Well, it is ment differently. In other words their worst current result was replaced by 100 points for reffing (points for Paris = 100 - their current worst points). This way only 4 events are scored for them like for others. In other words when they were reffing Paris it was like they were reffing their worst scorring event up to date.
The only advantage I can see against standard reffing gain is that they got the best possible gain by replacing their worst score. Against the day when you would teoretically achieve your best score but you were reffing thus your gain would not be that significant. Maybe better would be to count avarage from all 4 scores after the season and substract it from 100 point for Paris reffing. For teams whose positions does not vary signifcantly it does not make a big difference anyway. The only singularity you probably get is for example team which has 3 excelent scores and one really poor but this can happen in standard reffing point system as well. The probability any significant gain like this against standard reffing point system is probably divided into half as only two events are taken into account (they have to achieve their season's worst score in the first two events). Oh dear, I don't want to think about it that much
I think it is not that bad how it looks on the first look. You just have to relax from the fact the points are awarded for a non-scoring event. I believe you could find similar cases in the past when low positioned team jumped many positions after reffing.
PS: Believe me, I really do not like I acctually stand on MS side in this post but it is how I understand it. This one seems to me ok, our case is not.
