[WR] Chris Olson 1.71 2x2 avg5

[Kirjava]

Is it the competitors job to have an exact internal stopwatch in his head during inspection? No

No, he just has to ensure he begins within 15 seconds.

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.

...and the solve would still require a penalty regardless.

 

[FatBoyXPC]

No, he just has to ensure he begins within 15 seconds.



...and the solve would still require a penalty regardless.

I'm under the impression judging errors are resolved by rescrambles?

 

[Rubiks560]

No, he just has to ensure he begins within 15 seconds.

I would just like to point out that based on the signals from the judge I thought I was under 15.

 

[TMOY]

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.

It's the judge's responsibility to say "8s" as close to 8s as possible. In case of stopwatch malfunction, he can very well use his wristwatch (if he as one) or count seconds in his head to get a correct estimation of the elapsed time; saying "8s" after 7.5s or 8.5s is not really a big deal, but 14.5s is just absurd.

 

[FatBoyXPC]

or count seconds in his head to get a correct estimation of the elapsed time

Is this in the regulations anywhere? I could see this becoming quite a big problem if people were to stop trusting the stopwatches, and trusting their brains instead. And if this is going to become an accepted standard, I'll throw a small cubes competition, give 3 roudns of 2x2, and I'll "estimate" 8, 12, 15, and 17 seconds in my head. I guarantee you I'll hit 20 and nobody bats an eye until video proof.

 

[Mr Cubism]

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.

I can hear that. That also means that this WR should be counted as legal.

 

[Goosly]

That also means that this WR should be counted as legal.

No, it does not. A competitor has a maximum of 15 seconds as inspection. Next time I judge one of Mats' solves, I will give him 10 minutes inspection so he can figure out his first 3 or 4 pairs and then say "8s". That would be a legal solve, according to your logic.

 

[StachuK1992]

No, it does not. A competitor has a maximum of 15 seconds as inspection. Next time I judge one of Mats' solves, I will give him 10 minutes inspection so he can figure out his first 3 or 4 pairs and then say "8s". That would be a legal solve, according to your logic.

This is an extremely good point.

I don't suspect either the competitor or delegate in this case of foul play, but allowing this case to pass unfortunately opens it up as an option for future cases.

 

[TheDubDubJr]

No, he just has to ensure he begins within 15 seconds.

Which the judge is supposed to notify the competitor where he is at in his inspection time.
It does not say in the regulations that the competitor is the one that needs to keep track of their own inspection time.

...and the solve would still require a penalty regardless.

Where exactly in the regulations does it have this exact situation and it ending with "Penalty: time penalty (+2 seconds)"?

 

[Goosly]

Where exactly in the regulations does it have this exact situation and it ending with "Penalty: time penalty (+2 seconds)"?

A4d1) The competitor must start the solve within 15 seconds of the beginning of the inspection. Penalty: time penalty (+2 seconds).

 

[Kit Clement]

It's really a failure of the regulations to handle such cases like this. What happens with Chris' solves is out of the hands of many of the people discussing this; instead, I find it more productive to be discussing how to improve our regulations, specifically:

1. Whether actual time or the time on the stopwatch should be accepted should be regarded as the inspection time. Time on stopwatch creates an inaccuracy, actual time creates a double standard for solves on video, especially any record breaking solves.

2. Whether our inspection process needs revamping to prevent inaccuracies like this. An official inspection timer or a solid process for starting inspection time may be necessary.

3. What specifically can video evidence overturn? If we choose to accept the stopwatch inspection time as official, then video evidence should not be applicable here. A list of things which video evidence applies to would be nice.

As for a suggestion to a new inspection time process for number 2, I suggest this:

- Competitor starts inspection stopwatch on their own accord and lifts the cover.
- The judge receives the stopwatch and verifies that it has started
- If not started, maybe give 1 resolve but DNF after, alternatively apply a penalty
- The judge will call "8 seconds" and "Go" as normal
- Competitor starts the solve as normal, and when the solve starts, the judge stops the inspection timer

While it seems messy to be passing the inspection timer, a timer similar to a chess timer would be effective here. This timer would sit on the table and would be readily available for the competitor to start, but have a second button that the judge could press to stop the timer.

 

[kcl]

No, it does not. A competitor has a maximum of 15 seconds as inspection. Next time I judge one of Mats' solves, I will give him 10 minutes inspection so he can figure out his first 3 or 4 pairs and then say "8s". That would be a legal solve, according to your logic.

The difference is that unless you have serious brain damage, you can tell you've gone over by 9 minutes. If you go over by 3 seconds, you probably won't notice.

