# Twisted Corner in Competition?



## rubikmaster (Jul 1, 2013)

I was just wondering about this the other day, what if somebody got a corner twist in competition? Would the solve be accepted? I mean everybody knows that one single corner can not be twisted no matter what moves you make but it can twist in it's place accidentally when a cube is a bit loose or overlubed or if you're trying to turn too fast and you can't make accurate moves. So even though the solver would have performed the exact same moves in both cases (corner twist or no corner twist) the solve still wouldn't be in a solved position. Would they have to twist that corner before stopping the timer? Is that even allowed? Well if it happens during PLL they stop the timer immediatly after finishing the PLL algorithm so they wouldn't even notice the corner twist while solving.

Corner twists happen very rarely in my case but they have happened a few times on my Dayan Guhong and even on my F-II and if they happen before OLL or PLL I have a hard time recognizing the OLL/PLL case so it's actually faster IMO to just twist the corner back with your hand and continue with the solve and that's what most people would probably do. But okay, enough with the jibber-jabber, my question is what if a corner twist happens while solving the PLL stage and the solver stops the timer while the cube ends up with one twisted corner? My guess is that it would be a DNF because it would violate the WCA (I'm guessing this rule must exist) rule that the cube has to be in a solved position before the solver stops the timer. Now some of you may think this is stupid but if that's the case I think solves like that should be accepted because this corner twist does not give the solver any advantage in the solve and it most likely makes his time even slower because of the cube locking up which resulted in a corner twist. So I would like you guys to answer my question and tell me what's your take on this. 

edit: I just realised this, if the corner twist happens before the OLL stage the solver could perform a different, potentialy faster OLL algorithm resulting in an another corner being twisted which may or may not give him a slight advantage in the solve.


----------



## JasonK (Jul 1, 2013)

rubikmaster said:


> I was just wondering about this the other day, what if somebody got a corner twist in competition? Would the solve be accepted? I mean everybody knows that one single corner can not be twisted no matter what moves you make but it can twist in it's place accidentally when a cube is a bit loose or overlubed or if you're trying to turn too fast and you can't make accurate moves. So even though the solver would have performed the exact same moves in both cases (corner twist or no corner twist) the solve still wouldn't be in a solved position. Would they have to twist that corner before stopping the timer? Is that even allowed? Well if it happens during PLL they stop the timer immediatly after finishing the PLL algorithm so they wouldn't even notice the corner twist while solving. Corner twists happen very rarely in my case but they have happened a few times on my Dayan Guhong and even on my F-II and if they happen before OLL or PLL I have a hard time recognizing the OLL/PLL case so it's actually faster IMO to just twist the corner back with your hand and continue with the solve and that's what most people would probably do. But okay, enough with the jibber-jabber, my question is what if a corner twist happens while solving the PLL stage and the solver stops the timer while the cube ends up with one twisted corner? My guess is that it would be a DNF because it would violate the WCA (I'm guessing this rule must exist) rule that the cube has to be in a solved position before the solver stops the timer. Now some of you may think this is stupid but if that is the case I think solves like that should be accepted because this corner twist does not give the solver any advantage in the solve and it most likely makes his time even slower because of the cube locking up which resulted in a corner twist. So I would like you guys to answer my question and tell me what's your take on this.



I didn't read the entire wall of text, but I can tell you that if you stop the timer with a corner twisted, it'll be a DNF.


----------



## Jakube (Jul 1, 2013)

You are allowed to twist a single corner: Regulation: 5b3c.


----------



## rubikmaster (Jul 1, 2013)

JasonK said:


> I didn't read the entire wall of text, but I can tell you that if you stop the timer with a corner twisted, it'll be a DNF.





Jakube said:


> You are allowed to twist a single corner: Regulation: 5b3c.




Well, I guess this pretty much ends the discussion. So if someone ends up with a twisted corner it's a DNF and in order for it to be a valid solve the solver needs to twist the corner back before stopping the timer. That's pretty much what I thought, this was a useless thread anyway, ok well tnx for answering my question guys and sorry again for writing the "wall of text".


----------



## ~Adam~ (Jul 1, 2013)

That's a Alot of words.
I think the corner has to be twisted at the end of the solve.
If you want to change it before the end you are supposed to pop an edge out and then twist the corner.
Not sure why I think that. Probably came up at a comp.


----------



## YddEd (Jul 1, 2013)

cube-o-holic said:


> That's a Alot of words.
> I think the corner has to be twisted at the end of the solve.
> *If you want to change it before the end you are supposed to pop an edge out and then twist the corner.*
> Not sure why I think that. Probably came up at a comp.


Or you could just twist it.


----------



## ~Adam~ (Jul 1, 2013)

YddEd said:


> Or you could just twist it.



You could, but it would be a DNF.


----------



## MaeLSTRoM (Jul 1, 2013)

cube-o-holic said:


> You could, but it would be a DNF.



No it wouldn't
At least, not with this years Regulations.
Last year you would have had to pop the corner out to fix it.


----------



## YddEd (Jul 1, 2013)

cube-o-holic said:


> You could, but it would be a DNF.


I'm pretty sure you can without the solve being a DNF.
Yeah you can. 
5b3c) If the puzzle is unsolvable, and can be made solvable by rotating a single corner piece, the competitor may correct the corner piece by twisting it in place without disassembling the puzzle.


----------



## ~Adam~ (Jul 1, 2013)

MaeLSTRoM said:


> No it wouldn't
> At least, not with this years Regulations.
> Last year you would have had to pop the corner out to fix it.



Thanks for the correction.

Question. What's to stop someone who has something like superman with all the pieces correctly permuted from just twisting the 2 corners?


----------



## ben1996123 (Jul 1, 2013)

cube-o-holic said:


> Thanks for the correction.
> 
> Question. What's to stop someone who has something like superman with all the pieces correctly permuted from just twisting the 2 corners?



the judge


----------



## ~Adam~ (Jul 1, 2013)

Oh good. The 10 year olds who are cubing whilst 'judging' typically notice stuff like that.

It just makes more sense to me to leave the rules as twist at the end of the solve.


----------



## rubikmaster (Jul 1, 2013)

ben1996123 said:


> cube-o-holic said:
> 
> 
> > Question. What's to stop someone who has something like superman with all the pieces correctly permuted from just twisting the 2 corners?
> ...



Plus, the WCA rule clearly states you can only twist ONE corner piece.


