irregularity on Melbourne Winter Open 2010

[spols]

For Square-one event, there was has 3 round with only 8 competitors

9m) Events must have at most four rounds.

* 9m1) Events with 99 or fewer competitors must have at most three rounds.
* 9m2) Events with 15 or fewer competitors must have at most two rounds.
* 9m3) Events with 7 or fewer competitors must have at most one round.

For the final, There was has 4 competitors and Second round has 5 competitors but :

9p) In case of more than one round for an event the best ranked competitors of a round proceed to the next round.

* 9p1) For each round of an event, at least 25% of the competitors must not proceed to the next round.

 

[aronpm]

The first two rounds were a combined first/second round.

 

[masterofthebass]

" Combined First / Second round" is just a term that represents a First round with cuttoffs. This distinction doesn't need to be there, as its really only there to let the database know there will be people without all 5 solves. It wasn't actually 3 rounds, but only 2.

 

[spols]

9g) A Combined round is two or three rounds combined during one time frame, where results of earlier rounds are taken into account for next rounds.

 

[masterofthebass]

hmm... interesting. I don't believe 9g is correctly worded, as it is not the norm to consider the amount of competitors getting an average as the amount in the round. This was broken at MWO twice, Alania 3 times, Cubing sa Tag-Init 2010 once, Cologne twice, and 3Mola once. All of those competitions were in the past 2 weeks.

 

[spols]

Thus all of those competition are irregular

 

[CubesOfTheWorld]

For Square-one event, there was has 3 round with only 8 competitors.


For the final, There was has 4 competitors and Second round has 5 competitors but

Huh?

 

[Tim Reynolds]

The intent of that regulation is that it's not supposed to apply to combined rounds. A combined round has less solves than even one regular round, and the same amount of solves as one regular round for the fastest people. The regulation you cite is only intended to prevent having competitors get huge numbers of attempts in certain events. So yes, in my opinion it violates the letter of the law, but not the intent of the law. I believe that the rule on how many rounds an event could have existed before combined rounds were allowed, and it was never updated to reflect how it should be applied to combined rounds.