It would definitely incentivize continued skiing, but it's actually much less clear whether it would lead to more runoffs. Sure, there would be fewer possible scores to choose from, so that could increase the number of ties. However, the current rules often incentivize stopping at a tie, as it is too risky to continue, so you give up and accept the runoff. In fact, this incentive even applies to skiers who are earlier in the order. If a pro has a chance to get a full 3 @ 10.25, they often are compelled to take that, since 3 almost always makes the finals, but 2.5 is far less reliable to get in! How many deeper 41s could happen if it was always strategically correct to just slam a turn at the 3 ball and see what happens!?So anyhow: My proposal would lead to more accidental ties, but far fewer intentional ties. It's not quite clear how those would balance out. But if indeed there ended up being more runoffs, I'd be more than happy to accept that consequence to let people actually ski!Those of you assuming I have lost my mind: Keep thinking about it. Reason through all the strategic consequences, as well as the simple fact that a score of 1.5 is very often the result of a much better start than a score of 2.I can't guarantee I'm right, but I have thought about this a lot for a long time.