 

[TheDubDubJr]

A4d1) The competitor must start the solve within 15 seconds of the beginning of the inspection. Penalty: time penalty (+2 seconds).

You also forgot these regulations:

A3d) At the end of the inspection, the competitor places the puzzle on the mat, in any orientation and position.
A3d2) When 8 seconds of inspection have elapsed, the judge calls "8 SECONDS".
A3d3) When 12 seconds of inspection have elapsed, the judge calls "12 SECONDS".
and
11a) Incidents include:
11a1) Incorrect execution of event procedures, by officials or competitors.
11a2) Interference or facility interruptions (e.g. power failure, emergency alarm activation).
11a3) Equipment malfunction.
11b) If an incident occurs, the WCA Delegate determines an impartial and appropriate course of action.
11d) If the WCA Regulations are not fully clear or if the incident is not covered by the WCA Regulations, then the WCA Delegate must make his decision based on fair sportsmanship.

 

[kcl]

You also forgot these regulations:

A3d) At the end of the inspection, the competitor places the puzzle on the mat, in any orientation and position.
A3d2) When 8 seconds of inspection have elapsed, the judge calls "8 SECONDS".
A3d3) When 12 seconds of inspection have elapsed, the judge calls "12 SECONDS".
and
11a) Incidents include:
11a1) Incorrect execution of event procedures, by officials or competitors.
11a2) Interference or facility interruptions (e.g. power failure, emergency alarm activation).
11a3) Equipment malfunction.
11b) If an incident occurs, the WCA Delegate determines an impartial and appropriate course of action.
11d) If the WCA Regulations are not fully clear or if the incident is not covered by the WCA Regulations, then the WCA Delegate must make his decision based on fair sportsmanship.

11d pretty much says that this will be considered legal. Especially since the delegate was the judge.

 

[Kirjava]

I'm under the impression judging errors are resolved by rescrambles?

They should be, but were not, so regulations were not followed.

I would just like to point out that based on the signals from the judge I thought I was under 15.

I know, and it's not your fault. However, you were still unfortunately over 15.

Which the judge is supposed to notify the competitor where he is at in his inspection time.

Which he didn't, so the rules were not correctly followed.

It does not say in the regulations that the competitor is the one that needs to keep track of their own inspection time.

The judge is meant to, but didn't, so the regulations were not followed.

Where exactly in the regulations does it have this exact situation and it ending with "Penalty: time penalty (+2 seconds)"?

A4d1 is the closest, but there have been many regulations have have not been followed.

Even though this is not the fault of the competitor, this solve was not done under WCA conditions and must be adjusted to ensure uniformity and fairness to other competitors.

 

[TheDubDubJr]

Which he didn't, so the rules were not correctly followed, so the solve is invalid.
The judge is meant to, but didn't, so the regulations were not followed, so the solve is invalid.
A4d1 is the closest, but there have been many regulations have have not been followed anyway. Therefore the solve is invalid.

It seems that you make it out that some of the regulations were not followed. Which would then transfer to 'Article 11: Incidents'.
Then the decision would be taken to the WCA Delegate at the competition.

 

[Kirjava]

Then the decision would be taken to the WCA Delegate at the competition.

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.

 

[TMOY]

Is this in the regulations anywhere? I could see this becoming quite a big problem if people were to stop trusting the stopwatches, and trusting their brains instead. And if this is going to become an accepted standard, I'll throw a small cubes competition, give 3 roudns of 2x2, and I'll "estimate" 8, 12, 15, and 17 seconds in my head. I guarantee you I'll hit 20 and nobody bats an eye until video proof.

Please read my post more carefully. I said "in case of stopwatch malfunction". When the stopwatch stops working and there's no other available timer in sight, what do you propose to do ? Remember that you have 8 seconds to find a solution.

 

[Tim Major]

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.

The only reason I brought it up was because he came third at worlds, then uploaded the average a week or so later and got it disqualified, aka, disqualified a result because of video evidence by the solver.

It isn't related other than that. WCA regulations weren't followed in either video, the precedent is to remove the solve, but this case is a little different.

 

[Benyó]

1. because the inspection was over 15 seconds, the solve is not legit
2. however it was not Chris' fault so an extra attempt should be given
3. but: there is no chance for an extra solve anymore, which reminds me Grzegorz Prusak's misscrambled sq1 wr
4. we had precedents, where penalties were given based on video evidences (the most similar case when a competitor got +2s for all of his solves because he stopped the timer with his fists)

conclusion: the wr is not legal but Chris should stay in the same place as he would get with the wr avg same az Grzegorz won a competition with dnf average. i am pretty sure Chris comes 1st with both averages, it is just the idea behind my judgement