[WR] Yiheng Wang 0.93 2x2 average

[ProStar]

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

Here is the report

Antoine Paterakis expressed my feelings on the situation better than I could ever, so I’d like to link to his post:

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

 

[bldcuber314]

Could anyone summarise the report and whatever Antoine said? I don't have access to them. Thanks!

 

[ProStar]

Could anyone summarise the report and whatever Antoine said? I don't have access to them. Thanks!

Spoiler: Blake Thompson’s Statement on Behalf of the WCA Board

Dear WCA Community,

This message relates to an incident that occurred at Twist & Fries Johor 2024. During Yiheng Wang’s 2x2 Round 2 average, the judge removed the cover without confirming whether the competitor was ready. The Delegates ruled that it was an error by the judge and granted the competitor an extra attempt. Several days after the fact, this extra was not accepted by the WCA Regulations Committee (WRC) and the original time was used.

The WCA Board received two appeals for this incident. After a lengthy deliberation, the Board voted to overturn the WRC ruling and to allow the extra attempt to stand.

The Board primarily considered:

Regulation 11e) … the competitor should appeal verbally or in writing to the judge and WCA Delegate at the time of the incident, before finishing the original attempt, to be eligible for an extra attempt. An appeal does not guarantee the competitor an extra attempt.

The Board consulted with the Delegate and the judge and concluded that the competitor met the requirements of Regulation 11e by verbally appealing to the judge and the Delegate at the time of the incident. Initially, it was thought that the competitor did not appeal for an extra attempt until after the solve was complete. Upon review, it was clarified that the competitor appealed to the judge when the cover was lifted. The judge was unclear on the exact procedure and continued with the inspection calls while looking for a Delegate to communicate the appeal. However, there was not a Delegate in immediate proximity at the exact time of the incident. As such, the appeal to the Delegate was made as soon as practical after the incident.

There are few important points that the Board would like to make in relation to this matter:

1. Competitors are encouraged to make it very clear to the judge they are ready to start the solve. A slight head nod or a whisper is not sufficient and often leads to misunderstandings. Similarly, judges should also ensure that the competitor’s indication that they are ready is clear and unambiguous before lifting the cover.
2. This ruling does not give competitors permission to request an extra after the attempt or after the time of the incident. The incident report from North Star Cubing Challenge 2022 34, gives further explanation. Once a competitor verbally appeals, they are committed to the extra so long as the appeal is communicated at the time of the incident and the Delegate agrees based on 11e+++ 7.
3. Delegates especially should be conscious of Guideline 11e+++, which encourages Delegates to “use stronger discretion when granting an extra attempt after the solve is finished.”

Further information regarding this incident can be found in the following Incident Log entry:
https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/incidents/98 50

Spoiler: Antione Paterakis’ Response

I
have a range of different questions that surge due to this overturning.

Firstly, is the calling for the extra during inspectionconfirmed by video evidence, or is that claim based on trust and good faith through communication with the competitor/the delegate/the judge?

Moving on, it seems there are 2 motions that the board is directly opposing with respect to the decision made by the WRC, and it is not made very clear as to why. Qouting from the original Log entry:

1. The WRC does not consider the Delegates being temporarily unavailable as an extreme circumstance that would result in an extra attempt.

The counter to this is that there was an appeal made to the judge straight away, and that that should suffice.

1. By following through with the solve, the competitor had the opportunity to decide whether or not they wanted an extra attempt based on their result on the original scramble.

THe counter to this is that the extra would have bene granted since the competitor appealed for it, regardless of the result. I think this is a rather unrealistic claim. Here are some qouted from a discussion on Facebook that summarize an opinion I share as well.

Original comment by myself: My gut feeling is still telling me that, had he gotten a solve good enough for WR on scramble 5, the extra would have never been granted.

Reply from Niko Ronkainen: Almost certainly. The judge was already inexperienced and I’m supposed to believe that he’d interrupt the celebrations demanding an extra.

Reply from Jules Desjardin: And if it was granted and was worse
“oh he got robbed of a WR because the judge made a tiny mistake which CLEARLY had no incidence on the solve, look at the time! *** worst WCA decision ever”

I think these are fair points that are made. I think there would have been no intervention whatsoever. Furthermore, I would like to mention a more technical aspect of this situation.
There are 3 bars on the scramble 5 of that group that round, which is what will stand out most to any top 2x2er at first glance. The white face, which of these 3 bars has the easiest one that is convertable to a face, has an extremely obvious 12 move solution. And when I say extremely obvious, it is the most basic face which cancels into the most basic EG2 alg for that case (which the competitor undoubtedly knows). He only needed a 1.11, or 10.81 TPS to get WR. Which, considering the fingertrickability of the solution (it is very good) and the competitors TPS, it was extremely doable.

Of course. without seeing the video I can only speculate, however, I have the feeling that the competitor saw that it was an easy scramble, did that solution, and in the end it did not go his way. If the competitor indeed asked for an extra in inspection, why would they go on with the solve if it wasn’t to try and seek an advantage? The competitor knows the regulations, and knows to stop the attempt straight away when an incident happens, a similar incident can be seen here 4.

Regardless of what I have to say and to add, I am sure that considerations of the board have been made. However, I still have the feeling that the possibility of the competitor trying to take advantage of the situation is not considered enough.

