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

[kunparekh18]

Very well put.

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

This is what I want to confirm, I sent the board one email with the link to this thread and the posts regarding the doubts about a (1,0) move, and I got no reply. I tried messaging Lucas Garron here on the forums, no reply there too. Maybe they noticed it but haven't bothered replying?

Let it be DNF, just answer the doubts, please

 

[Sa967St]

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

Yes, they are aware of this situation, and are currently discussing it.

 

[kunparekh18]

Yes, they are aware of this situation, and are currently discussing it.

Thank you very much!

 

[ryanj92]

what? i dont remember this

Nick Horne, UKO12 finals

 

[Kirjava]

This "incident", if correctly pointed out should have awarded Kunaal Parekh another attempt.

I'm pretty sure that if the competitor does moves during inspection, it should be DNF and he should not be awarded an extra attempt.

 

[Kit Clement]

Very well put.

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

Yes, they have.

EDIT: thought I was on the last page, I was wrong and didn't see Sarah's reply

 

[mDiPalma]

I'm pretty sure that if the competitor does moves during inspection, it should be DNF and he should not be awarded an extra attempt.

Well first, he didn't do any moves.

Second, if the judge did his job and LOOKED for any moves and questioned the legality of the slight turn that was made, he should have pointed that out to the competitor, preventing the solution in the first place, seeking the delegate to remedy the situation. This would have likely lead to a new scramble for a replacement attempt, with heightened awareness for the crumby state of the competitor's Square-1 with possibly the delegate as the judge (who understands the WCA regulations better than a volunteer judge).

 

[Rubiks560]

Well first, he didn't do any moves.

Second, if the judge did his job and LOOKED for any moves and questioned the legality of the slight turn that was made, he should have pointed that out to the competitor, preventing the solution in the first place, seeking the delegate to remedy the situation. This would have likely lead to a new scramble for a replacement attempt, with heightened awareness for the crumby state of the competitor's Square-1 with possibly the delegate as the judge (who understands the WCA regulations better than a volunteer judge).

Have you ever helped judge through a whole day before? You get really tired after judging for 5+ hours. Perhaps he was tired and he let this slip.
And honestly, even after watching the video a ton it was hard for me to spot the turn. I can't imagine it would be a whole lot easier to spot in person.
Give the guy a break. If I had to bet, you would have missed it as well.

 

[tseitsei]

Well first, he didn't do any moves.

Second, if the judge did his job and LOOKED for any moves and questioned the legality of the slight turn that was made, he should have pointed that out to the competitor, preventing the solution in the first place, seeking the delegate to remedy the situation. This would have likely lead to a new scramble for a replacement attempt, with heightened awareness for the crumby state of the competitor's Square-1 with possibly the delegate as the judge (who understands the WCA regulations better than a volunteer judge).

Well, I agree that this solve shouldn't be DNF since square-1 move is (poorly) defined in the regulations to be more than 45 degrees.


BUT I don''t understand how competitor would get a new attempt for this if the judge spotted this in the competition.

1. If we use the interpretation that square-1 move is more than 45 degrees turn(as I think we should because that's what the regulations say currently):
The judge notices the slight turn, but knows the regulations and let's the solve continue because everything is going well according to regulations.

2. If we use the interpretation that WCA board seems to be taking that (1,0) is also considered as a move:
The judge sees the move being made in inspection. Penalty for doing so is clearly said to be DNF not a new attempt. Otherwise I could just do a turn on 3x3 or 2x2 or any event during my inspection if I notice that scramble is hard and then get a new attempt...

 

[Kirjava]

Well first, he didn't do any moves.

We're discussing the hypothetical situation where a move was performed.

Second, if the judge did his job and LOOKED for any moves and questioned the legality of the slight turn that was made, he should have pointed that out to the competitor, preventing the solution in the first place, seeking the delegate to remedy the situation. This would have likely lead to a new scramble for a replacement attempt, with heightened awareness for the crumby state of the competitor's Square-1 with possibly the delegate as the judge (who understands the WCA regulations better than a volunteer judge).

No, if the judge had seen moves performed in inspection it's very clear that the solve should be made DNF. Another attempt should not be given.

https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/regulations/#A3c1

 

[Goosly]

We're discussing the hypothetical situation where a move was performed.

I think some people are discussing the actual situation and others are discussing the hypothetical situation, which makes this thread confusing to read (well, at least I'm confused).

 

[mDiPalma]

Have you ever helped judge through a whole day before? You get really tired after judging for 5+ hours. Perhaps he was tired and he let this slip.
And honestly, even after watching the video a ton it was hard for me to spot the turn. I can't imagine it would be a whole lot easier to spot in person.
Give the guy a break. If I had to bet, you would have missed it as well.

