, the current approach let's most of you punish the skater as much as you have been advocating.
I like it. 
)
)
