• Welcome to the Speedsolving.com, home of the web's largest puzzle community!
    You are currently viewing our forum as a guest which gives you limited access to join discussions and access our other features.

    Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community of 40,000+ people from around the world today!

    If you are already a member, simply login to hide this message and begin participating in the community!

Unusual rounds

Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
2,987
Location
Webster Groves, MO
WCA
2013BARK01
The WCA doesn't seem very clear on certain aspects of rounds.

9g) A Combined Round consists of two phases of attempts, where competitors advance to the second phase if they meet a designated cutoff during the first phase.

Does that mean I could have a round of Pyraminx where there are 3 chances to make the cutoff? Could I make it so that you have to meet the cutoff both times? What if it were 4 times? If someone didn't make the cutoff, would they still have an average, with their best time removed and the remaining 3 averaged together?

9b1) Rubik's Cube, 2x2x2 Cube, 4x4x4 Cube, 5x5x5 Cube, Clock, Megaminx, Pyraminx, Square-1, Skewb, and Rubik's Cube: One-Handed.
9b1a) Round formats for these events are: "Best of X" (where X is 1, 2, or 3), and "Average of 5".

So, I could have a best of 2 round for 3x3? That'd be weird.

9p3) If a qualifying competitor withdraws from a round, they may be replaced by the best-ranked competitor below the cutoff from the preceding round.

Oh, wouldn't that be great, for the time I was 11th in round 2.
 

joshsailscga

Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2014
Messages
954
Location
Maryland, USA
WCA
2014MORR01
I mean, I think technically per the wording you could do all that you are suggesting. However, the reason behind the regulation is to save time at comps by eliminating super slow solves that would otherwise hold up the schedule. With that in mind, it makes sense to make the first 'phase' consist of two attempts (in case of an unusually bad result in one solve). Anything else would really not save any extra time.
And again, yes you could have a best of two but it would be stupid because when we're talking about saving time why would you have a competition that would not result in a WCA-legal average?
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
2,987
Location
Webster Groves, MO
WCA
2013BARK01
I mean, I think technically per the wording you could do all that you are suggesting. However, the reason behind the regulation is to save time at comps by eliminating super slow solves that would otherwise hold up the schedule. With that in mind, it makes sense to make the first 'phase' consist of two attempts (in case of an unusually bad result in one solve). Anything else would really not save any extra time.
And again, yes you could have a best of two but it would be stupid because when we're talking about saving time why would you have a competition that would not result in a WCA-legal average?

I'm not saying that it would make sense, I just think it could be funny if someone had a comp with something like that.
 

Dene

Premium Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2007
Messages
6,900
WCA
2009BEAR01
YouTube
Visit Channel
In a combined round, you are literally combining two rounds into one. So you are limited by the acceptable formats for each event. For the most common events, this is either Best of 1, 2, 3, or Average of 5. So, for example, you could have a combined round which has Best of 1 in the first phase, and Best of 3 in the second phase. Then you could say "the top 20 competitors from the first phase get to compete in the second phase (Best of 3)."

However we do have an accepted standard for how we run events in order to stick with the spirit of the regulations. We don't do things to be annoying idiots, we do it for practical reasons. Anything out of the ordinary would have to go through the Board and there would need to be a good reason. For example, say there have been massive complications at a comp and the delegate makes the decision to, instead of cancelling pyraminx, make it a combined round with Best of 1 and Best of 3, or something like that, to save time.

You can't make it so that competitors have to meet the cutoff both times:
9g2) Whether a competitor proceeds to next phase of a Combined round, must be decided by ranking (best x competitors) or by result (all competitors with a best result under x) of the first phase.

You can't do it 4 times, as Best of 4 is not a possible format for events.

Yes you can have Best of 2 for 3x3 (but see my earlier comment about Board approval). Honestly though, the regulations are very clear so I don't even know why you feel you need to ask.

As for 9p3, this does get implemented more than you might realise, especially when people leave early when they were meant to be in a later round.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
2,987
Location
Webster Groves, MO
WCA
2013BARK01
In a combined round, you are literally combining two rounds into one.

This just isn't a thing. All it mentions is the "first phase of attempts" and the "second phase of attempts". This doesn't imply that these are rounds. They may behave like rounds, in the way that you have to preform well in the first one to do the second one, but the regulations on rounds do not directly apply to these.

9m3) Events with 7 or fewer competitors must have at most one round.

If these combined rounds were literally 2 rounds being combined into one, then you couldn't have a soft cutoff for rounds with under 8 people in them.

9p1) At least 25% of competitors must be eliminated between consecutive rounds of the same event.

This would imply that you couldn't set a soft cutoff of something ridiculously easy, because then more than 3/4 of people would get it.

My point by this is that these phases aren't literally rounds. I think that giving one chance to make the cutoff and then 4 more solves would be fine. Not normal, but fine.