----------



## ~Adam~ (Jul 1, 2013)

If that's the case then what corners are you allowed to twist? Only the one which twisted accidentally? How are you supposed to know which one twisted? DNF if you don't know? Ambiguous IMO. Twist at the end removes that issue.


----------



## ben1996123 (Jul 1, 2013)

cube-o-holic said:


> If that's the case then what corners are you allowed to twist? Only the one which twisted accidentally? How are you supposed to know which one twisted? DNF if you don't know? Ambiguous IMO. Twist at the end removes that issue.



yeah, but if you get a corner twist during cross or something and your LL is just 1 twisted corner (a different one) then you could just twist that one and get an LL skip and your time will be faster than what you would have gotten if no corners twisted


----------



## ~Adam~ (Jul 1, 2013)

That's kinda my point. You could of course intentionally twist a corner early in the solve giving yourself a choice of OLLs for example.


----------



## uvafan (Jul 1, 2013)

You can only twist a corner (purposely) to make the cube solvable. Therefore you can't twist two corners if you get superman because you're making it unsolvable then solvable again.


----------



## rubikmaster (Jul 1, 2013)

cube-o-holic said:


> That's kinda my point. You could of course intentionally twist a corner early in the solve giving yourself a choice of OLLs for example.



This is exactly what I was saying at the end of my OP. anyway, this pretty much ends the discussion, the WCA rule is very clear and it should not be changed.


----------



## ~Adam~ (Jul 1, 2013)

Sorry. I got about 2/3 through the opening post.


----------



## Vincents (Jul 1, 2013)

Please note that 5b3c falls under 5b: " If a puzzle defect occurs during an attempt, the competitor may choose to either repair the defect and continue the attempt, or to stop the attempt."

You can only twist a corner to fix your issue *if* you have suffered a puzzle defect.

And yes, you can only twist one.


----------



## CarlBrannen (Jul 1, 2013)

Seems to me that if you allow competitors to twist "one corner", what you're really doing is allowing them to twist two, one "accidentally", and one deliberately, and not necessarily the same one. Could be room for some abuse but it would take a pretty sharp dealer to pull it off.


----------



## Vincents (Jul 1, 2013)

CarlBrannen said:


> Seems to me that if you allow competitors to twist "one corner", what you're really doing is allowing them to twist two, one "accidentally", and one deliberately, and not necessarily the same one. Could be room for some abuse but it would take a pretty sharp dealer to pull it off.



Oh believe me, we discussed this one for weeks. Trying to "accidentally" twist a corner is going to be frowned upon, and I'll leave it at that.


----------



## cubernya (Jul 1, 2013)

Not to mention it's pretty hard to twist a corner by turning, especially during a solve (plus you have to realise it will give you an advantage)


----------



## ben1996123 (Jul 1, 2013)

theZcuber said:


> Not to mention it's pretty hard to twist a corner by turning



not with a fangshi


----------



## jayefbe (Jul 1, 2013)

I've twisted corners a couple times in competition, if I remember correctly. It's not that difficult, depending on the cube. 

While I agree with those saying it could theoretically be used to someone's advantage, there's the risk that a corner twist still wouldn't lead to a favorable case. Whenever it happens to me, I lose a good second from figuring out how to twist it to make it solvable, and physically twisting the corner. I would be surprised if anyone found a way to regularly use it to their advantage.


----------



## ~Adam~ (Jul 3, 2013)

I guess we should just wait until someone has a LL of a single corner twist in comp to break a NR or something similar. I'm sure everyone would be OK with it if that happened.


----------



## Goosly (Jul 3, 2013)

^ Yeah, cos the change of accidentally twisting a corner and then getting a LL with one corner twist is extremely high, so it will surely happen on a NR solve. I bet it happens at worlds.


----------



## BillyRain (Jul 3, 2013)

ben1996123 said:


> not with a fangshi



THIS

With my current tension, I get one like ever 10 solves.... I love the tension but it's an arse pain for corner twists


----------



## aashritspidey (Jun 25, 2014)

I Feel that there should be a +2 for One corner twist instead of a DNF. 
Why i support this is because these next Gen cubes corner twist a LOT and sometimes, The scrambler may corner twist a puzzle but the competitor has to pay the price


----------



## Future Cuber (Jun 25, 2014)

aashritspidey said:


> I Feel that there should be a +2 for One corner twist instead of a DNF.
> Why i support this is because these next Gen cubes corner twist a LOT and sometimes, The scrambler may corner twist a puzzle but the competitor has to pay the price



I DO agree with you said
and besides DNF is when the cube is at the state where 2 or more moves of solving the cube and you stopped the timer (i think)
and the corner twist CANNOT be solved with any number of moves or unless you twist another corner


----------



## ottozing (Jun 25, 2014)

aashritspidey said:


> I Feel that there should be a +2 for One corner twist instead of a DNF.
> Why i support this is because these next Gen cubes corner twist a LOT and sometimes, The scrambler may corner twist a puzzle but the competitor has to pay the price



Consider this. A competitor does a BLD solve and finishes with a single twisted corner. If a corner twist is now a +2, there are now 8 states the puzzle can be in to be considered solved for 3x3, 4x4, and 5x5. I don't think this is very fair since a competitor could still solve the puzzle 'incorrectly' and still end up with a time + a penalty instead of a DNF. I wasn't sure if you meant this would be +2 for all events or just sighted ones, but you didn't specify so I felt this was worth bringing up anyway.


----------



## Deleted member 19792 (Jun 25, 2014)

aashritspidey said:


> I Feel that there should be a +2 for One corner twist instead of a DNF.
> Why i support this is because these next Gen cubes corner twist a LOT and sometimes, The scrambler may corner twist a puzzle but the competitor has to pay the price



Is the scrambler messing with the competitor? Scramblers have a visual guide to verify that the scramble is correct.


----------



## goodatthis (Jun 25, 2014)

aashritspidey said:


> I Feel that there should be a +2 for One corner twist instead of a DNF.
> Why i support this is because these next Gen cubes corner twist a LOT and sometimes, The scrambler may corner twist a puzzle but the competitor has to pay the price



There could be too many ways to abuse this rule. Let's say a competitor gets a pure corner twist OLL. He "accidentally" twists one corner, the judge isn't paying attention, and the puzzle is considered solved, even though he had a good amount of moves left to do. So while I think it's good in theory, there are ways to cheat using this rule.


----------



## kcl (Jun 25, 2014)

strakerak said:


> Is the scrambler messing with the competitor? Scramblers have a visual guide to verify that the scramble is correct.



