# [WCA Regulations] Article H1b1



## cubernya (May 15, 2012)

Article H: Multiple Blindfolded Solving said:


> H1b1) When the total time is reached, the attempt is stopped and the number of solved and not solved puzzles is counted.



As you can see, the regulations clearly state that the attempt is stopped. However, there are many cases where it was not stopped. This has caused for some discussion on the WCA forums, but has never made it onto SpeedSolving. This topic has not been brought up in around two years now, and I believe that it is time for a very minor change to the regulations.

I believe that the total number of cubes solved and unsolved should in fact be counted at the end of the time (10*#; <=60 minutes). However, I personally see no reason why the competitor should not be allowed to continue the solve, given that the organisation team gives it the ok. The attempt should be able to be stopped at any time after the required time is up, but should not be required to be stopped after the time.

I believe that the regulation should be rewritten in such a way:
H1b1) When the total time is reached, the number of solved and not solved puzzles is counted. The competitor may continue solving, given that the organisation team approves.

Discuss


----------



## RNewms27 (May 15, 2012)

Would it be fair for one with 17/21 completed to finish 21/21 after time while one with 19/21 is rejected?


----------



## cubernya (May 15, 2012)

RNewms27 said:


> Would it be fair for one with 17/21 completed to finish 21/21 after time while one with 19/21 is rejected?


 
Yes. The 17/21 is what is done at the end of the hour, which is what shall be recorded. The other 4 cubes currently violate regulations, which is what I want to avoid. Whatever happens after the hour (or whatever the limit shall be) isn't recorded, it's just to that the person can finish their solve if they wish to (and the organisers approve)


----------



## Mollerz (May 15, 2012)

RNewms27 said:


> Would it be fair for one with 17/21 completed to finish 21/21 after time while one with 19/21 is rejected?



That's not the point. The official attempt still would be stopped after the 1 hour is complete. So if a competitor is solving 15, and is solving the 14th cube at the time of the end of the hour, under the current regulations, would be told to stop cubing even though they are concentrating. And would thus end with 13/15 assuming they had all previous cubes correct.

The change would let this person finish his cubes, however, the judge would need to note down how many cubes were solved at the time the hour limit is reached. Personally, I wouldn't like to be interrupted at the end of a long multi attempt saying I've run out of time. I'd prefer to finish my cubes and be told afterward that I'd run out of time however many cubes ago. At least this lets me see how many I would have completed, regardless of time.


----------



## cubernya (May 15, 2012)

Mollerz said:


> The change would let this person finish his cubes, however, the judge would need to note down how many cubes were solved at the time the hour limit is reached. Personally, I wouldn't like to be interrupted at the end of a long multi attempt saying I've run out of time. I'd prefer to finish my cubes and be told afterward that I'd run out of time however many cubes ago. At least this lets me see how many I would have completed, regardless of time.


 
That basically sums it up. All I'm proposing is that the regulations be changed to allow the competitor to continue solving, and later be told that they went over. If there isn't enough time, the attempt can still be stopped. It's just that I would personally prefer to at least see how well my memorisation and execution was, even if all of it doesn't count.


----------



## DrKorbin (May 15, 2012)

I think it is unnecessary. After your time is out, you can take all your cubes, move aside from the competitors area and check yourself there. If every competitor solved their cubes after time limit, it would be a pain for organization team to wait them.


----------



## cubernya (May 15, 2012)

DrKorbin said:


> I think it is unnecessary. After your time is out, you can take all your cubes, move aside from the competitors area and check yourself there. If every competitor solved their cubes after time limit, it would be a pain for organization team to wait them.


 
Read a little bit more. If the organisation team wants the attempt stopped, it can be stopped. It's not required that they can continue, just allowed, which it currently isn't.


----------



## HelpCube (May 15, 2012)

I like this idea, it would inspire Multi-BLDers to go for as many cubes as they can, and not feel too restricted by the time limit. Of course they have to watch their inspection time, but you get my drift.


----------



## RNewms27 (May 15, 2012)

theZcuber said:


> Yes. The 17/21 is what is done at the end of the hour, which is what shall be recorded. The other 4 cubes currently violate regulations, which is what I want to avoid. Whatever happens after the hour (or whatever the limit shall be) isn't recorded, it's just to that the person can finish their solve if they wish to (and the organisers approve)


 
That's what I thought at first, but it didn't appear to be meaningful enough to request a change.


