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

[Goosly]

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

Because the judge didn't notice it, therefor it is an incident and he gets another attempt. It is impossible to give him another attempt though, since this cannot be noticed at the competition if the judge didn't notice it. Unless we add a judge to judge every judge.

 

[kunparekh18]

C'mon Board, take notice of all the posts here...

 

[mDiPalma]

Ok, perhaps I thought this was too self-explanatory. Here is the sequence:

The judge reveals the cube and starts inspection for the competitor. The competitor makes a 30 degree turn which is technically not a move.

Continuation 1) The judge sees the move. The judge is the most intelligent man at the venue and knows that a 30 degree turn IS NOT a move under the regulations and allows the solve to continue. In this case, the retroactively assigned DNF does a huge sum of injustice to this judge's intelligence and the credibility of the competitor. In this case, the fault is on the WCA.

Continuation 2) The judge sees the move and incorrectly believes that it is against regulations. He maliciously allows the solve to continue under some evil underworldly influence. He correctly allows the solve to continue because he decided to break the rule that he misremembered. In this case, the fault is on the judge.

Continuation 3) The judge does not see the move. He failed to do his duty. The fault is on him. Still, the 30 degree turn is not a move and the solve should NOT be discounted. But the judge did not pay enough attention. In this case, the fault is on the judge for not watching, and on the WCA for retracting this NR.

Those are the ONLY possibilities, generally speaking. The 30-degree "move" that was made during inspection was either directly (and correctly) officiated to be legal, or indirectly (and incorrectly) officiated to be illegal.

Assuming this legal, 30-degree pre-"move" was made, the blame can only thereafter fall on the WCA and/or on the volunteer judge. The competitor, who acted completely legally, should suffer no punishment for he has crossed no regulation.

 

[Goosly]

^ So this means that I can make 30-degree "moves" (as you call it) during the inspection on all of my 3x3 solves? I'm gonna start doing that.

 

[qqwref]

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

Like many other things, I think this can be at the discretion of the judge or delegate. If you ask me it should be pretty obvious in practice. In this case, a layer Kunaal was not touching made a slight turn while he was rotating the puzzle; thus it's clearly an unintentional turn. Of course, if you see someone shaking the cube back and forth to try to get the top layer to rotate, then it becomes deliberate.


I'm also interested in the idea about whether (1,0) counts as a move. If you just look at the misalignment rules, it doesn't count as a move. This is the kind of thing the regulations need to be more clear about. A move of 1 degree in inspection is OK; a move of 90 degrees is not; where does it become unacceptable, and is this the same as the +2 penalty standard?

 

[EMI]

^ So this means that I can make 30-degree "moves" (as you call it) during the inspection on all of my 3x3 solves? I'm gonna start doing that.

Well, as Michael pointed out - if not, where excactly is the border? If you accidentaly twist a side 1 degree, it's obviously not a problem.

BTW Not everything that's legal has to be used to one's advantage.

 

[10461394944000]

^ So this means that I can make 30-degree "moves" (as you call it) during the inspection on all of my 3x3 solves? I'm gonna start doing that.

yes, you should be allowed to. i dont see what advantage you are expecting from that though.

 

[Goosly]

yes, you should be allowed to. i dont see what advantage you are expecting from that though.

None. I'm just wondering what the reaction of the judges would be.

 

[blade740]

I think it's a shame that this solve was disqualified. (-1,0) is not a full move according to the regulations, and in any case the move didn't make the solve easier in any way.

Disqualifying the solve after the fact based on video evidence is well within the board's rights, and while I think it's a bit annoying, I can't really argue with that. However, I stand by my judgement that this was NOT a move, and should not be penalized.

A bit of anecdotal evidence: I myself have done this exact sort of thing many times. I have also, repeatedly, received square-1s from the scrambling table in an "untwistable position" (meaning that a turn like this was made by the scrambler, runner, or judge before it got to me). My action in these cases has always been to leave the puzzle "as-is" (as Kunaal did) to avoid making any intentional moves, and I have never once been penalized. Now this is beginning to cause doubt: what should I do in a situation like this to avoid a penalty?

