Official WR average has gone! (10.07)

[Yes We Can!]

I wonder, if there already is a thread about that topic, but:

Today, when I checked the WCA page, the WR avg was 10.63 (also Zolnowski).


WTH?!?! Tomasz Zolnkowski's WR avg 10.07 has gone!
Probably because of the timer malfunction.

Now the WR is easier to beat at WC for all the Top-cubers!

 

[Anthony]

As of right now, it's as if he never had a first round 3x3 average at the Polish Open.

 

[Tim Major]

I wonder, if there already is a thread about that topic, but:

Today, when I checked the WCA page, the WR avg was 10.63 (also Zolnowski).


WTH?!?! Tomasz Zolnkowski's WR avg 10.07 has gone!
Probably because of the timer malfunction.

Now the WR is easier to beat at WC for all the Top-cubers!

I pointed this out an a few minutes before you posted this thread.

 

[amostay2004]

Was it even on the records page before?

I have to admit, I'm a little glad, partly due to the timer malfunctions and that 10.07 was too big an improvement on the current WR I'd like to see it go sub-10.5 first (at WC )

 

[MAHTI-ANSSI]

I think the average should be 10.80, (DNF), 12.08, 9.77, (8.68) => 10.88

 

[Lucas Garron]

There is no customary announcement, which is rather puzzling. Considering precedents (and factors like Zolnowski already having the average), I think the WCA could rightfully remove the average from that round, but there has always been an immediate explanation.

 

[Yes We Can!]

I pointed this out an a few minutes before you posted this thread.

Congratulations!

 

[Novriil]

I think also the same as Anssi.

I don't think that shaking hands etc. is timers fault.. For example on Finnish Open on my best solve it wasn't timers fault that I didn't wait for the green light on the stackmat.

The stackmat malfunction what was on the vid (some 0.73 sec or something) wasn't a malfunction I think.

 

[Bryan]

Can someone explain what the timer malfunction was?

 

[PCwizCube]

Can someone explain what the timer malfunction was?

It's in this video:
http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?t=15849

 

[Bryan]

Can someone explain what the timer malfunction was?

It's in this video:
http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?t=15849

OK, so a timer malfunction where the timer stopped at .19 and .13....

 

[PCwizCube]

Can someone explain what the timer malfunction was?

It's in this video:
http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?t=15849

OK, so a timer malfunction where the timer stopped at .19 and .13....

Yeah, in that thread I linked to you, people discuss about the "timer malfunction". Most people agree that .19 and .13 are not timer malfunctions, but the user accidentally stopped the timer like that. So if those times were really .19 and .13 (WCA regulations you can't count on video evidence), then those times would be considered as DNFs and the average wouldn't count.

 

[Bryan]

(WCA regulations you can't count on video evidence)

In that same thread, it also states that the WCA board is allowed to use video evidence all they want :fp

anyway, I don't think the timer is heat sensitive, because I I blew on a towel and put that on my timer and it wouldn't stop it.

The patent seems to indicate they use a capacitive antenna.

 

[amostay2004]

Yeah, in that thread I linked to you, people discuss about the "timer malfunction". Most people agree that .19 and .13 are not timer malfunctions, but the user accidentally stopped the timer like that. So if those times were really .19 and .13 (WCA regulations you can't count on video evidence), then those times would be considered as DNFs and the average wouldn't count.

If the 2 times were considered DNFs and the average a DNF, technically he would have gotten last place in the first round and would not have qualified even for the second round. Which means he could not be the winner of Polish Open (would that also mean his 2nd and 3rd round's average should be deleted off WCA's database?)

 

[PCwizCube]

(WCA regulations you can't count on video evidence)

In that same thread, it also states that the WCA board is allowed to use video evidence all they want :fp

I never said they couldn't. I was trying to say that you couldn't 100% assume that you could take evidence from videos. I don't think the WCA board fully made their decision not to count the average from the video, because I don't think it would have taken a week. They probably discussed it with the delegate who was there, and that delegate may have been watching Tomasz's solves.

If the 2 times were considered DNFs and the average a DNF, technically he would have gotten last place in the first round and would not have qualified even for the second round. Which means he could not be the winner of Polish Open (would that also mean his 2nd and 3rd round's average should be deleted off WCA's database?)

Yeah I agree. It's kind of weird.

 

[TMOY]

If the 2 times were considered DNFs and the average a DNF, technically he would have gotten last place in the first round and would not have qualified even for the second round. Which means he could not be the winner of Polish Open (would that also mean his 2nd and 3rd round's average should be deleted off WCA's database?)

The WCA rules say "at least one competitor must not proceed to the newt round". They don't say it has to be the one who finished last. So there's no contradiction here, he's officially ranked last in the 1st round but wins the competition anyway.

 

[Crazycubemom]

Now the WR is easier to beat at WC for all the Top-cubers!

Yes indeed by Tomasz Zolnowski

 

[JLarsen]

Yeah I can't say I've ever had a malfunction above .05 before, but then again these mats are probably very worn.

 

[PCwizCube]

If the 2 times were considered DNFs and the average a DNF, technically he would have gotten last place in the first round and would not have qualified even for the second round. Which means he could not be the winner of Polish Open (would that also mean his 2nd and 3rd round's average should be deleted off WCA's database?)

The WCA rules say "at least one competitor must not proceed to the newt round". They don't say it has to be the one who finished last. So there's no contradiction here, he's officially ranked last in the 1st round but wins the competition anyway.

But 33 people advanced to the second round (including Tomasz), and there were 48 people in the first round (not including Tomasz). So if he was "last" in the first round (he doesn't even appear in the results for the first round), then wouldn't it not make sense that he advanced to the second round?

http://www.worldcubeassociation.org...ults=All+Results&competitionId=PolishOpen2009

 

[Ron]

This case is still under investigation. So please be patient.