[WR] Chris Olson 1.71 2x2 avg5

[TheDubDubJr]

If the rules were broken by the delegate himself, I think it'd be better to push this to the WCA board rather than let him decide which rules he wishes to follow.

(I will change broken to incident because neither the delegate nor the competitor deliberately tried to get a second more of inspection)

If there was an incident, and if the delegate/judge knew of the incident while it was happening, then he would have taken those into consideration when making the final call down on the scorecard. Which is in the regs.


Obviously I agree the WCA Board should make the final call, which they are discussing currently.

 

[Kirjava]

(I will change broken to incident because neither the delegate nor the competitor deliberately tried to get a second more of inspection)

It's possible to unintentionally break rules.

If there was an incident, and if the delegate/judge knew of the incident while it was happening, then he would have taken those into consideration when making the final call down on the scorecard. Which is in the regs.

But he didn't, so further action needs to be taken.

 

[rubikaz]

I think that the delegate knew that he (the delegate) had made a mistake and then he decided that the resolution was correct instead of giving an extra attempt. Since it was the decision of the delegate, I think that the attempt was fine.

 

[Kirjava]

I think that the delegate knew

Since it was the decision of the delegate

oh my god did you just pull something from nowhere then claim it was true

 

[rubikaz]

oh my god did you just pull something from nowhere then claim it was true

Change "since" by "if". OK?

 

[Kirjava]

ya np tyvm

 

[TheDubDubJr]

It's possible to unintentionally break rules.

I didn't say it wasn't. I just changed the wording to be more appropriate what I was trying to say.

But he didn't, so further action needs to be taken.

Keyword in my statement was "IF the delegate knew..."

 

[Kirjava]

I didn't say it wasn't. I just changed the wording to be more appropriate what I was trying to say.

That's fine, as long as you weren't correcting me.

Keyword in my statement was "IF the delegate knew..."

I didn't realise we were discussing hypothetical situations that never happened.

 

[qqwref]

I don't think anyone is disputing (at this point) that the inspection was indeed over 15 seconds. Although it is the competitor's responsibility to keep the inspection under 15 seconds, it is the judge's responsibility to give the competitor time signals. The whole point of those signals is to ensure that the competitor knows how long they have inspected, which ensures they will not unintentionally go over 15 seconds - and going over 15 seconds when the time signals were not properly given is exactly what has happened in this case. If we fix this problem by penalizing the competitor for not keeping track of their time (despite false signals) it opens the door for future judges to deliberately give late signals on the off chance that a competitor they dislike will go over 15 seconds.

I also see an implication in some posts here that the only way to fix this time "to ensure uniformity and fairness to other competitors" is to give the solve a +2 or DNF and thus remove Chris's WR. I don't think this is the only fair option. For instance, we could give some kind of minor punishment to the judge, and not change the solve at all, on the grounds that (a) the incident occurred once rather than repeatedly, (b) the actual inspection time was not far from 15 seconds, (c) the judge did not give the proper time commands, and (d) going over 15 seconds was not done intentionally in order to gain an advantage.

 

[TheDubDubJr]

I didn't realise we were discussing hypothetical situations that never happened.

Unless if Bryan personally told you about everything, I don't believe you know exactly what the whole entirety of the situation is.

 

[Kirjava]

Unless if Bryan personally told you about everything, I don't believe you know exactly what the whole entirety of the situation is.

Surely Chris would mention something about it in his replies if this was already discussed at the competition. It seems clear that this incident went completely unnoticed until the video was shown.

 

[Goosly]

If we fix this problem by penalizing the competitor for not keeping track of their time (despite false signals) it opens the door for future judges to deliberately give late signals on the off chance that a competitor they dislike will go over 15 seconds.

But also, if we fix this problem by not penalizing the competitor for not keeping track of their time (despite false signals) it opens the door for future judges to deliberately give late signals on the off chance that a competitor they like will go over 15 seconds, thus getting an advantage without being penalized.