----------



## ben1996123 (May 15, 2012)

I don't understand what you are trying to say.


----------



## cubernya (May 15, 2012)

ben1996123 said:


> I don't understand what you are trying to say.


 
Right now, at the end of the hour, the attempt *must* be stopped. I don't think it has to be stopped, so long as the organisers approve. The result would still be recorded at the end of the hour, of course


----------



## Micael (May 15, 2012)

1- I would prefer to control my score by myself. If I continue over an hour, then I have to thrust the judge regarding the score.

2- What if I pick cubes in unstructured order during that overtime? Judge would need to verified what exactly was solved at 60min. He/she either verify every cubes and hence inevitably disturbs competitor, or keep track of everything competitor does after the hour limit (and don't make any mistake doing so).


----------



## Bob (May 15, 2012)

If you don't tell the competitor at 1 hour, you can run into issues where the competitor disputes the number that was actually solved at 1 hour. At 1 hour, the solve is over. The regulations are for OFFICIAL solves. Anything done after 1 hour is on the competitor and considered unofficial. If they want to keep going, that's fine. But to not tell a competitor when their official solve is finished is just ridiculous. You're asking for the WCA to put unofficial solves to be given more emphasis and importance than the official part.


----------



## Dene (May 15, 2012)

Fair enough. This is one of those outdated regulations that has hung about but is probably ignored more often than not.



Bob said:


> If you don't tell the competitor at 1 hour, you can run into issues where the competitor disputes the number that was actually solved at 1 hour. At 1 hour, the solve is over. The regulations are for OFFICIAL solves. Anything done after 1 hour is on the competitor and considered unofficial. If they want to keep going, that's fine. But to not tell a competitor when their official solve is finished is just ridiculous. You're asking for the WCA to put unofficial solves to be given more emphasis and importance than the official part.



Not at all. The regulation would still say that at the end of the 60 minutes the number of cubes solved and unsolved is counted, but if the competitors wishes, and the organisers allow it, the competitor can continue with their solve.


----------



## Mollerz (May 15, 2012)

Bob said:


> If you don't tell the competitor at 1 hour, you can run into issues where the competitor disputes the number that was actually solved at 1 hour. At 1 hour, the solve is over. The regulations are for OFFICIAL solves. Anything done after 1 hour is on the competitor and considered unofficial. If they want to keep going, that's fine. But to not tell a competitor when their official solve is finished is just ridiculous. You're asking for the WCA to put unofficial solves to be given more emphasis and importance than the official part.



How can the competitor dispute the judges call. Firstly, you are blindfolded so you have no idea when the timer runs over the hour. Secondly, if you are told but choose to continue, then again, the judge knows exactly where you are in the solve situation and so do you so there is no way they can successfully dispute the amount solved. The judges job after all is to judge the solve and make a final call on the amount solved.

I would say that the change is a good one, most people who use the full hour know how many cubes they can usually do and I wouldn't think most would go far over a couple of minutes. I mean, if I'm doing a large attempt, I've spent a good chunk of the hour memorising and I don't want to be stopped since you have to concentrate a fair amount. If I was doing say 20 cubes and the hour limit is reached after I've done only 10 cubes, then by all means stop the solve, but if there's just one or two cubes left then I don't see why the competitor should be forcefully stopped. In the top 100, the only person to go over the hour limit is Aldo Feandri and actually got 11/12, so he was executing his last cube at the time the attempt ended. I don't see a point in stopping that, any judge can clearly see he is executing his last cube and can just note that he'd solved 11 of the cubes at the hour mark.



Dene said:


> Not at all. The regulation would still say that at the end of the 60 minutes the number of cubes solved and unsolved is counted, but if the competitors wishes, and the organisers allow it, the competitor can continue with their solve.



This is basically all there is to it. There's nothing hard at all about it.


----------



## Micael (May 15, 2012)

Dene said:


> The regulation would still say that at the end of the 60 minutes *the number of cubes solved and unsolved is counted*, but if the competitors wishes, and the organisers allow it, the competitor can continue with their solve.