As shown at some decent Michigan comps it's clear not everybody pays attention to it.


----------



## kinch2002 (Jun 25, 2014)

Future Cuber said:


> DNF is when the cube is at the state where 2 or more moves of solving the cube and you stopped the timer (i think)
> and the corner twist CANNOT be solved with any number of moves or unless you twist another corner


So I can start the timer, twist a corner, and then stop the timer. The cube cannot be solved with any number of moves therefore is not DNF? I'm not convinced by your definition


----------



## Antonie faz fan (Jun 25, 2014)

kclejeune said:


> As shown at some decent Michigan comps it's clear not everybody pays attention to it.



Kinda this ...
I don't want to sound like I don't check each side since I do, but I am sure that there are some people out there who look at the top and front and see it is correct and put the cube in the box....


----------



## 10461394944000 (Jun 25, 2014)

Antonie faz fan said:


> I am sure that there are some people out there who look at the top and front and see it is correct and put the cube in the box....



yes i do this but you can feel when corner twists happen and check the corners if you think a corner twisted somewhere


----------



## Dene (Jun 25, 2014)

aashritspidey said:


> Why i support this is because these next Gen cubes corner twist a LOT



I don't know why so many people have problems with corner twists. I always move onto the latest popular cubes, and I very very rarely corner twist. I think people should either:
1) Tighten their cubes a tiny bit; or
2) Learn to turn properly; or
3) Just pay attention and make sure the puzzle is solved when you stop the timer.


----------



## kcl (Jun 25, 2014)

*Problem with Corner Twists*



Dene said:


> I don't know why so many people have problems with corner twists. I always move onto the latest popular cubes, and I very very rarely corner twist. I think people should either:
> 1) Tighten their cubes a tiny bit; or
> 2) Learn to turn properly; or
> 3) Just pay attention and make sure the puzzle is solved when you stop the timer.



This just means you turn slow. 

1. Tightening a cube generally makes performance significantly worse. 
2. We turn properly, but at high TPS, corner twists are bound to happen once in a while.
3. When you are trying to gogo after PLL, you pretty much just AUF and then slam the timer. If you twist a corner during AUF or PLL there isn't much you can do about it if you're already slamming your hands down.


----------



## Dane man (Jun 25, 2014)

Cutting from other thread.



goodatthis said:


> There could be too many ways to abuse this rule. Let's say a competitor gets a pure corner twist OLL. He "accidentally" twists one corner, the judge isn't paying attention, and the puzzle is considered solved, even though he had a good amount of moves left to do. So while I think it's good in theory, there are ways to cheat using this rule.


You will never get a corner twist OLL with only one corner twisted. If you do because of some weird non-3x3 parity, and do the corner twist, then you'll solve the cube to an impossible state where there are two pieces switched. And say you just turn one corner with a normal OLL in order to skip OLL and end up with a twisted corner. If you perform a corner twist in a supposed attempt to fix the cube, and then still end up with a twisted corner, then this case can be dismissed as DNF. Intentional corner twists are very visible. I also find it likely that you'll end up with an impossible PLL in doing this, thus having to do an OLL first anyway.



ottozing said:


> Consider this. A competitor does a BLD solve and finishes with a single twisted corner. If a corner twist is now a +2, there are now 8 states the puzzle can be in to be considered solved for 3x3, 4x4, and 5x5. I don't think this is very fair since a competitor could still solve the puzzle 'incorrectly' and still end up with a time + a penalty instead of a DNF. I wasn't sure if you meant this would be +2 for all events or just sighted ones, but you didn't specify so I felt this was worth bringing up anyway.


A corner twist is neither the cuber's fault, nor detectable in BLD, nor a possible state. If a corner twist occurs, it is obviously an accident. In normal non-BLD solving, cubers are allowed to twist the corners back before stopping the timer, and they get a valid solve. And because twisting the corner back only take about 0.5 sec, it actually shouldn't have a penalty of any kind (at most +2, if you wanna be uptight about it), especially for BLD solvers. Even when solving the cube correctly, a corner twist can occur. The cuber did nothing wrong.

Going on that line of thinking, if a corner twist is found in normal solving, it shouldn't be counted against the cuber as a DNF. Think about this, one cuber sees the twisted corner, twists it back, and gets a valid solve, while another cuber gets a corner twist on a corner he doesn't see and suddenly he gets DNF because the corner-twist (not his fault) happened somewhere else.

Corner twists are a fact of cubing life, and they are also an impossible state that is obviously an accident, not a mistake (or it's the scrambler's fault). It doesn't and shouldn't count as solving "wrong". I think that regulation 5b5d should be changed to read "If _two_ or more parts with more than one coloured face is affected, the puzzle is considered unsolved (DNF)" instead of "one or more parts".


----------



## Dene (Jun 25, 2014)

kclejeune said:


> This just means you turn slow.
> 
> 1. Tightening a cube generally makes performance significantly worse.
> 2. We turn properly, but at high TPS, corner twists are bound to happen once in a while.
> 3. When you are trying to gogo after PLL, you pretty much just AUF and then slam the timer. If you twist a corner during AUF or PLL there isn't much you can do about it if you're already slamming your hands down.



I may not be the fastest person around, but I turn fast from time to time.
1) Just so you know, faz gets comparable times on my 3x3.
2) If you turn properly a corner twist is impossible, so don't blatantly lie to me.
3) That's the risk you take if you choose not to be careful with a loose cube. I don't see how you can blame this on anyone but yourself.


----------



## kcl (Jun 25, 2014)

Dene said:


> I may not be the fastest person around, but I turn fast from time to time.
> 1) Just so you know, faz gets comparable times on my 3x3.
> 2) If you turn properly a corner twist is impossible, so don't blatantly lie to me.
> 3) That's the risk you take if you choose not to be careful with a loose cube. I don't see how you can blame this on anyone but yourself.



1. Means nothing to me? He's a really accurate turner, I'm not surprised. 
2. I'm not lying in the slightest. When you're attempting to turn your fastest you are generally inaccurate, thus why cubes cut corners. If we press hard on a corner trying to turn it fast, they will twist sometimes. It's just how cubes work. 
3. Granted, but you can make the same argument towards a +2 for a layer misalignment. Why would a corner twist not fall into this category? A standard +2 is the solvers fault for being too hasty, a corner twist is the same concept.


----------



## porkynator (Jun 25, 2014)

This is non sense.
A corner twist is just like a pop.
If during a blind solve I am not sure if I had two corners left to twist or if I had solved everything I could just twist one of the two corners and get a +2 instead of a possible DNF.


