[WR] Chris Olson 1.71 2x2 avg5

[Noahaha]

Judges have different voices, beeps sound the same. It's a minor concern, I realize, but I'd prefer flashes from the timer.

That would be more of a change than the beeping, but it would probably be a change for the better, especially since some people are deaf, and even judges can distract people.

 

[Sa967St]

I have to agree with those who think that the solve should be given a +2 penalty. It really sucks because it's not Chris's fault, but there are cases when others can be responsible for competitors getting a penalty (e.g. when a puzzle pops and someone in the crowd picks up a piece). It seems like the most appropriate thing to do, and letting this slide because of "fair sportsmanship" isn't really fair sportsmanship if others have received penalties that they weren't solely responsible for. You can argue that Chris did nothing wrong, and therefore doesn't deserve a penalty, but when he has an advantage over other competitors (i.e. he got more inspection time than allowed), it should result in a penalty.

Being a difficult and controversial call, I definitely believe that the regulations should be more clear on what happens in a situation like this, when it's too late to give the competitor another attempt.

 

[Mikel]

I think the best way to avoid inconsistencies with inspection is to remove it.

 

[Kit Clement]

I think it should really come down to the delegate's report to the WCA, as thankfully the judge for this solve is the delegate, and we can get a true report on the official inspection time on the stopwatch. The current inspection regulations allow for a huge amount of timing error due to when the stopwatch is started and stopped. If Bryan stopped the stopwatch when it said a time that was less than 15 seconds, then video should not be able to overturn this, as that was the official inspection time.

If, however, the stopwatch did read a value that is greater than 15 seconds due to the small girl distracting Bryan, then this is a moot point. But if we really want to have more precise inspection time, then we should either change the regulations or accept that not all competitors will have exactly 15 seconds inspection time. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it used to be that the cover went back on the cube after inspection time for this reason, right?

 

[Jaycee]

I'm a little late to see the topic so I'm not really participating in the discussion but I still want to give my congrats to Chris. I'm blown away by this

 

[Stefan]

What are the rules on when the judge is supposed to start the stop watch? Is it when he begins to lift the cover? once the cover is completely removed? once the competitor touches the cube? As far as I'm aware there is no specific point when to start inspection so who knows when the judge started the stopwatch and who knows what the time on the stopwatch said when Chris started his solve. So in reality you could say neither Chris nor the judge did anything wrong and this was a perfectly legitimate solve.

You must not have seen or understood this:

Minimum claimable time is about 15.86 seconds (from touching the cube to slightly bending hands upwards from the timer).

(using proper frame-by-frame video analysis)

 

[Deleted member 19792]

Chris. Coming from someone you hate, but con effing grats. The first solve made me go "WUT" Then I knew that you would do much better

Congrats. Maybe at your next comp you can shatter this wr!

-Strakerak

 

[TheDubDubJr]

You must not have seen or understood this:

Minimum claimable time is about 15.86 seconds (from touching the cube to slightly bending hands upwards from the timer).

(using proper frame-by-frame video analysis)

But was the stopwatch exactly started and stopped at those exact moments? You cannot see the stopwatch so you don't when the time intervals are.

 

[Kirjava]

But was the stopwatch exactly started and stopped at those exact moments? You cannot see the stopwatch so you don't when the time intervals are.

It doesn't matter when the stopwatch was started and stopped, the competitor must begin within 15 seconds of the beginning of the inspection phase.

 

[scottishcuber]

I don't agree with that (thedubdubjr). The judge didnt even say 8s. For your point to be true, the stop watch had to have been started at the 8s mark (which is a terrible mistake by the judge) or the stopwatch was faulty for one particular solve, in the middle of an average, such that it ran slower than usual (so pretty much twice as slow, which the judge should have noticed anyway.)

 

[Stefan]

The judge didnt even say 8s.

How do you know?

 

[rubikaz]

If that's the case, give Cameron his WC2011 solve back.

No, it was very different. Cameron manipulated the cube during the inspection and it is DNF. The judge did not notice it but the manipulation was not the judge fault. The delay in Chris inspection was the judge fault.

 

[Schmidt]

How do you know?

So had I heard "go" I would have started when told. But I was never told so I thought I had time.

here

 

[Stefan]

here

"go" and "8s" are quite different. Try again?

 

[ThomasJE]

There's no point in arguing over something that we have no control over. I am almost certainly sure this will be referred to the WDC and they will make their decision.

 

[scottishcuber]

1. In the first solve you can clearly hear the judge say 8s when it is reached, but not in the second solve.
-this indicates to me that audio was almost certainly not an issue (background noise was also consistent for all solves)

2. Between 7-11 second mark on the second solve, the judge is distracted by a small girl who gives him a box and a piece of paper, which averts is eyes and hence his attention from the stopwatch for that period of time.

3. No one (including Chris) has specifically said that the judge did say '8 seconds'. If they had we would not be discussing this so fervently. If the judge did say it, Chris would have almost certainly heard it, as such Chris would have added this information to his previous comment (it would be very silly of Chris if he had this information and forgot to mention it).

These 3 reasons combined are what make me believe the 8 second mark was not called.

 

[Noahaha]

"go" and "8s" are quite different. Try again?

Chris clearly meant "go" or "12 seconds" The point is that he did not receive any indication that he was close to the end of his inspection period.

 

[Rubiks560]

I just listened to the audio of the solve and It sounds like you can hear him say "8 seconds" at about 14.5 into the inspection. And I started the solve about 1-2 seconds after that. So that would mean I thought I had at least 2 more seconds.

 

[TheDubDubJr]

It doesn't matter when the stopwatch was started and stopped, the competitor must begin within 15 seconds of the beginning of the inspection phase.

Is it the competitors job to have an exact internal stopwatch in his head during inspection? No
And if the judge was following what was stated on the stopwatch then it might not have been his fault either. It then could be equipment malfunction.

I don't agree with that (thedubdubjr). The judge didnt even say 8s. For your point to be true, the stop watch had to have been started at the 8s mark (which is a terrible mistake by the judge) or the stopwatch was faulty for one particular solve, in the middle of an average, such that it ran slower than usual (so pretty much twice as slow, which the judge should have noticed anyway.)

It was my belief that the judge indicated 12seconds when you could clearly here him speak (I am not sure, that is what I believed). That would have indicated the judge started the stopwatch ~2seconds after starting inspection, which is understandable giving the kind of stopwatches at the competition and small human error.

Also the time from the judge starting to speak to the timer starting = 2.66sec (source - Brest)

 

[Stefan]

Chris clearly meant "go" or "12 seconds"

Chris didn't just mean it, he actually said it. Sameer was the one talking about 8s.