I think that this required that the attempt is interrupted at 60min.


----------



## Mollerz (May 15, 2012)

Micael said:


> I think that this required that the attempt is interrupted at 60min.



Can you count to 25?


----------



## Mikel (May 15, 2012)

Bob said:


> If you don't tell the competitor at 1 hour, you can run into issues where the competitor disputes the number that was actually solved at 1 hour. At 1 hour, the solve is over. The regulations are for OFFICIAL solves. Anything done after 1 hour is on the competitor and considered unofficial. If they want to keep going, that's fine. But to not tell a competitor when their official solve is finished is just ridiculous. You're asking for the WCA to put unofficial solves to be given more emphasis and importance than the official part.



I agree with this statement made by Bob. I would also like to add that it could deem very hard to count if the cubes are solved or not while the competitor is still solving. If you want this rule to go into affect, then you are allowing the competitor to continue solving. This being the case, you wouldn't want to touch any of the cubes, since the competitor may want to go back and correct any errors he may have caught while blindfolded. With this being the case, it could be hard to count if they are solved or not, because the competitor could clump them all together and you may not be able to visibly see enough sides of the cube to deem them solved.


----------



## Micael (May 15, 2012)

It can be impossible to tell what exactly is solved. I my last attempt, it was impossible to see any mistake just looking at the cubes, but there was one. To assess the score, one need to grab every cubes and check them one by one.


----------



## cubernya (May 15, 2012)

For those of you saying that the judge would need to check the cubes during solving: so what? The judge can check the cubes that have been solved or not easily without disturbing the competitor. If the competitor finishes a cube after the hour, the judge can just keep a mental note that they did.


----------



## Mollerz (May 15, 2012)

Micael said:


> It can be impossible to tell what exactly is solved. I my last attempt, it was impossible to see any mistake just looking at the cubes, but there was one. To assess the score one need to grab every cubes and check them one by one.



You are judging them for an hour and holding a piece of paper between the blindfold and cube. One would assume you are actually watching them solve as well. Is it really so hard to look at their cube whilst they are putting it down to see if there is an error? Alternatively, if that is too difficult, you could always tally down the cubes that they put down solved/unsolved if counting in your head is too hard for you. Most Multi competitors will not go over 10, and then, those who do go over 10, know how many they can and cannot do within the hour.

As a competitor, you can always ask with your judge if you think time is going to be tight and decide between yourselves whether or not to interrupt at the hour mark.


----------



## jonlin (May 15, 2012)

I propose that any cube you're on, when you get past the hour, you are allowed to finish the cube and then the judge would tell you to stop.
I'm saying this because it's a pain when you get interrupted in the middle of your solve.


----------



## Micael (May 15, 2012)

Mollerz said:


> You are judging them for an hour and holding a piece of paper between the blindfold and cube. One would assume you are actually watching them solve as well. Is it really so hard to look at their cube whilst they are putting it down to see if there is an error? Alternatively, if that is too difficult, you could always tally down the cubes that they put down solved/unsolved if counting in your head is too hard for you. Most Multi competitors will not go over 10, and then, those who do go over 10, know how many they can and cannot do within the hour.
> 
> As a competitor, you can always ask with your judge if you think time is going to be tight and decide between yourselves whether or not to interrupt at the hour mark.


 
I agree that most situation would be easy to judge, my point is that regulation should be robust and then cover as many situation as possible, especially more difficult case. Also, it is pretty boring to judge multi, one can be distracted once in a while, it is not true that judge always look at everything all the time. Issue could happen.


----------



## Bob (May 15, 2012)

Dene said:


> Not at all. The regulation would still say that at the end of the 60 minutes the number of cubes solved and unsolved is counted, but if the competitors wishes, and the organisers allow it, the competitor can continue with their solve.


 
They can do that anyway. Once 1 hour passes and the judge counts the cubes, the solve is over. They can finish without changing the regulations if the organizer doesn't care about wasting time. From an organizer's standpoint, though, the competitor is done and should stop using the judge's time. This is like saying that if there is a hard cutoff for 4x4 of 2 minutes, then if i do not finish at 2 minutes, I should be allowed to sit there and finish my solve until I finish my cube. Nonsense.