----------



## Dene (Jun 25, 2014)

kclejeune said:


> 2. I'm not lying in the slightest. When you're attempting to turn your fastest you are generally inaccurate, thus why cubes cut corners. If we press hard on a corner trying to turn it fast, they will twist sometimes. It's just how cubes work.
> 3. Granted, but you can make the same argument towards a +2 for a layer misalignment. Why would a corner twist not fall into this category? A standard +2 is the solvers fault for being too hasty, a corner twist is the same concept.



2) That's not what you said before
3) I agree entirely; layer misalignment should be a DNF.


----------



## Dane man (Jun 25, 2014)

porkynator said:


> This is non sense.
> A corner twist is just like a pop.
> If during a blind solve I am not sure if I had two corners left to twist or if I had solved everything I could just twist one of the two corners and get a +2 instead of a possible DNF.



Actually, that would fall under the case that I stated before. If a cuber performs a corner twist in a supposed attempt to correct an incorrectly twisted corner, and the cube still ends up with a twisted corner, then that should be DNF. But if the cuber only solves it normally, and gets a twisted corner in the end, then that should count as solved (with a possible +2).


----------



## porkynator (Jun 25, 2014)

Dane man said:


> Actually, that would fall under the case that I stated before. If a cuber performs a corner twist in a supposed attempt to correct an incorrectly twisted corner, and the cube still ends up with a twisted corner, then that should be DNF. But if the cuber only solves it normally, and gets a twisted corner in the end, then that should count as solved (with a possible +2).


So if one of those two corners accidentaly twists during the solve and I forget I had to twist them I get a +2 instead of a DNF?


----------



## Dane man (Jun 25, 2014)

porkynator said:


> So if one of those two corners accidentaly twists during the solve and I forget I had to twist them I get a +2 instead of a DNF?


That would be a very unlikely combo (for one corner to twist itself to end up correct while the other ends up wrong), and a very lucky one, but yes you would.


----------



## Villyer (Jun 25, 2014)

Dane man said:


> You will never get a corner twist OLL with only one corner twisted. If you do because of some weird non-3x3 parity, and do the corner twist, then you'll solve the cube to an impossible state where there are two pieces switched. And say you just turn one corner with a normal OLL in order to skip OLL and end up with a twisted corner. If you perform a corner twist in a supposed attempt to fix the cube, and then still end up with a twisted corner, then this case can be dismissed as DNF. Intentional corner twists are very visible. I also find it likely that you'll end up with an impossible PLL in doing this, thus having to do an OLL first anyway.



I believe the original example was referring to a person who, after f2l, is in a case where all that has to be done is a pure double corner twist (like a U-OLL correctly permuted). The solver could just twist one corner intentionally instead of solving the last layer as normal and take +2 for a lower final time.


----------



## Dane man (Jun 25, 2014)

Villyer said:


> I believe the original example was referring to a person who, after f2l, is in a case where all that has to be done is a pure double corner twist (like a U-OLL correctly permuted). The solver could just twist one corner intentionally instead of solving the last layer as normal and take +2 for a lower final time.


That what I was talking about as well. That's why I suggest that if a cuber performs a corner twist in a supposed attempt to fix the cube, and then still ends up with a twisted corner, then this case should be dismissed as DNF (not +2). The same as I said to porkynator.


----------



## Villyer (Jun 25, 2014)

Dane man said:


> That what I was talking about as well. That's why I suggest that if a cuber performs a corner twist in a supposed attempt to fix the cube, and then still ends up with a twisted corner, then this case should be dismissed as DNF (not +2). The same as I said to porkynator.



What do you think about an unnoticed accidental corner twist during a PLL, where the competitor stops the clock with a corner twisted?


----------



## Future Cuber (Jun 26, 2014)

kinch2002 said:


> So I can start the timer, twist a corner, and then stop the timer. The cube cannot be solved with any number of moves therefore is not DNF? I'm not convinced by your definition



Comming to think of it you're actually right........and why not say that the cube has to be at a considerably solved state


----------



## Tim Major (Jun 26, 2014)

Dene said:


> I don't know why so many people have problems with corner twists. I always move onto the latest popular cubes, and I very very rarely corner twist. I think people should;
> 2) Learn to turn properly





kclejeune said:


> 2. We turn properly, but at high TPS, corner twists are bound to happen once in a while.





Dene said:


> 1) Just so you know, faz gets comparable times on my 3x3.





kclejeune said:


> 1. Means nothing to me? He's a really accurate turner, I'm not surprised.



Case closed.

Anyway I agree with Dene, Jay and Ben. Turn properly, tension your cube properly. If we added this regulation there would be new solved states due to options in untwisting it. And when I occasionally get corner twists scrambling (usually on Richie Lim's Megaminx...) I instantly know, as there's a small click and catch. Why do you think the corner twists? Because it get's caught on another piece due to inaccurate turning. The only way it'd be possible to not feel a corner twist, is if your cube is SO loose that it happens easily.


----------



## Dane man (Jun 26, 2014)

Tim Major said:


> Anyway I agree with Dene, Jay and Ben. Turn properly, tension your cube properly. If we added this regulation there would be new solved states due to options in untwisting it. And when I occasionally get corner twists scrambling (usually on Richie Lim's Megaminx...) I instantly know, as there's a small click and catch. Why do you think the corner twists? Because it get's caught on another piece due to inaccurate turning. The only way it'd be possible to not feel a corner twist, is if your cube is SO loose that it happens easily.


Some people like their cubes loose. Some people perform better with loose cubes. There is no such thing as turning "properly" or tensioning "properly". It's personal preference. And if personal preference makes corner twists possible, then that shouldn't be held against them when it happens. Have them redo the solve, or give +2, or whatever, but DNF is unfair and unacceptable to hold against a cuber simply because they like to cube with loose cubes, or they turn a certain way.



Villyer said:


> What do you think about an unnoticed accidental corner twist during a PLL, where the competitor stops the clock with a corner twisted?


It shouldn't be DNF. It's not the cuber's fault, and it's obviously and accident (because it's in an impossible state).


----------



## guysensei1 (Jun 26, 2014)

Dane man said:


> It shouldn't be DNF. It's not the cuber's fault, and it's obviously and accident.


What's obvious to you may not be obvious to others...

If not I could just say it was an accident that I didn't do a U to AUF.


----------



## Dane man (Jun 26, 2014)

guysensei1 said:


> What's obvious to you may not be obvious to others...
> 
> If not I could just say it was an accident that I didn't do a U to AUF.


