• Welcome to the Speedsolving.com, home of the web's largest puzzle community!
    You are currently viewing our forum as a guest which gives you limited access to join discussions and access our other features.

    Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community of 40,000+ people from around the world today!

    If you are already a member, simply login to hide this message and begin participating in the community!

WRC Statement on Frame-by-Frame Analysis

It's not uncommon for a new rule to only be enforced on cases that occur after its enactment. Look up the principle of retroactive enforcement. I'm concerned by the mass hysteria and bandwagoning going on here, feels like everyone is getting quite vicious and tribalistic about issues where they don't know all the facts. I suppose that's typical for the Internet, especially when there are a lot of impressionable kids involved.
 
Billabob said:
It's not uncommon for a new rule to only be enforced on cases that occur after its enactment. Look up the principle of retroactive enforcement. I'm concerned by the mass hysteria and bandwagoning going on here, feels like everyone is getting quite vicious and tribalistic about issues where they don't know all the facts. I suppose that's typical for the Internet, especially when there are a lot of impressionable kids involved.
Click to expand...
In this case, however, sliding was already illegal. The way video evidence was used also wasn't a concrete regulation. It would be extremely unfair for people to have to beat a record with this extreme disadvantage.
 
Billabob said:
It's not uncommon for a new rule to only be enforced on cases that occur after its enactment. Look up the principle of retroactive enforcement. I'm concerned by the mass hysteria and bandwagoning going on here, feels like everyone is getting quite vicious and tribalistic about issues where they don't know all the facts. I suppose that's typical for the Internet, especially when there are a lot of impressionable kids involved.
Click to expand...

I understand and agree with your point, but to ban a technique that is used by the world record while keeping said record is quite bad. They’ve lowered the ceiling for the event with no regard for how difficult it has become to beat the current best results.

With that being said, I do understand and have sympathy for the extremely difficult situation the WCA has found themselves it. It’s impossible to pick a satisfactory yet practical solution. But this solution is most certainly a very bad one.

And yes, the aggressive protesting is quite silly and stems from fickle children on the internet becoming obsessively involved with whatever the current popular opinion is.
 
Billabob said:
It's not uncommon for a new rule to only be enforced on cases that occur after its enactment. Look up the principle of retroactive enforcement. I'm concerned by the mass hysteria and bandwagoning going on here, feels like everyone is getting quite vicious and tribalistic about issues where they don't know all the facts. I suppose that's typical for the Internet, especially when there are a lot of impressionable kids involved.
Click to expand...
Extremely rare (like I cannot put into words how rare) L from you, the technique breaks regulations that existed at the time, the only thing that changed is they can now frame count videos (and you can arguably see it real time) to see if penalties occurred. This whole situation is like if you got banned from a social media platform for whatever reason but the site doesn't have any rules against creating alt accounts to avoid bans, so when you create an alt they update the rules of the site to specifically disallow creation of alt accounts to avoid bans, however they let you stay on your alt account and continue avoiding the ban because it wasn't a rule when you created the account. Please tell me you think that would be ridiculous...
 
Billabob said:
It's not uncommon for a new rule to only be enforced on cases that occur after its enactment.
Click to expand...
Is this really common for the WCA in cases where the rule was caused because of a certain solve?

Sebastian Weyer in 2018 got an 18.84 4x4 WR. However, he briefly touched the puzzle after stopping the timer. Under the regs, it should have been a +2 or DNF

2018 A6e: After releasing the puzzle, the competitor must not touch or move the puzzle until the judge has inspected the puzzle. Penalty: disqualification of the attempt (DNF). Exception: If no moves have been applied, a time penalty (+2 seconds) may be assigned instead, at the discretion of the judge.

However, it got no penalty bc the touch was unintentional, and the regs were updated to reflect this.