----------



## DrKorbin (May 15, 2012)

Keep in mind that a competitor doesn't have to solve cubes in direct order. He can solve all corners ecxept two of them because he've forgotten them, then return to this cube later and solve it, then return to a solved cube and accidentally scramble it etc. So it might be not so easy for a judge to track them all, considering he may get tired watching at a competitor's solving.
Also: if a judge counts solved cubes wrong, you won't be able to prove his error.
Besides: I still don't get a point why to make this change. After attempt is done, you walk away, put your blindfold and go on if you want. The only reason of this proposal is just because some cubers don't like to be distracted?


----------



## Mollerz (May 15, 2012)

Bob said:


> They can do that anyway. Once 1 hour passes and the judge counts the cubes, the solve is over. They can finish without changing the regulations if the organizer doesn't care about wasting time. From an organizer's standpoint, though, the competitor is done and should stop using the judge's time. This is like saying that if there is a hard cutoff for 4x4 of 2 minutes, then if i do not finish at 2 minutes, I should be allowed to sit there and finish my solve until I finish my cube. Nonsense.



Maybe you should actually look at the proposed change.

"H1b1) When the total time is reached, the number of solved and not solved puzzles is counted. The competitor may continue solving, *given that the organisation team approves*."




DrKorbin said:


> Keep in mind that a competitor doesn't have to solve cubes in direct order. He can solve all corners ecxept two of them because he've forgotten them, then return to this cube later and solve it, then return to a solved cube and accidentally scramble it etc. So it might be not so easy for a judge to track them all, considering he may get tired watching at a competitor's solving.
> Also: if a judge counts solved cubes wrong, you won't be able to prove his error.
> Besides: I still don't get a point why to make this change. After attempt is done, you walk away, put your blindfold and go on if you want. The only reason of this proposal is just because some cubers don't like to be distracted?



It is the duty of the cubers at the competition to judge solves and scramble during the day so you should be expected to be able judge Multi. Ok it may be boring for those uninterested by Multi but that does not mean you shouldn't pay attention to the attempt. If the solver leaves two unsolved corners for instance because he cannot recall his images or whatever, then obviously it is unsolved until he picks it up and solves it. If he does not pick up that same cube again before the hour is over then it is an unsolved cube, if he picks it up and solves it before the hour is over then it is solved. Is it really that difficult to do? You can zone out for the entire time they are actually solving and mentally note whether or not it is solved when they put it down. You barely have to pay any attention at all during the memorisation stage either which for most MultiBLDers is the majority of the time.

Again, this is just to allow those competitors who do want to do a tight attempt continue past the hour mark given the organisers allow it. It is courtesy for the solvers.


----------



## Bob (May 15, 2012)

Mollerz said:


> Maybe you should actually look at the proposed change.
> 
> "H1b1) When the total time is reached, the number of solved and not solved puzzles is counted. The competitor may continue solving, *given that the organisation team approves*."


 
The way I interpret this regulation is that the competitor is allowed unlimited time to do MultiBLD if the organizers approve. The regulation you cite implies that the solve is not over.


----------



## Mollerz (May 15, 2012)

Bob said:


> The way I interpret this regulation is that the competitor is allowed unlimited time to do MultiBLD if the organizers approve. The regulation you cite implies that the solve is not over.



"H1b1) *When the total time is reached, the number of solved and not solved puzzles is counted.* The competitor may continue solving, given that the organisation team approves."

Just because a part of the regulations are states does not mean you should ignore the rest of the regulations.

H1b) Total time allowed for memorising and solving is 10 minutes per cube, measured with a stopwatch.
H1c) Maximum total time for all cubes is 60 minutes.


----------



## Bob (May 15, 2012)

Mollerz said:


> "H1b1) *When the total time is reached, the number of solved and not solved puzzles is counted.* The competitor may continue solving, given that the organisation team approves."
> 
> Just because a part of the regulations are states does not mean you should ignore the rest of the regulations.
> 
> ...


 
Now there are two regulations that contradict each other. One says the competitor may continue solving while the other says there is a maximum time. Which one do I believe?


----------



## Mollerz (May 15, 2012)

Bob said:


> Now there are two regulations that contradict each other. One says the competitor may continue solving while the other says there is a maximum time. Which one do I believe?