No you couldn't. If there is one corner twisted on a cube, then the cube is in an impossible state. Anything you do normally will affect two or more pieces, not simply one. If only one piece is affected, then it's in an impossible state, ergo an accident.

There is a difference between a mistake and an accident (in this context). A mistake is the fault of someone (the cuber), an accident isn't.


----------



## Dene (Jun 26, 2014)

Dane man said:


> but DNF is unfair and unacceptable to hold against a cuber simply because they like to cube with loose cubes, or they turn a certain way.



"It's unfair and unacceptable to give a penalty in football simply because I like to defend with my arms flailing out all over the place. It's not my fault that I like to defend this way and the ball hits my arm".


My point? We have to set parameters somewhere.


----------



## Dane man (Jun 26, 2014)

Dene said:


> "It's unfair and unacceptable to give a penalty in football simply because I like to defend with my arms flailing out all over the place. It's not my fault that I like to defend this way and the ball hits my arm".
> My point? We have to set parameters somewhere.


I'm not saying that people shouldn't get penalized for "liking to leave the cube unsolved by one move". I'm saying that they shouldn't have a solve completely dumped simply because something natural and common occurred as a side effect of their cube preferences. I understand that there needs to be a line somewhere, and that line needs to be somewhere reasonable. Not too closed (DNF a twisted corner or a 45 degree turned side), and not too open (no penalty for a cube that needs one or more moves left to be solved). 

There is a difference between stylistic choice, and intentional disregard of the spirit of the sport. Turn style and cube tension is stylistic choice.


----------



## pewpewrawr (Jun 26, 2014)

It's not a sport it's a freaking puzzle, if it's not solved then you *D*id *N*ot *F*inish it. It's your fault if you can't control your cube, it doesn't matter what your "stylistic choice" is lol.


----------



## goodatthis (Jun 26, 2014)

Dane man said:


> Cutting from other thread.
> 
> 
> You will never get a corner twist OLL with only one corner twisted. If you do because of some weird non-3x3 parity, and do the corner twist, then you'll solve the cube to an impossible state where there are two pieces switched. And say you just turn one corner with a normal OLL in order to skip OLL and end up with a twisted corner. If you perform a corner twist in a supposed attempt to fix the cube, and then still end up with a twisted corner, then this case can be dismissed as DNF. Intentional corner twists are very visible. I also find it likely that you'll end up with an impossible PLL in doing this, thus having to do an OLL first anyway.



What? Do you know anything about cube mechanics? 




> You will never get a corner twist OLL with only one corner twisted. If you do because of some weird non-3x3 parity


Obviously you will never get a single corner twist OLL, but you can most definitely get 2. And there is no sort of OLL parity on any cubic WCA puzzle that has to do with corners.



> then you'll solve the cube to an impossible state where there are two pieces switched


Did you really just say that twisting a corner switches two pieces? Heres what I want you to do. Twist 2 corners in your cube in opposite directions (on a solved cube). Try solving it. It is solvable. Now do it again on a solved cube, then fix one corner. It's unsolvable. But the corner is permuted correctly. Two pieces are not switched. Any sort of OLL parity is *completely independent* of PLL parity. Please learn a bit about cube theory before you try to make ridiculous claims like that.



> Intentional corner twists are very visible.



Yes, but there are also very clueless judges out there. Like those 11 year olds who want to judge really fast people.



> I also find it likely that you'll end up with an impossible PLL in doing this, thus having to do an OLL first anyway.



You might find it likely, but the entire fundamental laws of the cube don't. And why would you have to do an OLL first? That makes zero sense. OLL and PLL are two completely different, independent things. You can have an OLL where every edge and corner is permuted correctly, yet just flipped or twisted in its place, being misoriented.



> That would be a very unlikely combo (for one corner to twist itself to end up correct while the other ends up wrong), and a very lucky one, but yes you would.



Well world records (or national and contintental records) are unlikely occurrences, but they still happen. And it seems like blindsolving world records have a history of cheating behind them, too.


Anyway, please take a look at this page, it might help you. http://www.ryanheise.com/cube/cube_laws.html


----------



## Kit Clement (Jun 26, 2014)

Over the years, the regulations have gotten harder and harder on competitors in terms of the stability of cubes. As late as 2006, extra attempts were awarded in some case for any puzzle defect. Since then, it has become the competitor's responsibility to deal with puzzle defects. Handling pops was especially important in 3x3 until 2011 or so when the Dayan cubes were released and started using torpedos to prevent pops. Now with the way cubes are made, corner twisting is the major puzzle defect. 

As always, it's the competitor's responsibility to prevent puzzle defects, whether that means practicing your style of turning to prevent corner twists, or tightening the cube to make corner twisting less prevalent. If competitors had to manage their older equipment to prevent popping, competitors today should have to mange their equipment to prevent corner twisting.

Getting corner twists as a result of scrambling is a whole separate issue, however, and I hope that in the future, scramble sheets will highlight certain stickers to have scramblers check both that the scramble is correct and that no corners are twisted.


----------



## Dane man (Jun 26, 2014)

Kit Clement said:


> Over the years, the regulations have gotten harder and harder on competitors in terms of the stability of cubes. ... If competitors had to manage their older equipment to prevent popping, competitors today should have to manage their equipment to prevent corner twisting.


Understood. This makes sense, but the difference between a pop and a corner twist is that pops are now less likely if not completely eliminated with the new hardware, and yet corner twists remain a real possibility for anyone with any turning style. Another difference is that with popping, there is no real way to know whether the cuber had been solving correctly or not, and with a corner twist, you can know because everything else will be solved. I understand the common sentiment here that it's the cuber's fault if a corner twist occurs, but that simply isn't always true. Just my two cents.



goodatthis said:


> What? Do you know anything about cube mechanics?


Please try to understand what I am saying before attacking it. The words 'switched', 'twisted', rotated', etc sometimes are used interchangeably by me. I also paraphrase my own thoughts for succinctness sometimes. Allow me to clarify what I meant to say._ If you have an already twisted corner, and you twist another, there will be two twisted corners. And if you twist it in the wrong direction, you'll have an impossible state._ Let's also say you have an OLL with all the pieces correctly permuted, and only two corners that are twisted. If you twist one, then stop the timer, you would get DNF because you twisted a corner and still had a twisted corner left. That's all.



goodatthis said:


> Yes, but there are also very clueless judges out there.


