[Indian NR] Kunaal Parekh - 15.03 Square-1 Single

[kunparekh18]

Perhaps we should change the regulation...

A3c1) The competitor must not deliberately apply moves during inspection. Penalty: disqualification of the attempt (DNF).

Oh, I don't know. How will we be able to define what deliberately is?

Exactly what I was thinking of.

 

[mDiPalma]

I have to disagree with some of the preceeding [sic] posts. I believe that if a solve is against the rules then it shouldn't stand. Just because some people would have gotten away with it doesn't make it legitimate. It is unfortunate as it is a great solve but maybe the rules need changing to allow an error like this if there is no advantage gained.

The problem with attempts like these are exclusively in the JUDGES, not in the COMPETITORS.

I don't have any problem counting this solve as a DNF, so long as the disqualification is made AT THE COMPETITION BY THE JUDGE ASSIGNED TO OFFICIATE THE ATTEMPT. Whether or not you accept the privately produced video as reliable evidence, you must acknowledge the fact that the judge for this attempt FAILED TO FULFILL HIS DUTY.

He should have 1) NOTICED THE PRE-MOVE, 2) POINTED IT OUT, and 3) GOTTEN A RESCRAMBLE (OR REVERSE SCRAMBLE) FOR THE COMPETITOR.

The retroactively assigned DNF is around 2% the fault of the poorly maintained Square-1, and 98% the fault of the judge. I always thought there was some regulation that protected competitors from the mistakes of their judges. But I guess that is only a formality included to make the capricious regulations of this paltry organisation appear more legitimate. I forgot that the WCA has no genuine interest in providing for more competitions in more countries with more people and more fun, under fair and equal conditions, as their mission statement would otherwise suggest.

This lamentable organisation is really beginning to aggravate me, and others, I expect.

 

[XTowncuber]

the judge for this attempt FAILED TO FULFILL HIS DUTY.

That's a bit harsh. To be honest, after I knew a move had been performed I still had to watch the video 3 times in order to see it. Sure he's supposed to catch that, but it was hard to see, so do try to be polite.

 

[Petro Leum]

The problem with attempts like these are exclusively in the JUDGES, not in the COMPETITORS.

I don't have any problem counting this solve as a DNF, so long as the disqualification is made AT THE COMPETITION BY THE JUDGE ASSIGNED TO OFFICIATE THE ATTEMPT. Whether or not you accept the privately produced video as reliable evidence, you must acknowledge the fact that the judge for this attempt FAILED TO FULFILL HIS DUTY.

He should have 1) NOTICED THE PRE-MOVE, 2) POINTED IT OUT, and 3) GOTTEN A RESCRAMBLE (OR REVERSE SCRAMBLE) FOR THE COMPETITOR.

The retroactively assigned DNF is around 2% the fault of the poorly maintained Square-1, and 98% the fault of the judge. I always thought there was some regulation that protected competitors from the mistakes of their judges. But I guess that is only a formality included to make the capricious regulations of this paltry organisation appear more legitimate. I forgot that the WCA has no genuine interest in providing for more competitions in more countries with more people and more fun, under fair and equal conditions, as their mission statement would otherwise suggest.

This lamentable organisation is really beginning to aggravate me, and others, I expect.

MCL incoming

Matt's cubing League! The only Speedsolving organization that MATTERS! *Badumm-tss*

fo real tho, i think while alot of things in the WCA and the regulations arent perfect, theyre trying their hardest to make everyone happy and fulfill their mission.

 

[EMI]

So... the results are up now, and it says DNF. Explanation anybody?

btw, as far as I can tell an (accidental) 30 degree turn during inspection on a 3x3 would not make that solve DNF. This might be to fix a misalignment or not, it doesn't matter. A turn is only a turn if it is 45 degrees or more, because otherwise everything could be considered a turn. And if that goes for 3x3, it has to go for Square-1 too, as the 45 degree rule applies for it, too.