 

[bldcuber314]

Spoiler: Blake Thompson’s Statement on Behalf of the WCA Board

Dear WCA Community,

This message relates to an incident that occurred at Twist & Fries Johor 2024. During Yiheng Wang’s 2x2 Round 2 average, the judge removed the cover without confirming whether the competitor was ready. The Delegates ruled that it was an error by the judge and granted the competitor an extra attempt. Several days after the fact, this extra was not accepted by the WCA Regulations Committee (WRC) and the original time was used.

The WCA Board received two appeals for this incident. After a lengthy deliberation, the Board voted to overturn the WRC ruling and to allow the extra attempt to stand.

The Board primarily considered:

Regulation 11e) … the competitor should appeal verbally or in writing to the judge and WCA Delegate at the time of the incident, before finishing the original attempt, to be eligible for an extra attempt. An appeal does not guarantee the competitor an extra attempt.

The Board consulted with the Delegate and the judge and concluded that the competitor met the requirements of Regulation 11e by verbally appealing to the judge and the Delegate at the time of the incident. Initially, it was thought that the competitor did not appeal for an extra attempt until after the solve was complete. Upon review, it was clarified that the competitor appealed to the judge when the cover was lifted. The judge was unclear on the exact procedure and continued with the inspection calls while looking for a Delegate to communicate the appeal. However, there was not a Delegate in immediate proximity at the exact time of the incident. As such, the appeal to the Delegate was made as soon as practical after the incident.

There are few important points that the Board would like to make in relation to this matter:

1. Competitors are encouraged to make it very clear to the judge they are ready to start the solve. A slight head nod or a whisper is not sufficient and often leads to misunderstandings. Similarly, judges should also ensure that the competitor’s indication that they are ready is clear and unambiguous before lifting the cover.
2. This ruling does not give competitors permission to request an extra after the attempt or after the time of the incident. The incident report from North Star Cubing Challenge 2022 34, gives further explanation. Once a competitor verbally appeals, they are committed to the extra so long as the appeal is communicated at the time of the incident and the Delegate agrees based on 11e+++ 7.
3. Delegates especially should be conscious of Guideline 11e+++, which encourages Delegates to “use stronger discretion when granting an extra attempt after the solve is finished.”

Further information regarding this incident can be found in the following Incident Log entry:
https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/incidents/98 50

Spoiler: Antione Paterakis’ Response

I
have a range of different questions that surge due to this overturning.

Firstly, is the calling for the extra during inspectionconfirmed by video evidence, or is that claim based on trust and good faith through communication with the competitor/the delegate/the judge?

Moving on, it seems there are 2 motions that the board is directly opposing with respect to the decision made by the WRC, and it is not made very clear as to why. Qouting from the original Log entry:

1. The WRC does not consider the Delegates being temporarily unavailable as an extreme circumstance that would result in an extra attempt.

The counter to this is that there was an appeal made to the judge straight away, and that that should suffice.

1. By following through with the solve, the competitor had the opportunity to decide whether or not they wanted an extra attempt based on their result on the original scramble.

THe counter to this is that the extra would have bene granted since the competitor appealed for it, regardless of the result. I think this is a rather unrealistic claim. Here are some qouted from a discussion on Facebook that summarize an opinion I share as well.

Original comment by myself: My gut feeling is still telling me that, had he gotten a solve good enough for WR on scramble 5, the extra would have never been granted.

Reply from Niko Ronkainen: Almost certainly. The judge was already inexperienced and I’m supposed to believe that he’d interrupt the celebrations demanding an extra.

Reply from Jules Desjardin: And if it was granted and was worse
“oh he got robbed of a WR because the judge made a tiny mistake which CLEARLY had no incidence on the solve, look at the time! *** worst WCA decision ever”

I think these are fair points that are made. I think there would have been no intervention whatsoever. Furthermore, I would like to mention a more technical aspect of this situation.
There are 3 bars on the scramble 5 of that group that round, which is what will stand out most to any top 2x2er at first glance. The white face, which of these 3 bars has the easiest one that is convertable to a face, has an extremely obvious 12 move solution. And when I say extremely obvious, it is the most basic face which cancels into the most basic EG2 alg for that case (which the competitor undoubtedly knows). He only needed a 1.11, or 10.81 TPS to get WR. Which, considering the fingertrickability of the solution (it is very good) and the competitors TPS, it was extremely doable.

Of course. without seeing the video I can only speculate, however, I have the feeling that the competitor saw that it was an easy scramble, did that solution, and in the end it did not go his way. If the competitor indeed asked for an extra in inspection, why would they go on with the solve if it wasn’t to try and seek an advantage? The competitor knows the regulations, and knows to stop the attempt straight away when an incident happens, a similar incident can be seen here 4.

Regardless of what I have to say and to add, I am sure that considerations of the board have been made. However, I still have the feeling that the possibility of the competitor trying to take advantage of the situation is not considered enough.

Interesting, but I still feel like the WR should have been disqualified and that it had to be allowed because the regulations technically allowed it(and they should be changed or made more specific). Yiheng barely appealed and if he truly wanted an extra before starting the solve(which he probably didn't, as it was a good scramble) he could have easily stopped the attempt and called for an extra. The judge not doing this did not at all prevent him from receiving the extra, and purely gave him 2 shots at WR.

 

[FineGeoduck2211]

It’s back
View attachment 30597

wait what?!?!? i thought they canceled it. Can some explain this pls? Thanks in advance.

 

[Tabe]

wait what?!?!? i thought they canceled it. Can some explain this pls? Thanks in advance.

It's literally all here in this thread. Read the top few replies above yours.