While true, it doesn't dismiss my statement.



goodatthis said:


> You can have an OLL where every edge and corner is permuted correctly, yet just flipped or twisted in its place, being misoriented.


Also true, but have you tried doing PLL before OLL? How often do you start with all the pieces in a permutation that can be solved using only 21 PLL algs?

And please, calm down, this isn't something to get riled up over. I'm sorry if I'm coming across abrasively, I don't intend to.


----------



## goodatthis (Jun 26, 2014)

Dane man said:


> How often do you start with all the pieces in a permutation that can be solved using only 21 PLL algs?



From any given last layer position, you can always permute all the pieces with only 21 algs. So, 100% of the time.

Again, orientation and permutation are two entirely independent things.

Also, I'm sorry if I came across abrasively as well, I just have a low tolerance for certain things.


----------



## Dene (Jun 26, 2014)

Dane man said:


> There is a difference between stylistic choice, and intentional disregard of the spirit of the sport. Turn style and cube tension is stylistic choice.



And there is a difference between stopping the timer with a solved puzzle, and stopping the timer with an unsolved puzzle. The purpose of what we do is pretty clear; the puzzle should be solved.



Dane man said:


> I understand the common sentiment here that it's the cuber's fault if a corner twist occurs, but that simply isn't always true.



It simply always is (assuming the corner twisted accidentally during the solving process, not scrambling (or deliberately)). Unless you can demonstrate that it is physically possible for an inanimate object to manipulate itself.


----------



## kcl (Jun 26, 2014)

Dene said:


> And there is a difference between stopping the timer with a solved puzzle, and stopping the timer with an unsolved puzzle. The purpose of what we do is pretty clear; the puzzle should be solved.
> 
> 
> 
> It simply always is (assuming the corner twisted accidentally during the solving process, not scrambling (or deliberately)). Unless you can demonstrate that it is physically possible for an inanimate object to manipulate itself.



You're a delegate, so I have a question now. If I do a solve and I know I didn't twist a corner, but I get a twist at the end, can I use video evidence to back that up? Like if you can see the corner does not match the scramble sheet during inspection, would that be worthy of a resolve?


----------



## Villyer (Jun 26, 2014)

Kit Clement said:


> Over the years, the regulations have gotten harder and harder on competitors in terms of the stability of cubes. As late as 2006, extra attempts were awarded in some case for any puzzle defect. Since then, it has become the competitor's responsibility to deal with puzzle defects. Handling pops was especially important in 3x3 until 2011 or so when the Dayan cubes were released and started using torpedos to prevent pops. Now with the way cubes are made, corner twisting is the major puzzle defect.
> 
> As always, it's the competitor's responsibility to prevent puzzle defects, whether that means practicing your style of turning to prevent corner twists, or tightening the cube to make corner twisting less prevalent. If competitors had to manage their older equipment to prevent popping, competitors today should have to mange their equipment to prevent corner twisting.
> 
> Getting corner twists as a result of scrambling is a whole separate issue, however, and I hope that in the future, scramble sheets will highlight certain stickers to have scramblers check both that the scramble is correct and that no corners are twisted.



I feel like this raises really good points. When pops were common, the rule was (and still is) if there is a popped piece at the end of the solve, it is a DNF (to an extent, I understand there are cases where if the piece is only able to be put back in one way and then it is considered solved). The responsibility was on the cuber before, and it should still be now.




Dane man said:


> Understood. This makes sense, but the difference between a pop and a corner twist is that pops are now less likely if not completely eliminated with the new hardware, and yet corner twists remain a real possibility for anyone with any turning style. Another difference is that with popping, there is no real way to know whether the cuber had been solving correctly or not, and with a corner twist, you can know because everything else will be solved. I understand the common sentiment here that it's the cuber's fault if a corner twist occurs, but that simply isn't always true. Just my two cents.



While the issue is sometimes that the scrambler is the one who twisted a corner, and it definitely sucks if that happens, the solver still has the ability to twist the corner back when he realizes that it was twisted. It should be an assumed risk when using an easily twistable cube that there is potential for a twist to happen during scrambling. And yes pops are no longer an issue, but at one point they were and the way they were handled then sets a good precedent for how corner twists should be handled now, ie with placing the accountability on the cuber (and possibly better enforcement of ensuring proper scramble).


----------



## Dane man (Jun 26, 2014)

Well, from what I'm seeing, it appears that everyone is leaning towards "Let's put the responsibility of a corner twist on the cuber and if they accidentally get a corner twist, be it their fault or not, that's just too bad." If that's how it'll be done, then that's that. I've presented a case for the cubers that like loose cubes, or have slightly over-eager or sloppy turn styles, and there isn't much else I can say.

My work here is done. Good job team.

PS: I don't have a corner turn problem (it happens every once in a long while), but someone has to present the other side of the issue. ;P


----------



## Kit Clement (Jun 27, 2014)

kclejeune said:


> You're a delegate, so I have a question now. If I do a solve and I know I didn't twist a corner, but I get a twist at the end, can I use video evidence to back that up? Like if you can see the corner does not match the scramble sheet during inspection, would that be worthy of a resolve?



Personally, if the "instant replay" shows the entire scramble as part of inspection, I would consider it.


----------



## Dene (Jun 27, 2014)

Villyer said:


> I feel like this raises really good points. When pops were common, the rule was (and still is) if there is a popped piece at the end of the solve, it is a DNF (to an extent, I understand there are cases where if the piece is only able to be put back in one way and then it is considered solved). The responsibility was on the cuber before, and it should still be now.



Actually the rules used to be a resolve for a POP.



kclejeune said:


> You're a delegate, so I have a question now. If I do a solve and I know I didn't twist a corner, but I get a twist at the end, can I use video evidence to back that up? Like if you can see the corner does not match the scramble sheet during inspection, would that be worthy of a resolve?



Absolutely, and in fact this has been done on more than one occasion by delegates around the world.


----------



## Kirjava (Jun 27, 2014)

Dene said:


> Actually the rules used to be a resolve for a POP.



Briefly, until we realised that it was a terible terrible idea.


----------



## mark49152 (Jun 30, 2014)

Reading this thread is pretty interesting given Feliks's 5.33 DNF corner twist at the weekend. Has anyone changed their view?


----------



## kcl (Jun 30, 2014)

mark49152 said:


> Reading this thread is pretty interesting given Feliks's 5.33 DNF corner twist at the weekend. Has anyone changed their view?



It's kind of an amusing coincidence, we were just debating about this and then he goes and does that haha. 
I still feel like it should be a +2, it falls under the same category as a misalignment.


