[WR] Rami Sbahi - 0.58 2x2 Single and 1.55 Average

[IRNjuggle28]

I don't think being shown the scramble affected Rami's time, and I'm not convinced he should lose the WR even if he thinks he should. There is virtually no chance he would have missed that solution even if he hadn't been shown the scramble. He's one of the best in the world at one looking 2x2 solves, and people think there's a chance he wouldn't notice a cancellation into a 3 move EG-2? I think Rami did the right thing by explaining what happened, but I think the advantage he was given was negligible, and he should have the WR.

 

[jamessorsona]

I salute for being honest but the kid.....how , why,what?!!

 

[CubesOfTheWorld]

Wow. That's really respectable.

 

[(X)]

I can't really see the difference between this solve and other recently approved solves, such as Feliks' OHWR.
He got an advantage, but he didn't obtain that advantage intentionally.

It doesn't really make any sense to start to look at how big the advantage is. The regulations have to be improved regarding judging mistakes.

 

[Isaac Lai]

I can't really see the difference between this solve and other recently approved solves, such as Feliks' OHWR.
He got an advantage, but he didn't obtain that advantage intentionally.

It doesn't really make any sense to start to look at how big the advantage is. The regulations really have to be improved regarding judging mistakes.

He didn't even get an advantage. He would have seen the solution straight away anyway.

 

[tseitsei]

I can't really see the difference between this solve and other recently approved solves, such as Feliks' OHWR.
He got an advantage, but he didn't obtain that advantage intentionally.

It doesn't really make any sense to start to look at how big the advantage is. The regulations really have to be improved regarding judging mistakes.

Good trolling man good trolling... But I'll answer you anyway even though I shouldn't:

In Feliks' case he had another random scramble (even with the same optimal solution length than the correct scramble) that he had not seen beforehand --> It was like any other normal scramble for him to solve --> No clear advantage gained.

In this case Rami had seen the SAME PARTICULAR scramble beforehand --> He could potentially plan or even practise (not saying that he did either) the solutions before even starting his inspection --> Clear advantage gained. Practically the same as having a longer inspection time (Although he would have seen the 4-mover anyway obviously...)

 

[(X)]

Good trolling man good trolling... But I'll answer you anyway even though I shouldn't:

In Feliks' case he had another random scramble (even with the same optimal solution length than the correct scramble) that he had not seen beforehand --> It was like any other normal scramble for him to solve --> No clear advantage gained.

In this case Rami had seen the SAME PARTICULAR scramble beforehand --> He could potentially plan or even practise (not saying that he did either) the solutions before even starting his inspection --> Clear advantage gained. Practically the same as having a longer inspection time (Although he would have seen the 4-mover anyway obviously...)

I am not trolling, I don't think that different illegal advantages can be classified in a good way or objectively.

 

[Tim Major]

Huge respect. Much more respect than if you actually got the single as who cares about the single anyway?

But I feel it's extremely unfair about losing the average due to this. If I had sole control of the board I'd hope to give you a x.xx* for the solve, which wouldn't count on the singles page but would count as "best time" out of those 5 solves. There is no doubt you would've gotten <1.37 considering the scramble, and the fact you faced MORE pressure knowing the scramble was easy.

Anyway, I think there is no chance anything can really be done here in your favour, you've lost WRs, but gained respect.

 

[Dene]

Lol that video has all around cuteness.

 

[tx789]

I thought that different groups have different scrambles, to eliminate the cheating process? At least, that's how we do it in New Zealand, I think?

That is how it is? Do other comps have different groups with the scrambles. Still someone in the same group of you could do what this kid did to rami.

 

[SixSidedCube]

That is how it is? Do other comps have different groups with the scrambles. Still someone in the same group of you could do what this kid did to rami.

I was sure that's how we do it, although I am not 100% sure! You would have to ask Josh/Dene/David etc. Or perhaps someone else in this thread would be kind enough to answer?

 

[Yes We Can!]

So much respect to you, Rami, especially since you lost two WRs and neither of those losses were your fault. I think you handled it perfectly.

I think Tim Major's suggestion makes sense.

 

[JustinTimeCuber]

Heck, even I would have seen that 4-mover, and I suck at 2x2. It's pretty easy to see honestly (at least for me) and I don't think he was given an advantage with his solve. I hope that the WCA Board agrees and gives him the WR because that was just unfair. That kid needs to face a ban of at least a year for such a... a... noodle. Or maybe a TNoodle. But seriously though. Yeah.

 

[Myachii]

I thought that different groups have different scrambles, to eliminate the cheating process? At least, that's how we do it in New Zealand, I think?

I think the scrambles are similar though. I'm not quite sure how it works, but from when I've solved using previous competition scrambles they've always seemed similar in different groups.

That's complex TNoodle generated algorithms for you though I guess xD

And Rami, I completely respect what you did and hope more people can be like you, but I have one question: How come you didn't report that you had a vague idea of the scramble before doing the solve, so the kid could be punished and you could have the extra scrambled right off instead of first doing the 4-mover?

 

[Tim Major]

I think Tim Major's suggestion makes sense.

It makes sense but it sets a dangerous precedent. Someone higher up in discussions could bring it up, but I think most/all of the board would be against it

 

[tseitsei]

I am not trolling, I don't think that different illegal advantages can be classified in a good way or objectively.

As I said before: In feliks' case there was no advantage gained. He just got a different but still random scramble that he had no prior knowledge of... It even had same optimal solve move count. And it was legal state according to wca regs and scrambling program.

Much different from this case where competitor has seen the competition scramble beforehand

 

[ryanj92]

And Rami, I completely respect what you did and hope more people can be like you, but I have one question: How come you didn't report that you had a vague idea of the scramble before doing the solve, so the kid could be punished and you could have the extra scrambled right off instead of first doing the 4-mover?

maybe he was scared to admit?
at least it was addressed while the delegate could still do something about it :^)

also, i think relevant to other discussion: whilst he may have only seen the actual scramble for a fraction of a second, he was also told he could get WR on it if he practised it. i think whether or not he would've seen the 4-mover anyway is then pretty much irrelevant, as he knew even before the cover was lifted that it would be an easy scramble, and therefore he would have been more mentally prepared to deal with it than if he wouldn't have known about it.

 

[Stefan]

He didn't even get an advantage.

I'm not so sure about that. I don't doubt that he would've seen that solution anyway, but then maybe he would've been all-excited and messed up the execution. The way it is, he had time to "calm down" after learning of the easyness and be mentally prepared.

Edit: Ryan is an amazing ninja.

 

[BboyArchon]

So in Italy they didn't know the scramble before solving it... This sucks.

Awesome attitude from Rami, you have all my respect.

 

[adimare]

As I said before: In feliks' case there was no advantage gained.

If at a World Championship's final 3x3 round Feliks and Mats were handed a different scramble by mistake, one with an obvious 3 move cross and a smooth F2L that led to a PLL skip, would you allow it and say that neither had an advantage solely on the basis that both scrambles were 18 moves away from the solved state? I use them as an example because at their level they're quite likely to come up with equal or at least very similar solutions to the same scramble, so assuming that both would have gotten the PLL skip is not as far fetched as you'd think:

Kudos to Rami for handling this situation so well, I hope the kid that ruined his chances at a WR gets banned for life