.. well, wouldn't that be nice if we all came to an agreement about how a program should be scored? :-)
I have played around with the concepts in the above point system for a while now (I actually believe I first starting posting similar proposals following Patrick Chan's win at the 2010 Skate Canada). But again and again, I find myself coming back to this idea.
People say that the skaters will no longer try the difficult elements if such harsh penalties are incurred, but I'm going to show you an example of why there isn't nearly as much of a difference as some people think.
Since I am always picking on Patrick Chan in this system, let's actually pick on the World Silver Medalist, Denis Ten. In the 2010 Skate America competition, he fell five times in his free skate. Yep. Five times. He was able to score 111.61 points for the segment, including 54.69 points technically. Out of all eight jumping passes, only two had above a 0 GOE.
Let's use my system above on his program (which is unfortunately not on YouTube but I certainly can understand why).
3A (fall) 2.13
3A+SEQ (fall) 1.70 [here, since the second Axel would have needed to be in combination or sequence, it receives 80% of the base value]
3Lz+3T (fall) 4.03 [3.00 for the -2 on the Lutz because of the fall in the entire jumping pass, and the set value for the toe loop added together]
3F* (fall) 1.46
2A* (fall) 0.91
His total element score under my system drops to 41.56, compared to the 54.69 he had originally. But it doesn't quite stop there. Remember the additional -1.00 point for each fall? Ten essentially had earned a 49.69 after the -5.00.
Now, 8.13 points is still a big difference-- I give you that. But this was in one of the most severe cases of error-filled programs. It was just used to show that all of the arguments about skaters losing so many points aren't really quite valid if the system was changed to reflect the TES mistakes.
By the way, he'd have 103.48 points total for the segment.
Fair? Not fair? What do you think?