[WR] Rami Sbahi - 0.58 2x2 Single and 1.55 Average

[Dene]

I think the scrambles are similar though. I'm not quite sure how it works, but from when I've solved using previous competition scrambles they've always seemed similar in different groups.

You're imagining it. There is no similarity, they are just different random state scrambles, and nothing more.

I was sure that's how we do it, although I am not 100% sure! You would have to ask Josh/Dene/David etc. Or perhaps someone else in this thread would be kind enough to answer?

In this case they had different heats for the same group. So they've broken down a round into different groups with different scrambles, then broken down those groups into heats with the same scrambles to make it more manageable. To be honest I don't know why they would do it this way, as it's simple enough just to have different scrambles, but I guess that's how they do things there.

 

[(X)]

As I said before: In feliks' case there was no advantage gained. He just got a different but still random scramble that he had no prior knowledge of... It even had same optimal solve move count. And it was legal state according to wca regs and scrambling program.

Much different from this case where competitor has seen the competition scramble beforehand

You could argue that Rami's advantage was smaller than Feliks', but as I said in my last post; comparing them doesn't really make sense.

 

[tseitsei]

You could argue that Rami's advantage was smaller than Feliks', but as I said in my last post; comparing them doesn't really make sense.

What feliks' advantage are you talking about? He got a cube that was in a state that is perfectly legal scrambled state accirding to regs and Tnoodle. He also DID NOT have any prior knowledge about the scramble. So it was just like any other solve with no extra advantage. It was different than what other competitors had yes, but everyone gets different scrambles because they attend to different comps and even get placed to different rounds... As long as the scramble is reasonable and wca legal there is no advantage gained.

 

[StachuK1992]

Wait, people actually want the .58 single to be official? You're kidding, right?
Surely you must be kidding. We have regulations. For a reason.

 

[notfeliks]

Wait, people actually want the .58 single to be official? You're kidding, right?
Surely you must be kidding. We have regulations. For a reason.

Do you think that it is more likely that everyone secretly and unanimously agrees with you and that this is all a big joke, or that there is legitimate conflict? If you took the time to actually read the thread, you would know that there is an issue here not because the regulations were broken, but because Rami did not intentionally break them. Unless everyone has missed something and there is a regulation which states that if a child runs up to you before your potentially world record solve and says "HEY LOOK YOU MIGHT GET A WORLD RECORD ON THIS SOLVE YOU SHOULD PRACTICE IT" then your solve is DNFed, in which case, please do share it with us.

 

[IRNjuggle28]

But I feel it's extremely unfair about losing the average due to this. If I had sole control of the board I'd hope to give you a x.xx* for the solve, which wouldn't count on the singles page but would count as "best time" out of those 5 solves. There is no doubt you would've gotten <1.37 considering the scramble, and the fact you faced MORE pressure knowing the scramble was easy.

That seems backwards to me. Rami saw the scramble, but he didn't practice executing the scramble. Therefore, he had no advantage with execution, and the .58 is what his execution would have been regardless. The question was not whether he could execute the solution in under 1.37 seconds; the question was whether he would see the solution. If he hadn't seen the scramble prior to the solve, either the solve is WR because he sees the solution, or the solve is not sub 1.37 because he doesn't. It doesn't make sense to give him the average but not the single, given that. Without seeing the scramble beforehand, he would have gotten either both WRs, or neither.

I think your idea is closer to fair than disqualifying his solve, but I feel strongly that he should have both WRs. A 2x2 solver/one-looker of Rami's caliber would not have missed that solution even if he hadn't looked at the scramble for a second or two beforehand. I think it was qq who said earlier that it wasn't reasonable for competitors to have the power of denying others the chance to solve easy scrambles by showing them the scramble and disqualifying their solve, and I completely agree with him.

 

[SixSidedCube]

You're imagining it. There is no similarity, they are just different random state scrambles, and nothing more.



In this case they had different heats for the same group. So they've broken down a round into different groups with different scrambles, then broken down those groups into heats with the same scrambles to make it more manageable. To be honest I don't know why they would do it this way, as it's simple enough just to have different scrambles, but I guess that's how they do things there.

Ahhhh right, I understand now! Cheers Dene!

 

[DizzypheasantZZ]

What feliks' advantage are you talking about? He got a cube that was in a state that is perfectly legal scrambled state accirding to regs and Tnoodle. He also DID NOT have any prior knowledge about the scramble. So it was just like any other solve with no extra advantage. It was different than what other competitors had yes, but everyone gets different scrambles because they attend to different comps and even get placed to different rounds... As long as the scramble is reasonable and wca legal there is no advantage gained.

This scramble was reasonable and WCA legal. Feliks' broke reg 4g.

Wait, people actually want the .58 single to be official? You're kidding, right?
Surely you must be kidding. We have regulations. For a reason.

The only reason that I think it should be kept is because of the other rulings WCA has made where they ignore the regs because "it was't the competitors fault".
I think that both these cases should be DNF'ed because they do not follow the regs, but I think if the WCA allows the others they should allow this one.