Oh yeah, I would have definitely missed this LOL. But I respect that that's my fault, or the fault of ridiculous regulations. I'm sure that dozens of these sort of failing-to-judge-properly incidents occur at every competition (from timer stops, to misalignments, to inspection problems, etc). If that's the case, the WCA needs to look into ways for easing/streamlining the judging process. To solve this specific problem, the WCA could add an extra phase to the inspection process during which the judge briefly compares 3 sides of the cube to a generated image of the way the scramble should appear. This would also prevent competitors from getting the same scramble twice, or getting an incorrect scramble.

We're discussing the hypothetical situation where a move was performed.

Nope, since we truly cannot know whether or not a move was performed by the competitor, we have to consider all possibilities.

No, if the judge had seen moves performed in inspection it's very clear that the solve should be made DNF. Another attempt should not be given.

https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/regulations/#A3c1

I agree. However, if the judge SEES something during inspection, he should point it out during inspection, right? Therefore, the solve wont continue, and the delegate can come over and verify that a move was truly made during the inspection phase. If the delegate, knowing the regulations, believes that the state of the puzzle is evident of a move being made during inspection (he has access to the scramble sheets, if need be), then he can declare the solve a DNF at the competition. I have no problem with this. This is how the DNF should have been applied. I agree with you in this case.

On the other hand, if the judge calls over a delegate, and the delegate rules that a turn was not made sufficiently (30 degrees or something), then the competitor deserves another attempt, because his first attempt was "ruined" by the judge.

So yes, I suppose you could abuse this, by making 44-degree moves during inspection, and forcing the judge to call a delegate, but the retry is purely at the discretion of the delegate, who likely would not cooperate with your malicious plot more than 2 or 3 times.

Regardless, above are the two ways that the attempt should have been officiated. However, at the fault of the judge or the or the impossible-to-implement regulations, this competitor was rejected a legitimate attempt. He deserved one of three things:

1) a DNF declared for his attempt immediately after/during the attempt, or
2) a counting 15.03 NR Square-1 single, or
3) another attempt.

Can you agree with me on that?

The WCA is pulling some major Hocus Pocus, and I know I'm not the only dissatisfied observer.

 

[Kirjava]

Nope, since we truly cannot know whether or not a move was performed by the competitor, we have to consider all possibilities.

The post you were replying to clearly stated the exact scenario I was talking about; "Can you show me where in the regulations it says a competitor can have an extra attempt if he makes moves during inspection?"

The part which you disagreed with me on pertained to this exact concept and that's the one I am arguing for.

I agree. However, if the judge SEES something during inspection, he should point it out during inspection, right?

No, it doesn't matter if he does or doesn't point it out during inspection.

Also, delegate intervention isn't required for correct enforcement.

At least now that I've pointed to the exact regulation, you understand that you were wrong.

 

[mDiPalma]

The post you were replying to clearly stated the exact scenario I was talking about; "Can you show me where in the regulations it says a competitor can have an extra attempt if he makes moves during inspection?"

Truly making moves (>45 degrees) during inspection does not warrant additional attempts. Nobody has EVER argued otherwise in this thread.

The part which you disagreed with me on pertained to this exact concept and that's the one I am arguing for.

We've yet to disagree on anything. It's just that you are twisting my statements to apply to scenarios other than those which I intend, and I am offering repeated, unnecessary clarification only for you to revert back to applying my arguments incorrectly.

No, it doesn't matter if he does or doesn't point it out during inspection.

It does matter for legitimacy. It is so much simpler for a delegate to officially declare an attempt as a DNF immediately during/after an attempt, rather than through some privately produced video footage, weeks later.

Also, you introduce a good point, we ought to be forced to assume that the judge was completely fulfilling his duties and, during the inspection phase, observed the 30-degree move, and deemed it sufficiently less than 45 degrees for the attempt to continue. Because the ONLY evidence we have involves the judge NOT pointing out the turn that was made, is that not evidence enough to declare that a turn was not made?

How quick we are (myself included) to pin negligence on this judge, when he may very well have applied the regulations before our very eyes in the video.

Also, delegate intervention isn't required for correct enforcement.

Delegate intervention is required, however, to resolve disputes between competitors and judges. That sort of dispute would have inevitably occurred if the judge had pointed out that a "move" may have been made during inspection.

At least now that I've pointed to the exact regulation, you understand that you were wrong.

I've not said anything wrong as of yet. You are consistently misrepresenting my argument as "making moves in inspection warrants additional attempts." And citing the obvious rules that contradict this crass opinion that you generated for me.

My argument is actually: "A good judge and a good set of regulations would have PREVENTED this entire debate from taking place. The final officiations of the attempt in question should have been made on May 26 or 27, 2014 in Chennai, India, not over forum posts on the WCA site, weeks later. As no officiation was made at the time of the attempt, there is no sense in retroactively (and incorrectly, mind you) assigning a DNF as a result of low quality, privately produced video evidence. As a result, I believe that the solve should stand as the Indian NR. The only two relevant and possible alternatives would have been for the judge to have pointed out that a move may have been made during the inspection phase to the competitor. This would have, after inciting delegate intervention to confirm/deny that a move was made, resulted in either a DNF or another attempt for the competitor. Notice, that this officiation is hypothetically being legitimately and accurately made DURING the attempt, not weeks after via some private video evidence."