 

[RaresB]

But also, if we fix this problem by not penalizing the competitor for not keeping track of their time (despite false signals) it opens the door for future judges to deliberately give late signals on the off chance that a competitor they like will go over 15 seconds, thus getting an advantage without being penalized.

But if instead of penalizing the competitor you penalize the judge this would most likely not happen.

 

[Bunyanderman]

I don't think anyone is disputing (at this point) that the inspection was indeed over 15 seconds. Although it is the competitor's responsibility to keep the inspection under 15 seconds, it is the judge's responsibility to give the competitor time signals. The whole point of those signals is to ensure that the competitor knows how long they have inspected, which ensures they will not unintentionally go over 15 seconds - and going over 15 seconds when the time signals were not properly given is exactly what has happened in this case. If we fix this problem by penalizing the competitor for not keeping track of their time (despite false signals) it opens the door for future judges to deliberately give late signals on the off chance that a competitor they dislike will go over 15 seconds.

I also see an implication in some posts here that the only way to fix this time "to ensure uniformity and fairness to other competitors" is to give the solve a +2 or DNF and thus remove Chris's WR. I don't think this is the only fair option. For instance, we could give some kind of minor punishment to the judge, and not change the solve at all, on the grounds that (a) the incident occurred once rather than repeatedly, (b) the actual inspection time was not far from 15 seconds, (c) the judge did not give the proper time commands, and (d) going over 15 seconds was not done intentionally in order to gain an advantage.

Why not have a judge right down a time that is faster than you really got? You could do this at any comp where you knew the judge, I don't think it opens that door.

 

[TheDubDubJr]

Surely Chris would mention something about it in his replies if this was already discussed at the competition. It seems clear that this incident went completely unnoticed until the video was shown.

It did go completely unnoticed until ~3hours after the competition ended/until the video was shown. But Bryan is talking with the WCA Board about the situation now.

Hopefully this gets decided soon.

 

[qqwref]

My point (as RaresB mentioned) was that if the judge makes a mistake, and the competitor has some slight unintentional benefit, we should generally penalize the judge, rather than the competitor. Penalizing the judge should make it less likely to happen again; penalizing the competitor may make it *more* likely.

 

[Kirjava]

It did go completely unnoticed

So the situation you were talking about did not happen.

 

[BaMiao]

It doesn't matter what the judge said, and when. He took more than 15 seconds, and the regulations are clear in that regard. There are no clauses with extenuating circumstances that would allow a competitor to have more time without a penalty.

The judge not giving the proper signals would classify this as an "incident." Incidents need to be disputed at the competition, which would have been the proper course of action had the issue been discovered earlier.

I really want Chris to have this record, and the whole situation sucks for him, considering that it isn't his fault in the least. However, he received an advantage that is unequivocally disallowed in the regulations. The "purity", if you will, of the record books should be held in higher regard than the feelings of one competitor.

Regardless of any decision on this matter, I'll be waiting for Chris' next record, and I'll cheer wholeheartedly when that day comes.

 

[TheDubDubJr]

So the situation you were talking about did not happen.

What situation are you talking about? I am confused.

It doesn't matter what the judge said, and when. He took more than 15 seconds, and the regulations are clear in that regard. There are no clauses with extenuating circumstances that would allow a competitor to have more time without a penalty.

The judge not giving the proper signals would classify this as an "incident." Incidents need to be disputed at the competition, which would have been the proper course of action had the issue been discovered earlier.

I really want Chris to have this record, and the whole situation sucks for him, considering that it isn't his fault in the least. However, he received an advantage that is unequivocally disallowed in the regulations. The "purity", if you will, of the record books should be held in higher regard than the feelings of one competitor.

Regardless of any decision on this matter, I'll be waiting for Chris' next record, and I'll cheer wholeheartedly when that day comes.

If we fix this problem by penalizing the competitor for not keeping track of their time (despite false signals) it opens the door for future judges to deliberately give late signals on the off chance that a competitor they dislike will go over 15 seconds.

qqwref makes a great point

 

[Kirjava]

What situation are you talking about? I am confused

The hypothetical you posit where the incident was known about at the time.