 

[Antonie faz fan]

So... the results are up now, and it says DNF. Explanation anybody?

btw, as far as I can tell an (accidental) 30 degree turn during inspection on a 3x3 would not make that solve DNF. This might be to fix a misalignment or not, it doesn't matter. A turn is only a turn if it is 45 degrees or more, because otherwise everything could be considered a turn. And if that goes for 3x3, it has to go for Square-1 too, as the 45 degree rule applies for it, too.

thats is true but however if this will become a rule there are no doubt people wil use this as an advantage...

 

[ottozing]

thats is true but however if this will become a rule there are no doubt people wil use this as an advantage...

Sorta this.

The problem with square-1 is that the U/D layers could be slightly misaligned and still provide a slight advantage because how U/D layers on a sq1 are often moved in less than 45 degree increments before the next turn. In this case, all it ended up doing was lengthening the solution by one move, but perhaps someone could do this on both the U/D layers slightly and save 2 moves on cubeshape.

It really sucks that this has to be DNF, and I wish it weren't so, but alas this is not the case :/

 

[10461394944000]

this is not a dnf

 

[EMI]

Even if you use this to your advantage in inspection I think the solve is legal. Because a (1,0) is not a move.
(Of course this is a bit of a problem, but as long as the rules don't clarify the definition of a move on a Square-1, this can't be DNF)

 

[Future Cuber]

GJ and i suppose this was at the C^3 open in chennai
i was there as well

 

[DeeDubb]

I think this NR will not be lost in vain. I hope WCA officials are taking notice and this situation will lead to better and more fair rules for both the definition of a preinspection move (especially in SQ-1), as well as how cameras can be used for judging.

 

[Future Cuber]

I think this NR will not be lost in vain. I hope WCA officials are taking notice and this situation will lead to better and more fair rules for both the definition of a preinspection move (especially in SQ-1), as well as how cameras can be used for judging.

Ya got that one right

 

[Kirjava]

The problem with attempts like these are exclusively in the JUDGES, not in the COMPETITORS.

I don't have any problem counting this solve as a DNF, so long as the disqualification is made AT THE COMPETITION BY THE JUDGE ASSIGNED TO OFFICIATE THE ATTEMPT. Whether or not you accept the privately produced video as reliable evidence, you must acknowledge the fact that the judge for this attempt FAILED TO FULFILL HIS DUTY.

He should have 1) NOTICED THE PRE-MOVE, 2) POINTED IT OUT, and 3) GOTTEN A RESCRAMBLE (OR REVERSE SCRAMBLE) FOR THE COMPETITOR.

The retroactively assigned DNF is around 2% the fault of the poorly maintained Square-1, and 98% the fault of the judge. I always thought there was some regulation that protected competitors from the mistakes of their judges. But I guess that is only a formality included to make the capricious regulations of this paltry organisation appear more legitimate. I forgot that the WCA has no genuine interest in providing for more competitions in more countries with more people and more fun, under fair and equal conditions, as their mission statement would otherwise suggest.

This lamentable organisation is really beginning to aggravate me, and others, I expect.

Can you show me where in the regulations it says a competitor can have an extra attempt if he makes moves during inspection?

It took me multiple views of the video to see what happened. You can forgive the judge for not spotting this.

You are acting like a moron.

 

[Goosly]

I don't have any problem counting this solve as a DNF, so long as the disqualification is made AT THE COMPETITION BY THE JUDGE ASSIGNED TO OFFICIATE THE ATTEMPT. Whether or not you accept the privately produced video as reliable evidence, you must acknowledge the fact that the judge for this attempt FAILED TO FULFILL HIS DUTY.

He should have 1) NOTICED THE PRE-MOVE, 2) POINTED IT OUT, and 3) GOTTEN A RESCRAMBLE (OR REVERSE SCRAMBLE) FOR THE COMPETITOR.

The retroactively assigned DNF is around 2% the fault of the poorly maintained Square-1, and 98% the fault of the judge.

You are a funny guy. I didn't see the move when watching the video, even after reading the topic, thus knowing he made a move somewhere. I would never have noticed it if I was the judge, since I would also need to keep track of the inspection time and calling "8" and "go".