Anything out of the ordinary would have to go through the Board

Although it might be a good idea, I don't think there is any regulation that makes this necessary. The regulations say absolutely nothing about having 2 solves to meet the cutoff, and then 3 more after that. I think it should be just fine to go ahead and do it.
 

tseitsei

Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2012
Messages
1,374
Location
Tampere, Finland
WCA
2012LEHT01
Although it might be a good idea, I don't think there is any regulation that makes this necessary. The regulations say absolutely nothing about having 2 solves to meet the cutoff, and then 3 more after that. I think it should be just fine to go ahead and do it.

Every competition must be approved by WCA board before the registration even appears in WCA website. So it definitely is necessary to have it approved by board.
And board has the power to interpret the SPIRIT of the regulations rather than the strict LETTER of the regulations (which is a good thing IMO). So if they say you can't do it you can't do it (I'm not saying they would do that, I'm saying they could do that quite easily...).
 

Dene

Premium Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2007
Messages
6,900
WCA
2009BEAR01
YouTube
Visit Channel
This just isn't a thing. All it mentions is the "first phase of attempts" and the "second phase of attempts". This doesn't imply that these are rounds. They may behave like rounds, in the way that you have to preform well in the first one to do the second one, but the regulations on rounds do not directly apply to these.

What exactly do you think the words "combined round" mean?

As for your other questions, read 9o again.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
2,987
Location
Webster Groves, MO
WCA
2013BARK01
What exactly do you think the words "combined round" mean?

As for your other questions, read 9o again.

"Combined Round" is literally defined in the regulations.
9g) A Combined Round consists of two phases of attempts, where competitors advance to the second phase if they meet a designated cutoff during the first phase.

Phase ≠ Round. If it meant rounds, it would say that.
 
Joined
Apr 23, 2010
Messages
1,391
Location
Scotland, UK
WCA
2009SHEE01
YouTube
Visit Channel
"Combined Round" is literally defined in the regulations.
9g) A Combined Round consists of two phases of attempts, where competitors advance to the second phase if they meet a designated cutoff during the first phase.

Phase ≠ Round. If it meant rounds, it would say that.

I'm pretty sure Dene was talking about why it was called "combined round" in the first place. The regulations just describe how they decided to implement the idea.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
2,987
Location
Webster Groves, MO
WCA
2013BARK01
I'm pretty sure Dene was talking about why it was called "combined round" in the first place. The regulations just describe how they decided to implement the idea.

I know that seems like what it should mean, but it doesn't. When the regulations say something, then that is, in most cases, exactly how it should be applied.

wait
you are a giraffe monkey
oh no...
 

tseitsei

Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2012
Messages
1,374
Location
Tampere, Finland
WCA
2012LEHT01
I know that seems like what it should mean, but it doesn't. When the regulations say something, then that is, in most cases, exactly how it should be applied.

Once again spirit of the regulations > strict letter of the regulations imo...

If it is clear what it should mean then just interpret it means just that and don't try to make it more complicated than necessary...
 

Dene

Premium Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2007
Messages
6,900
WCA
2009BEAR01
YouTube
Visit Channel
"Combined Round" is literally defined in the regulations.
9g) A Combined Round consists of two phases of attempts, where competitors advance to the second phase if they meet a designated cutoff during the first phase.

Phase ≠ Round. If it meant rounds, it would say that.

The regulations actually have specific definitions (1 and 2) where necessary. 9g is clearly not a definition, but a description of how it works when rounds are combined.
 

Pedro

Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2006
Messages
1,743
Location
Uberlandia, MG - Brazil
WCA
2007GUIM01
YouTube
Visit Channel
The WCA doesn't seem very clear on certain aspects of rounds.

9g) A Combined Round consists of two phases of attempts, where competitors advance to the second phase if they meet a designated cutoff during the first phase.

Does that mean I could have a round of Pyraminx where there are 3 chances to make the cutoff? Could I make it so that you have to meet the cutoff both times? What if it were 4 times? If someone didn't make the cutoff, would they still have an average, with their best time removed and the remaining 3 averaged together?

Yes, you could have 3 chances to make the cutoff.
I don't know what you mean with "meet the cutoff both times", since there's only two phases (as you pointed many times).
I'm not sure about having 4 attempts to meet the cutoff, since that would be kinda pointless. And yeah, Board would probably not approve that.

9b1) Rubik's Cube, 2x2x2 Cube, 4x4x4 Cube, 5x5x5 Cube, Clock, Megaminx, Pyraminx, Square-1, Skewb, and Rubik's Cube: One-Handed.
9b1a) Round formats for these events are: "Best of X" (where X is 1, 2, or 3), and "Average of 5".

So, I could have a best of 2 round for 3x3? That'd be weird.

Yes, you could, but I don't see why (unless a catastrophe happens during the comp and you have to change the format).

9p3) If a qualifying competitor withdraws from a round, they may be replaced by the best-ranked competitor below the cutoff from the preceding round.

Oh, wouldn't that be great, for the time I was 11th in round 2.

That happens a lot, as Dene said. Keep in mind that "they may be replaced". Organization may choose to not chase down the 101th placed in the previous round.
 
Top