 

[AJ Blair]

I think it's a shame that this solve was disqualified. (-1,0) is not a full move according to the regulations, and in any case the move didn't make the solve easier in any way.

Disqualifying the solve after the fact based on video evidence is well within the board's rights, and while I think it's a bit annoying, I can't really argue with that. However, I stand by my judgement that this was NOT a move, and should not be penalized.

A bit of anecdotal evidence: I myself have done this exact sort of thing many times. I have also, repeatedly, received square-1s from the scrambling table in an "untwistable position" (meaning that a turn like this was made by the scrambler, runner, or judge before it got to me). My action in these cases has always been to leave the puzzle "as-is" (as Kunaal did) to avoid making any intentional moves, and I have never once been penalized. Now this is beginning to cause doubt: what should I do in a situation like this to avoid a penalty?

I imagine that the best thing to do from this point on is to ask the judge or runner to take it back to the scrambler and have it set to the proper position and placed delicately on the table in front of you, very similar to what happens if a Clock tips over and all of the pins get pushed up when placed on the table. It seems silly that should have to be done and it takes up a bit more time that could be spend moving things along, but it seems to me to be the safest route to take.

I've been in this exact situation several times. I've even had the square-1 tipped on it's side when the cover is removed and have had to rotate it while picking it up to even be able to inspect it. Doing that on a well-used square-1 causes at least one side to rotate on its own, if not both. This not only causes a technical DNF but it also sucks up a chunk of the inspection time as well trying to be delicate enough to not cause any more moves while inspecting. I'm not exactly sure what the best course of action is here to prevent this from happening again, but I do think that it is something that needs to be remedied.

 

[joey]

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.

That's pretty bad.

 

[kcl]

That's pretty bad.

It really wasn't. It wasn't his fault at all and it was very close to 15 seconds.

 

[Rubiks560]

Man...it's sad to see this stuff happen so much to official solves. (Well it seems like it has happened a lot) I feel like this is going to make people stop sharing videos when they notice something like this.

Glad you were honest about the solve and I hope you get NR again.

 

[DavidCip86]

That was a really good solve...but I have a lot of respect for your honesty and your attitude. Keep up the good work, and you'll get the NR soon

 

[XTowncuber]

this is not a dnf

Very well put.

Could someone who knows stuff please confirm that the board has at least heard these doubts?

 

[Tim Major]

So far I can think of 4 cases where video evidence has changed/proposed to change results.

Cameron was 3rd at WC2011 2x2, winning money and a trophy I think, when he uploaded the video, a solve was DNFd, and he sent the money/trophy to the new 3rd place iirc

The 5 +2s at the UK comp

Chris Olsen's where a +2/DNF WASN'T added (judge error)

Now this where video evidence DID change the result.

Video evidence that isn't owned by the WCA shouldn't be used in my opinion after a comps completion, but if it IS, we need consistency

 

[10461394944000]

The 5 +2s at the UK comp

what? i dont remember this

 

[aashritspidey]

Video evidence that isn't owned by the WCA shouldn't be used in my opinion after a comps completion, but if it IS, we need consistentcy

Exactly.. So basically This is partiality.. I'm not against the board or olson or anything. But the thing is, Chris's over inspection wasn't deliberate... So was kunaal's But then why is it that kunaal's is DNF and Chris's legal?

 

[TDM]

but if it IS, we need consistentcy

This is all I care about. As long as it's consistent I'm happy.

 

[Bindedsa]

This is all I care about. As long as it's consistent I'm happy.

Exactly, If in the past any violations made in a video resulted in a change in results, no one would have a discussion the fairness. It would probably be discussed the first time, but after it is decided we would accept it. Instead, every time something likes this comes up we have no clear precedent.