Finishes PLL, performs U3, stops timer. So if +2 is removed that would count as a solve? The cube was solved before the timer was stopped.
Not really arguing the case just curious about the response.
I get your point, and there are a variety of ways I could approach responding to it. But first it is important to clarify what you are saying because you have given an ambiguous situation. I am assuming that what you intend to say is that, as the competitor finishes PLL and comes to AUF, they perform a U3, and in the process the cube at some stage goes into the fully solved state, but then continues on, and ultimately the competitor stops the timer when the cube is in a position where the U slice is off by more than 45 degrees. If this interpretation is incorrect then please correct me, but I don't see why you would argue for the other possibility entailed by your statement (that the cube was solved before the timer was stopped, and also after the timer was stopped >.<).
Now, let's say for the sake of argument my immediate response to you is "we are determining whether they have solved the puzzle or not
in this instance, not whether they
can solve the puzzle or not; upon the stopping of the timer the cube was not solved, therefore it is a DNF".
You would be perfectly entitled to respond "but the puzzle was solved in this instance, at least at one stage, and it is only a fault of the timing procedure that the person did not get credit for that".
I could then respond "yea well that's the procedure, we have to use these timers, so deal with it and make sure it's solved when you stop the timer". But that would be too easy, and a bit unconvincing for some people I'm sure.
So I will respond in a different way. Suppose that we have a new timing mechanism that times the competitor from the moment they first make a move on the cube, until the cube is in its solved state. Now it would be a potential
strategy of a cuber, once they come to AUF, to perform a U3 really quickly without considering the actual state of the cube after PLL, and by doing this they would guarantee that they go through the solved state, and the timer will stop at that point, regardless of whether they continue turning the puzzle or not.
This then leaves three possibilities for the person that just performs a U3 at the end of a solve, rather than actually determining what the AUF is and directly solving it (and two of these possibilities should be very familiar to anyone that has been reading my posts in this thread):
1) They are taking a risk, by blindly performing a U3 and hoping it will end up in the solved state.
2) They are being lazy, by just doing a U3 and not caring if it is solved at the end or not.
3) They are using a strategy, and taking advantage of a timing procedure.
Now seeing as no one has a decent response to 1 and 2, I can immediately say that if it is one of those then it is the competitors fault and they deserve a DNF. Feel free to disagree with me if you will; I would love to see the reasoning of someone that thinks the WCA should accommodate risk taking and laziness.
So now I ask you the question, and you can decide for yourself what you think:
Is it fair, or in the spirit of the WCA, that a competitor can abuse the timing procedure to their advantage to ensure the best time possible?
I'll leave it up to you what to make of that moral question.
. I realise I didn't explain it fully, I only mentioned enough to show the similarity - that some margin of error is allowed for being close. I also realise I forgot to say they still get penalised for the shot, I did mean to but it somehow never made it onto the page.
