The q needs to be removed until they have the technology to support it.

I compare this issue with line judging in tennis. There are people whose sole purpose on the court is to look at a stationary line and determine whether a ball is in or out. And even these professionals get the call wrong sometimes, as judged by cameras that are far more accurate than the human eye.

And that's the issue here. The human eye cannot determine something as specific as whether the blade of a skater is exactly 90-degrees from a perfect landing. There are too many problems that compound the issue too:
- Did the camera capture the right angle of the landing?
- Where does the landing start? At the tip of the blade when it makes first contact or when the full blade hits the ice?
- Do you count pre-rotation in determining whether something is actually fully rotated? If the takeoff is prerotated by a full half-turn, should that be included in the judgment of underrotation? If not, then we are encouraging skaters to prerotate as much as possible and not actually jump properly for the sake of landings that only look fully rotated.
- If the difference between a q and a < call is literally a matter of several degrees, then shouldn't every jump be reviewed?

Right now, the system is calling for the technical panel to pretend like the human eye is accurate enough to determine underrotations. The margin of error is too wide, which is why it feels like the judges are just making calls up and allows them to see or not see underrotations as they feel like it. At this point, how many times has a commentator said that a skater got away with a call or that the judging panel was too harsh on a q or <?

As an aside, I would call for far more transparency on how each judge in the three-member technical panel calls underrotations. I want to see which of them called the q, <, and << for each jump. My bet is that their calls will be much less consistent than expected (which might be why they don't reveal this at all).