----------



## DeeDubb (Jun 30, 2014)

kclejeune said:


> It's kind of an amusing coincidence, we were just debating about this and then he goes and does that haha.
> I still feel like it should be a +2, it falls under the same category as a misalignment.



Next up, video evidence is gonna cost someone a WR and then my thread will be relevant


----------



## kcl (Jun 30, 2014)

DeeDubb said:


> Next up, video evidence is gonna cost someone a WR and then my thread will be relevant



I don't see your thread being completely viable. If we see a video of a WR single with an oblivious judge where the solver is blatantly cheating, are we wrong to take away that record based on the video?


----------



## DeeDubb (Jun 30, 2014)

kclejeune said:


> I don't see your thread being completely viable. If we see a video of a WR single with an oblivious judge where the solver is blatantly cheating, are we wrong to take away that record based on the video?



Haha, I'm not gonna derail this with my case against video evidence. I presented it in my thread. I was just thinking it would be funny/ironic if someone lost a WR because of something like an illegal timer stop or something minor like that.


----------



## kcl (Jun 30, 2014)

DeeDubb said:


> Haha, I'm not gonna derail this with my case against video evidence. I presented it in my thread. I was just thinking it would be funny/ironic if someone lost a WR because of something like an illegal timer stop or something minor like that.



Of course. That would be extremely ironic though (and one heck of a coincidence!)


----------



## Dane man (Jun 30, 2014)

mark49152 said:


> Reading this thread is pretty interesting given Feliks's 5.33 DNF corner twist at the weekend. Has anyone changed their view?


I don't think so. The corner twist isn't so much of a problem as much as it is simply annoying. While I'm sure Feliks would have loved that WR, he also knows that he's gonna get it one day. Competitors for which a corner twist could actually matter are already good enough that the corner twist only delays their success rather than preventing it. That, and when it comes to averages, the DNF is already excluded (if it's the only one).

So, even though there was a major event relating to what we were talking about, I think it probably gave more clarity rather than controversy.



kclejeune said:


> It's kind of an amusing coincidence, we were just debating about this and then he goes and does that haha.
> I still feel like it should be a +2, it falls under the same category as a misalignment.


I agree with this. +2 seems just right.


----------



## Dene (Jun 30, 2014)

kclejeune said:


> I still feel like it should be a +2, it falls under the same category as a misalignment.



I didn't bother to say anything last time, mostly because I think they should both be DNF, but could you clarify what you mean by "same category"? Because I don't see how those two things are the same at all (other than the fact that the puzzle still isn't solved).


----------



## Kit Clement (Jun 30, 2014)

+2s are awarded for procedure infractions and misalignments. Never have we given a +2 penalty for a puzzle defect. Seems like totally different categories to me.


----------



## BrianJ (Jun 30, 2014)

Kit Clement said:


> +2s are awarded for procedure infractions and misalignments. Never have we given a +2 penalty for a puzzle defect. Seems like totally different categories to me.



This is exactly what I have been thinking. I use the Aolong, and barely ever get corner twists. Plus, I have a pretty rough turning style. If people don't want corner twists, fix your puzzle, or get a different one.


----------



## JediJupiter (Jun 30, 2014)

cube-o-holic said:


> I guess we should just wait until someone has a LL of a single corner twist in comp to break a NR or something similar. I'm sure everyone would be OK with it if that happened.



Heh heh


----------



## mark49152 (Jun 30, 2014)

Kit Clement said:


> +2s are awarded for procedure infractions and misalignments. Never have we given a +2 penalty for a puzzle defect. Seems like totally different categories to me.


Accidents are penalised more harshly than infractions...?


----------



## Kit Clement (Jun 30, 2014)

mark49152 said:


> Accidents are penalised more harshly than infractions...?



Yes. Procedural infractions like stopping the timer with your wrists don't change the ultimate goal: solving the puzzle. I'd personally like to see misalignment penalties eliminated as well, but at least a misaligned cube is close to a solved state. Corner twists are a result of a puzzle defect and cannot be solved normally.


----------



## mark49152 (Jun 30, 2014)

Kit Clement said:


> ...at least a misaligned cube is close to a solved state. Corner twists are a result of a puzzle defect and cannot be solved normally.


A puzzle with single twisted corner is also very close to a solved state, and if the competitor notices, they can legally "solve" the puzzle by twisting it back. It's quite similar to a misalignment in that one final "move" was accidentally overlooked.

To get the puzzle to the state where only one corner is twisted, the competitor still has to fully solve it. While it's true that there may be 8 different "solved" states they could reach before repairing, and that potentially they could use the situation to select an easier OLL etc., if those are deemed to be significantly advantageous it should also be illegal to repair the corner twist at the end.


----------



## Renslay (Jun 30, 2014)

Nearly any noob would declare a single U turn as (almost) solved, that even they can solve.
Nearly none of the noobs would declare a single corner twist as (almost) solved, that even they can solve.

I'm not trying to make a point with this argument, I'm just thinking.


----------



## Kit Clement (Jun 30, 2014)

mark49152 said:


> A puzzle with single twisted corner is also very close to a solved state, and if the competitor notices, they can legally "solve" the puzzle by twisting it back. It's quite similar to a misalignment in that one final "move" was accidentally overlooked.
> 
> To get the puzzle to the state where only one corner is twisted, the competitor still has to fully solve it. While it's true that there may be 8 different "solved" states they could reach before repairing, and that potentially they could use the situation to select an easier OLL etc., if those are deemed to be significantly advantageous it should also be illegal to repair the corner twist at the end.



Maybe it's legal to do that move, only if it was indeed the corner they originally twisted. That's also not a normal move of the cube - as it stands, the puzzle has a defect and is not solvable. If a competitor popped an edge and put it back in incorrectly, that wouldn't be awarded a +2 either. It's the competitor's responsibility to provide a cube that is functional, and any puzzle with an increased potential for defects is just the risk you take.


----------



## mark49152 (Jun 30, 2014)

Kit Clement said:


> Maybe it's legal to do that move, only if it was indeed the corner they originally twisted. That's also not a normal move of the cube


It doesn't matter that it's not a normal move. Repairing the puzzle is allowed, and the regulations don't say it has to be the originally twisted corner.

If the competitor neglects to complete the final move of a face they're penalized +2 but if they neglect to complete the final repair of a corner twist they are penalized DNF. That seems inconsistent to me, and especially harsh given that a corner twist is not a normally anticipated event in solving.