 

[Kirjava]

Truly making moves (>45 degrees) during inspection does not warrant additional attempts. Nobody has EVER argued otherwise in this thread.

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.

lol

 

[mDiPalma]

lol

I've seen more lolworthy things in the encyclopedia.

Read the paragraph above your second quote. I was talking, once again, about the two possibilities for the attempt. The paragraph above what you quoted refers to the possibility that a turn was truly made, responding to the message of another individual, then applies a literary transition, referencing the analysis of the video evidence which suggests that any turn made was only 30 degrees. The paragraph that you quoted refers to the possibility that a turn was not truly made. Please, if I've left out a possibility, let me know, and quit hiding behind these semantic arguments. You clearly know what I'm trying to get at from the absurd amount of times I've had to rephrase myself.

Spoiler

you ... clearly stated the exact ... regulations it says a competitor can have an extra attempt if he makes moves during inspection
... that's the one I am arguing for.

At least now ... I ... understand...

I can also quote you out of context and twist your words.

 

[Kirjava]

The paragraph that you quoted refers to the possibility that a turn was not truly made.

Are you some kind of logic obfuscation wizard? In the piece I quoted, you even refer to it as 'the pre-move'.

You just say that the judge didn't do his duty because he didn't stop the solve and award an extra attempt.

A judge shouldn't be interfering with a solve unless he is absolutely sure it is a DNF.

 

[goodatthis]

Although I would prefer to stay neutral on this topic, this whole discussion brings up some interesting points about legitimacies of WCA competitions.

I have only been to 2 competitions, yet I have noticed lots of infractions on WCA rules and examples of bad judging as well. For example:

- I had a judge ask me when I had a +2, "So do I just write DNF?"
- I've had, on two occasions, judges letting me go past a hard cutoff and I have to let them know.
- When my 3x3 was misaligned by about 43 degrees, a loudmouthed kid who was my judge was about to write +2 before I suggested that we call a delegate over.
- Head judges scrambling right in front of competitors, you could potentially undo the last several moves of a scramble (or the whole scramble)

And I've heard of several others, like in Mitch Lane's Worlds video where he picked up a 7x7 during inspection and the judge said, "Uhh, that's a DNF."

I really think that judges should be asked to fill out a brief quiz before they can judge, just like 4 or 5 questions, like "What is the default time limit at which a judge should use a stopwatch?" or "What is the penalty for stopping the timer with your wrists?'

 

[Petro Leum]

I've seen more lolworthy things in the encyclopedia.

Read the paragraph above your second quote. I was talking, once again, about the two possibilities for the attempt. The paragraph above what you quoted refers to the possibility that a turn was truly made, responding to the message of another individual, then applies a literary transition, referencing the analysis of the video evidence which suggests that any turn made was only 30 degrees. The paragraph that you quoted refers to the possibility that a turn was not truly made. Please, if I've left out a possibility, let me know, and quit hiding behind these semantic arguments. You clearly know what I'm trying to get at from the absurd amount of times I've had to rephrase myself.

Spoiler

I can also quote you out of context and twist your words.

this is why i never argue with kirjava. you will never get anywhere constructive. If you let him win, theres at least a good chance its constructive.

Although I would prefer to stay neutral on this topic, this whole discussion brings up some interesting points about legitimacies of WCA competitions.

I have only been to 2 competitions, yet I have noticed lots of infractions on WCA rules and examples of bad judging as well. For example:

- I had a judge ask me when I had a +2, "So do I just write DNF?"
- I've had, on two occasions, judges letting me go past a hard cutoff and I have to let them know.
- When my 3x3 was misaligned by about 43 degrees, a loudmouthed kid who was my judge was about to write +2 before I suggested that we call a delegate over.
- Head judges scrambling right in front of competitors, you could potentially undo the last several moves of a scramble (or the whole scramble)

And I've heard of several others, like in Mitch Lane's Worlds video where he picked up a 7x7 during inspection and the judge said, "Uhh, that's a DNF."

I really think that judges should be asked to fill out a brief quiz before they can judge, just like 4 or 5 questions, like "What is the default time limit at which a judge should use a stopwatch?" or "What is the penalty for stopping the timer with your wrists?'

I agree, but i dont think that's realistic with the system we have in place, where every competitor (and even every guest iirc) volunteers to judge by participating at the competition. I myself cannot keep every single regulation word for word in my mind, and when im on a competition, i dont wanna spend all the time im not having official solves myself with judging. We are not in a situation to say "If you wanna judge, you have to fill out a quiz first, sign here and there and wear a suit". We NEED judges, and it is neither realistic to have every competitor be a perfect judge, nor is it to have some people who are superb judges perform judging as a full-time job while all the other competitors sit back and socialize.

 

[mDiPalma]

There is a regulation that requires that competitors know the WCA rules.

But is there no similar rule for judges?