Incident: A competitor briefly touched the puzzle immediately after stopping the timer | World Cube Association

The World Cube Association governs competitions for mechanical puzzles that are operated by twisting groups of pieces, commonly known as 'twisty puzzles'. The most famous of these puzzles is the Rubik's Cube, invented by professor Rubik from Hungary. A selection of these puzzles are chosen as...
www.worldcubeassociation.org www.worldcubeassociation.org

The updated reg did not exist when Sebastian did his 4x4 WR. However, the solve was still retroactively affected by the new rule, bc the incident cause the rule to happen in the first place.

Ekaterina Kaneva in 2019 got a 0.60 2x2 NR. However, she karate chopped the timer stop. Under the regs, it should have been a +2

2019 A6d: The competitor must stop the timer using both hands, placed flat on the sensors with palms down. Penalty: time penalty (+2 seconds).

However, it got no penalty bc the karate chop could not be seen in real time, and the procedure to not use fbf started from this.

Incident: A competitor stopped the timer with a "karate chop", only visible with video analysis | World Cube Association

The World Cube Association governs competitions for mechanical puzzles that are operated by twisting groups of pieces, commonly known as 'twisty puzzles'. The most famous of these puzzles is the Rubik's Cube, invented by professor Rubik from Hungary. A selection of these puzzles are chosen as...
www.worldcubeassociation.org www.worldcubeassociation.org

The no fbf ruling did not exist when Ekaterinia did here solve, and because of that, her solve was actually penalized for sometime (description of the 0.60 vid
) However, the WRC made the new no fbf rule and applied it to her solve, bc the incident caused the rule to happen in the first place.

I now ask how Yiheng's case is different from the cases above.
 
OtaMota said:
Ekaterina Kaneva in 2019 got a 0.60 2x2 NR. However, she karate chopped the timer stop. Under the regs, it should have been a +2

2019 A6d: The competitor must stop the timer using both hands, placed flat on the sensors with palms down. Penalty: time penalty (+2 seconds).

However, it got no penalty bc the karate chop could not be seen in real time, and the procedure to not use fbf started from this.
Click to expand...
That's basically the same as yiheng's 0.78, they both got no penalty as of now, the only difference is ekaterina's solve was briefly +2ed and then they removed the +2, giving her nr
 
precompsubwr said:
That's basically the same as yiheng's 0.78, they both got no penalty as of now, the only difference is ekaterina's solve was briefly +2ed and then they removed the +2, giving her nr
Click to expand...
I am more so trying to convey that the rule that unpenalized Ekaterina did not exist at the time of her solve. Likewise, the new rule that should penalize Yiheng’s 0.78 did not exist at the time of his average. Billibob says that solves should only be subject to rules at the time of the solves, but I have given two examples of the opposite.
 
bldcuber314 said:
To be honest, I don't understand what the Board is. What is the WCA board and what is the WRC?
Click to expand...
Taken from wca website:

The WCA Board is responsible for leading the organization as a whole, and fulfilling any duties not fulfilled by other Teams, Committees, and Councils
The WRC handles all issues which are related to the application, the improvement and the development of the WCA Regulations. They support WCA Delegates on any kind of procedural matters happening at competitions and decide on unresolved and uncovered incidents.
 

World Cube Association

The World Cube Association governs competitions for mechanical puzzles that are operated by twisting groups of pieces, commonly known as 'twisty puzzles'. The most famous of these puzzles is the Rubik's Cube, invented by professor Rubik from Hungary. A selection of these puzzles are chosen as...
forum.worldcubeassociation.org forum.worldcubeassociation.org
Here’s a shorter summary of the leaked email
 
OtaMota said:

The email in audio
Click to expand...
Like most people, no one has the attention span to listen to a guy read an email for 6 minutes, so I'll put a tl dr from curtis chai

Board vetoed wrc unanimous decision and no more appeal is possible and board says that penalizing yihengs wr is “picking and choosing” which solves should be penalized so they decided that the cheated avg should stand
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top