In an interview with 'Rzeczpospolita', a ski jumping judge reflects on the controversial decision made by the jury to stop the Olympic team competition and uphold the results of the first two series, citing the severe snowstorm affecting conditions at the Predazzo venue. The judge agrees with the jury's call, arguing that the unpredictable weather would have led to unfair competition if the event had been resumed after a brief pause. He emphasizes the importance of fairness in assessments, suggesting that those who have never jumped or organized competitions might not fully appreciate the gravity of weather conditions on performance.

The judge distinguishes between different weather challenges, emphasizing that changes in wind strength and direction differ significantly from alterations in the snow surface on the jump. He points out that while judges sometimes have to make tough calls under varying conditions, the integrity of the results in light of a snowstorm was paramount. By discontinuing the event after the first two rounds, the jury ensured that all competitors faced the same set of conditions, rather than risking some jumping in better conditions than others.

Ultimately, the expert urges spectators and commentators to understand the complexities and responsibilities judges have during competitions, especially at major events like the Olympics. His insights provide a crucial perspective on how such sporting decisions are made and the principle of fairness that underpins them, especially in unpredictable weather scenarios.