----------



## porkynator (Jul 1, 2014)

"3a3) Polyhedral puzzles must use a colour scheme with one unique colour per face in the solved state. *Each puzzle variation must have moves, states, and solutions functionally identical to the original puzzle.* "

imho, this means puzzle that allow you to twist a single corner without taking it apart are illegal.


mark49152 said:


> It doesn't matter that it's not a normal move.


Yes, it does.
Since it's not a legal move, it's closer to a pop than to an actual move. If you stop the timer with an edge out of the cube, it's DNF. Or do you think that should also be a +2?


----------



## kcl (Jul 1, 2014)

Alright, I take it back. As nice as it would be for corner twists to be +2, I see the reason for DNF. That being said, if you were to pop a single wing edge on 4x4 and stop the timer, would it be a DNF? It can only be replaced correctly..


----------



## mark49152 (Jul 1, 2014)

porkynator said:


> Since it's not a legal move, it's closer to a pop than to an actual move.


Whatever you call it, the regs allow for the competitor to make a single twist to repair the puzzle, and the question is whether the penalty for overlooking that is too harsh relative to the penalty for misalignment.


----------



## Kit Clement (Jul 1, 2014)

kclejeune said:


> Alright, I take it back. As nice as it would be for corner twists to be +2, I see the reason for DNF. That being said, if you were to pop a single wing edge on 4x4 and stop the timer, would it be a DNF? It can only be replaced correctly..



A little over a year ago, that would be solved. Today, that is not the case -- we allow a maximum of one piece with one sticker to pop. This is so we can apply the regulations the same way everywhere - while it is unambiguous as to where that piece goes, we had many different rulings as to what was solved and what was not due to interpretation and translation issues.


----------



## 10461394944000 (Jul 1, 2014)

kclejeune said:


> Alright, I take it back. As nice as it would be for corner twists to be +2, I see the reason for DNF. That being said, if you were to pop a single wing edge on 4x4 and stop the timer, would it be a DNF? It can only be replaced correctly..



as of not too long ago, its a dnf, but you used to be able to pop 27 pieces on a 7x7 with no penalty.


----------



## IRNjuggle28 (Jul 1, 2014)

Kit Clement said:


> Yes. Procedural infractions like stopping the timer with your wrists don't change the ultimate goal: solving the puzzle. *I'd personally like to see misalignment penalties eliminated as well, but at least a misaligned cube is close to a solved state.* Corner twists are a result of a puzzle defect and cannot be solved normally.



Unless I am misunderstanding you, how could that not turn into a disaster? AUF would basically be obsolete.


----------



## Kit Clement (Jul 1, 2014)

IRNjuggle28 said:


> Unless I am misunderstanding you, how could that not turn into a disaster? AUF would basically be obsolete.


I was not clear, I mean that I would prefer to give DNFs instead of the +2 misalignment penalty.


----------



## IRNjuggle28 (Jul 1, 2014)

Kit Clement said:


> I was not clear, I mean that I would prefer to give DNFs instead of the +2 misalignment penalty.



Ahhhh. Yeah, that's reasonable. I predict people not changing their solving style at all and DNF rates rocketing to Sarah Strong level. And that's what they should do. Taking an extra peek to make sure you didn't AUF wrong isn't a good way to solve and kills times.


----------



## BaMiao (Jul 1, 2014)

Just a quick point because I haven't seen it mentioned:

It is very likely, in some circumstances, that twisting the corner would take longer than 2 seconds (especially in OH or Feet). I suppose choosing +2 as the penalty for misalignments makes some sense because even the slowest among us could have easily fixed it within 2 seconds. The same logic doesn't apply to corner twists. In fact, if corner twists gave +2, I probably wouldn't even attempt to fix it for OH solves. I just don't think we should be writing regulations that might encourage the solver to leave the puzzle unsolved.


----------



## 10461394944000 (Jul 1, 2014)

BaMiao said:


> Just a quick point because I haven't seen it mentioned:
> 
> It is very likely, in some circumstances, that twisting the corner would take longer than 2 seconds (especially in OH or Feet). I suppose choosing +2 as the penalty for misalignments makes some sense because even the slowest among us could have easily fixed it within 2 seconds. The same logic doesn't apply to corner twists. In fact, if corner twists gave +2, I probably wouldn't even attempt to fix it for OH solves. I just don't think we should be writing regulations that might encourage the solver to leave the puzzle unsolved.



last competition I got +2s on all of my feet solves because it's faster than doing a rotation and a move.


----------



## BaMiao (Jul 1, 2014)

10461394944000 said:


> last competition I got +2s on all of my feet solves because it's faster than doing a rotation and a move.



Yeah, I've heard of people doing this in feet solves. It's a huge weakness in the misalignment +2 rule, and it's a good argument for getting rid of it entirely (in favor of DNFs). I really don't care enough for feet to get worked up over it, though.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Jul 1, 2014)

I don't think many experienced cubers and Delegates would support this change.



Kit Clement said:


> +2s are awarded for procedure infractions and misalignments. Never have we given a +2 penalty for a puzzle defect. Seems like totally different categories to me.



Indeed, the cube is the competitor's responsibility. See 3h, 3h+ and 3h3.

If anything, we should be trying to *minimize* our definition of solved (no misalignments that are a full turn away, no missing parts or other unfixed defects). There isn't a great reason to be more generous, and it just forces us to have lots of unproductive discussions about little details. ("How do we interpret this on puzzle X?" "What happens if this and Y both happen?")

Regardless of how people feel about Feliks's 5.33 DNF, Feliks isn't exactly complaining that his result was unfair.


----------



## kcl (Jul 1, 2014)

Lucas Garron said:


> Regardless of how people feel about Feliks's 5.33 DNF, Feliks isn't exactly complaining that his result was unfair.



This is true, he did say himself the cube was too loose. 

Like I said, I do realize the difference now and very much see the logic behind it.


----------



## Erik (Jul 1, 2014)

BaMiao said:


> Yeah, I've heard of people doing this in feet solves. It's a huge weakness in the misalignment +2 rule, and it's a good argument for getting rid of it entirely (in favor of DNFs). I really don't care enough for feet to get worked up over it, though.



If you really need more than 2 seconds to do a turn with feet, then you are so slow that nobody cares about your times anyway. (if you assume 70 quarter turns per solve, this would mean you are at like 2:20 and would be doing moves without ANY pauses, so realistically speaking much slower than 2:20 since looking around is usually the biggest time waster)


----------