 

[DeeDubb]

You are a funny guy. I didn't see the move when watching the video, even after reading the topic, thus knowing he made a move somewhere. I would never have noticed it if I was the judge, since I would also need to keep track of the inspection time and calling "8" and "go".

How is it fair to punish him after the fact when the vast majority of judges wouldn't have caught the error live? He's essentially being punished for sharing his solve.

 

[TDM]

He's essentially being punished for sharing his solve.

Yet when Chris Olson posted a video of him overinspecting in a 'WR average', the solve was still given no penalty and he got the WR.

 

[Goosly]

How is it fair to punish him after the fact when the vast majority of judges wouldn't have caught the error live? He's essentially being punished for sharing his solve.

I'm not saying it's fair. Why are you quoting me exactly?

 

[mDiPalma]

Can you show me where in the regulations it says a competitor can have an extra attempt if he makes moves during inspection?

It took me multiple views of the video to see what happened. You can forgive the judge for not spotting this.

You are acting like a moron.

1e) Each event must have one or more judges.
1e1) A judge is responsible for executing the procedures of the event.
1e1a) A judge may judge multiple competitors simultaneously at the discretion of the Delegate, as long as the judge is able to ensure that all WCA Regulations are followed at all times.

11e) If an incident occurs during an attempt, the WCA Delegate may award a competitor an extra attempt, replacing the attempt during which the incident occurred. The competitor must appeal verbally or in writing to the judge and WCA Delegate at the time of the incident, before finishing the original attempt, to be eligible for an extra attempt. An appeal does not guarantee the competitor an extra attempt.
11e1) If a competitor is awarded an extra attempt, the extra attempt must be scrambled using a different scramble sequence. This scramble sequence must be generated using the current official version of the official WCA scramble program (see Regulation 4f).

The judge (who is responsible for executing ALL the WCA regulations) FAILED TO DO SO in pointing out (and possibly remedying) the pre-"move". This "incident", if correctly pointed out should have awarded Kunaal Parekh another attempt. Though this attempt may not have been as good as the NR, it would likely still have been better than a retroactively assigned DNF on the basis of privately produced video evidence.

Also, I don't care that a judge can't spot this in real time. It's still a regulation. Either it's the fault of an ignorant judge or a silly, unimplementable rule. The competitor should NOT be punished for this.

 

[Goosly]

The competitor should NOT be punished for this.

What do you mean by "this"? The "mistake" of the judge (if you want to call it a mistake), or making a move during inspection?

 

[Bindedsa]

1e) Each event must have one or more judges.
1e1) A judge is responsible for executing the procedures of the event.
1e1a) A judge may judge multiple competitors simultaneously at the discretion of the Delegate, as long as the judge is able to ensure that all WCA Regulations are followed at all times.

11e) If an incident occurs during an attempt, the WCA Delegate may award a competitor an extra attempt, replacing the attempt during which the incident occurred. The competitor must appeal verbally or in writing to the judge and WCA Delegate at the time of the incident, before finishing the original attempt, to be eligible for an extra attempt. An appeal does not guarantee the competitor an extra attempt.
11e1) If a competitor is awarded an extra attempt, the extra attempt must be scrambled using a different scramble sequence. This scramble sequence must be generated using the current official version of the official WCA scramble program (see Regulation 4f).

The judge (who is responsible for executing ALL the WCA regulations) FAILED TO DO SO in pointing out (and possibly remedying) the pre-"move". This "incident", if correctly pointed out should have awarded Kunaal Parekh another attempt. Though this attempt may not have been as good as the NR, it would likely still have been better than a retroactively assigned DNF on the basis of privately produced video evidence.

Also, I don't care that a judge can't spot this in real time. It's still a regulation. Either it's the fault of an ignorant judge or a silly, unimplementable rule. The competitor should NOT be punished for this.

If you do moves during inspection, is that not automatically a DNF? why should you get another attempt.