Should solve where cubes unintentionally pop during blind events be DNFed?

[Cuber Score]

So.... if there's one area of cubing that needs improvement, it's blind events. Whether it be the policy on cube-pops, or the judge holding that paper-thing in front of the contestant's fact, there are definitely many things that could be changed.

For me, I think that if there is one thing that needs to be changed, it's the policy on repairing popped cubes. The question is, why should a contestant have to DNF his/her solve because the cube popped and they were unable to fix it (because there's a very low chance of actually being able to fix it so long as anything more than a center cap came off)? A sufficient solution would be to have the contestant redo the solve, but have the original solve marked as a DNF if the cube was popped purposely.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on topics like these.

 

[turtwig]

I don't understand why we wouldn't DNF a solve because there was a pop. Pops are very much in the competitor's control. As long as you use a decent cube and turn reasonably, they are extremely rare. It would also be impractical to decide if a pop was done "purposely."

 

[Thom S.]

How many years is it since cubes stopped popping?

 

[Cuber987]

I don't understand why we wouldn't DNF a solve because there was a pop. Pops are very much in the competitor's control. As long as you use a decent cube and turn reasonably, they are extremely rare. It would also be impractical to decide if a pop was done "purposely."

I agree. Many of the rules about BLD events are actually very reasonable.

 

[AlphaCuber is awesome]

 

[Cuber Score]

I don't understand why we wouldn't DNF a solve because there was a pop. Pops are very much in the competitor's control. As long as you use a decent cube and turn reasonably, they are extremely rare. It would also be impractical to decide if a pop was done "purposely."

But imagine you're using a big cube that's susceptible to popping. For example, even with a good 4x4 it's easy for me to almost pop cubes. So, imagine what it might be like on an even bigger cube. Also, there are cases where the cube just falls apart in your hand (it's happened to me a couple times), or when a side falls off because of something having to do with the core. With that in mind, wouldn't it be kind of ridiculous? I'm not saying all of the rules are bad, but some could be improved, as with much of the WCA policies.

 

[NmeCuber]

But imagine you're using a big cube that's susceptible to popping. For example, even with a good 4x4 it's easy for me to almost pop cubes. So, imagine what it might be like on an even bigger cube. Also, there are cases where the cube just falls apart in your hand (it's happened to me a couple times), or when a side falls off because of something having to do with the core. With that in mind, wouldn't it be kind of ridiculous? I'm not saying all of the rules are bad, but some could be improved, as with much of the WCA policies.

What if you felt a pop coming so you were trying to fix it, but then it exploded and the judge saw it as intentional popping.

 

[Cuber Score]

What if you felt a pop coming so you were trying to fix it, but then it exploded and the judge saw it as intentional popping.

Wouldn't the judge see that though?

 

[NmeCuber]

You felt the pieces kinda getting stuck, but it wasn't noticeable to the judge

 

[Thom S.]

Wouldn't the judge see that though?

If your judge happenes to be a criminal investigator with eyes as fast as lucky luke and the oncoming pop happenes to be one of the side the judge can MAYBE see and detect if that was intentional or not. Maybe.
But
You are laying a rule here at the hands of the judges discression with practucally nobody being able to verify after the fact.
Very dangerous. And I don't mean in a mischievious way. No matter if the pop was intentional or not, every competitor will say it wasn't. So if the judge is [wrongfully] in the belief this had to intentional, there is no evidence backing up either side and they have to be believed.

 

[Cuber Score]

If your judge happenes to be a criminal investigator with eyes as fast as lucky luke and the oncoming pop happenes to be one of the side the judge can MAYBE see and detect if that was intentional or not. Maybe.
But
You are laying a rule here at the hands of the judges discression with practucally nobody being able to verify after the fact.
Very dangerous. And I don't mean in a mischievious way. No matter if the pop was intentional or not, every competitor will say it wasn't. So if the judge is [wrongfully] in the belief this had to intentional, there is no evidence backing up either side and they have to be believed.

First of all, it's basically impossible to see an incoming pop if it isn't the case where the cube locks up and a couple pieces are about to fall out. The thing is, that's visible, so the judge can see that.

 

[Cuber987]

First of all, it's basically impossible to see an incoming pop if it isn't the case where the cube locks up and a couple pieces are about to fall out. The thing is, that's visible, so the judge can see that.

But not always, and putting things in the judge's discretion is always the wrong choice.

 

[Cuber Score]

But not always, and putting things in the judge's discretion is always the wrong choice.

But isn't it the judge's job to determine whether a solve is +2ed or DNFed based on the events that occur within, before, and after the solve?

 

[Cuber987]

But isn't it the judge's job to determine whether a solve is +2ed or DNFed based on the events that occur within, before, and after the solve?

If it's obvious. If it's around 45 degrees the delegates need to come. The delegates can't witness things that already happened, unless they were there, though.

 

[Cuber Score]

If it's obvious. If it's around 45 degrees the delegates need to come. The delegates can't witness things that already happened, unless they were there, though.

Okay, but it's obvious when two or three pieces look as if they're about to pop, or when a person is having trouble with their cube because of issues like stuck pieces.

 

[Cuber987]

Okay, but it's obvious when two or three pieces look as if they're about to pop, or when a person is having trouble with their cube because of issues like stuck pieces.

But what about the cases where it's not obvious? Some people don't record solves, so the delegates can't review it later.

 

[NmeCuber]

What if you're doing 4bld and you have an inside pop which leads to an outside pop

 

[Thom S.]

Okay, but it's obvious when two or three pieces look as if they're about to pop, or when a person is having trouble with their cube because of issues like stuck pieces.

First of all, it's basically impossible to see an incoming pop if it isn't the case where the cube locks up and a couple pieces are about to fall out. The thing is, that's visible, so the judge can see that.

Let's assume the judge sits right to the competitor. So they probably have good sight at R, U and either F or B.
L, on the other hand, is completely blind to the judge, so they only see a hand fumbling before a pop occurs.

 

[Cuber Score]

Let's assume the judge sits right to the competitor. So they probably have good sight at R, U and either F or B.
L, on the other hand, is completely blind to the judge, so they only see a hand fumbling before a pop occurs.

So in that case, it would depend on the situation and whether it's visible to the judge that the cube was about to pop, and not because the competitor purposely made it pop.

 

[Thom S.]

So in that case, it would depend on the situation and whether it's visible to the judge that the cube was about to pop, and not because the competitor purposely made it pop.

Having doubts as to if I get it
So if the pop happenes out of the judges sight, it is automatically considered unintentional?