 

[StachuK1992]

Do you think that it is more likely that everyone secretly and unanimously agrees with you and that this is all a big joke, or that there is legitimate conflict? If you took the time to actually read the thread, you would know that there is an issue here not because the regulations were broken, but because Rami did not intentionally break them. Unless everyone has missed something and there is a regulation which states that if a child runs up to you before your potentially world record solve and says "HEY LOOK YOU MIGHT GET A WORLD RECORD ON THIS SOLVE YOU SHOULD PRACTICE IT" then your solve is DNFed, in which case, please do share it with us.

I've read the entire thread multiple times. I've watched the video. Likewise with previous, relevant threads.
It doesn't matter who broke the regulations. If the regulations are broken then the solve is invalid. Period.
Otherwise, anyone can get their buddy to break the regulations for them and everyone's perfectly happy.

The only reason that I think it should be kept is because of the other rulings WCA has made where they ignore the regs because "it was't the competitors fault".
I think that both these cases should be DNF'ed because they do not follow the regs, but I think if the WCA allows the others they should allow this one.

The other decisions where made incorrectly. I agree with you.
That said, we shouldn't let the WCA be even more lenient than they've already been by allowing this as well.

 

[adimare]

He got a cube that was in a state that is perfectly legal scrambled state according to regs and Tnoodle.

Yes, but he was the only one to get it. If at a 3x3 round attended by Rowe Hessler, Collin Burns, Feliks, and a bunch of other super fast CN solvers one of them gets a miss-scramble with a 3 move cross and PLL skip and beats everyone else because of it, would you still say that there was no advantage for the cuber that got it?

 

[DeeDubb]

What's the difference between the kid showing Rami the scramble (Rami not touching the cube) and Rami watching heat 1 do the solve, noticing the times are low and getting a peek at the scramble while the other competitors are executing?

The WCA needs to talk about this. I feel like Rami's honestly should be worth at least a discussion from the WCA, and possibly overturn the ruling to not award him this solve.

 

[tseitsei]

This scramble was reasonable and WCA legal.

You missed this point totally:

He also DID NOT have any prior knowledge about the scramble.

EDIT: I should probably also say that I'm ok with Rami getting to keep this record also. Since I don't believe that the advantage he gained was significant (I believe he would have seen the 4 move solution anyway) and he certainly didn't deliberately try to get that advantage. I'm just trying to make you understand how this case is different from Feliks' OH WR case (at least IMO)...

Yes, but he was the only one to get it. If at a 3x3 round attended by Rowe Hessler, Collin Burns, Feliks, and a bunch of other super fast CN solvers one of them gets a miss-scramble with a 3 move cross and PLL skip and beats everyone else because of it, would you still say that there was no advantage for the cuber that got it?

As I have said before:

It would be unfair to use that (mis)scramble to determine the winner of the said COMPETITION BUT it would be totally fair to count it as WR since different people get different scrambles at different comps all the time...

But then again using extra scramble to replace that misscrambled solve is not any more fair because then that one cuber will again be the only one who gets the different scramble than the rest of the competitors...

 

[cashis]

Add regulation:
If ot can be proven that the rule violation was to no fault of the competitor, he will not be punished for it

 

[ryanj92]

Add regulation:
If ot can be proven that the rule violation was to no fault of the competitor, he will not be punished for it

so if i go up to a competitor and tell them the solution of every 2x2x2 scramble in a group without prior agreement and they get WR average, they shouldn't be punished for that?

 

[StachuK1992]

Add regulation:
If ot can be proven that the rule violation was to no fault of the competitor, he will not be punished for it

This is asinine.
If I, the scrambler, just scramble the cube with a T-perm, that's totally OK under this clause.

 

[Sa967St]

What's the difference between the kid showing Rami the scramble (Rami not touching the cube) and Rami watching heat 1 do the solve, noticing the times are low and getting a peek at the scramble while the other competitors are executing?

The very first 2x2 competitor who solved the scramble was someone helping out at the competition (I can't remember who it was...), so he notified all the judges/runners/scramblers about the first scramble being short and easy in order that we prevent just that. The timers displays were intentionally unplugged for the first solve, and we were keeping competitors as quiet as possible after they each attempted that scramble.

 

[cashis]

Okay, maybe a regulation that says the WCA board can overrule all of the regulations if they see fit.
Oh wait, there already is one

 

[StachuK1992]

Yes, and that is a bad thing.

 

[Genius4Jesus]

The very first 2x2 competitor who solved the scramble was someone helping out at the competition (I can't remember who it was...), so he notified all the judges/runners/scramblers about the first scramble being short and easy in order that we prevent just that. The timers displays were intentionally unplugged for the first solve, and we were keeping competitors as quiet as possible after they each attempted that scramble.

It was a good thing the timers got unplugged, or it would have gotten a little crazy in there.

Also, I think the person you are referring to was James Hildreth.

 

[Chree]

In this case they had different heats for the same group. So they've broken down a round into different groups with different scrambles, then broken down those groups into heats with the same scrambles to make it more manageable. To be honest I don't know why they would do it this way, as it's simple enough just to have different scrambles, but I guess that's how they do things there.

They do it this way with events that don't have a lot of variability. If Round 1 Heat 1 gets a 4 move scramble and Round 1 Heat 2 doesn't, then everyone in Heat 1 gets a fairly significant advantage.

But of course, an unfortunate possible side effect is... this entire situation.