Maybe it should be worded as such then: 

H1b1) When the total time is reached, the number of solved and not solved puzzles is counted and taken as a result. The competitor may continue solving, given that the organisation team approves, but any alterations to any cubes beyond the total time do not count.


----------



## Bob (May 15, 2012)

Mollerz said:


> Maybe it should be worded as such then:
> 
> H1b1) When the total time is reached, the number of solved and not solved puzzles is counted and taken as a result. The competitor may continue solving, given that the organisation team approves, but any alterations to any cubes beyond the total time do not count.


 
I still don't understand why we're going out of our way to make a regulation that says "you can do unofficial stuff after your solve is over"


----------



## Mollerz (May 15, 2012)

Bob said:


> I still don't understand why we're going out of our way to make a regulation that says "you can do unofficial stuff after your solve is over"


 
It was just a query given the uniqueness of the event. It's all down to the organiser's discretion anyway. If you don't like it you don't have to abide by it.


----------



## Dene (May 15, 2012)

Bob said:


> Now there are two regulations that contradict each other. One says the competitor may continue solving while the other says there is a maximum time. Which one do I believe?


 
A maximum time in which any solving done is counted officially, then any time after does not have any official status. It just removes the silly part that says a competitor must be stopped without exception; that is pretty tightass you have to admit.


----------



## Micael (May 15, 2012)

Mollerz said:


> Is it really that difficult to do?



Yes, I think situation could happen where it would be difficult to do.


----------



## Mike Hughey (May 15, 2012)

The regulations committee is supposed to create a guidelines document separate from the regulations. This is the sort of thing that belongs there. Since it doesn't affect the official attempt result, it certainly doesn't belong in the actual regulations. The guidelines would be the proper place for something like this.

By the way, I vaguely recall Ron approving of this process already on the WCA Forum years ago, but I can't find it right now.


----------



## Tim Reynolds (May 15, 2012)

I have to disagree with Mollerz--I don't think this is a trivial thing to ask of the judges. Their primary concern should be to hold the paper in a way that the competitor won't be able to see. That's often most difficult when switching cubes, since the competitor is often moving. They shouldn't have to keep track of which cubes are solved at all times, and simultaneously note whether the cube that was just put down and the cube that was just picked up are solved while also preventing cheating.

In a big multi attempt (say 15-ish) it might be difficult to keep track of which cubes were solved or not. Let's say one cube has the top face solved but some pieces in the bottom aren't solved, and the competitor puts the "done" cubes in a tight grid pattern. You would have to separate all the cubes to be sure which ones were solved, while the competitor is still trying to finish their attempt. What happens if they pick up a cube that you deemed solved? It was solved after an hour. How about if they pick up a cube that is solved that you haven't had a chance to check yet? And it's really not that hard to lose count--let's say it's 15/25, I bet most judges would want to recount at the end to be sure.

This just seems like it's inviting administration problems, and while you can say that the "up to the organizer" clause guards organizers against these problems, there's no reason to explicitly allow a practice that could jeopardize the integrity of results at many competitions.


----------



## Mollerz (May 15, 2012)

I wouldn't mind if the judge had said beforehand, if I'm not sure of what cubes are solved at the end, I will stop you at 60 minutes, I would say OK, that's fair enough. If I have a lot of unfinished cubes or a majority solved, if by some chance I have problems recalling and I do go over the hour mark, if the judge is capable of basic arithmetic I would prefer it if they let me finish unless I was still a few minutes away from apparent completion.

Sure, if it's difficult to judge then they do have the final call on whether to stop the competitor anyway. Their job is to judge and if it's not blindingly obvious then they can by all means stop the competitor to avoid the administrative issue. As Mike said, Ron has perhaps already approved this somewhere. And also, it fits as a guideline and not part of the regulations which I also agree with.


----------



## Kian (May 15, 2012)

You have one hour of time and you must plan accordingly. It gets needlessly complicated and silly to let a competitor go over. You can do unofficial stuff on your own time without complicating the process. It will prove difficult, in large attempts, to get an accurate result at times. That is enough of a reason to not employ this measure.

And the argument that they "can" do it but don't have to is needlessly coercive and inconsistent (the opposite of what regulations should be). When do we stop it, then? 1:10? 1:40? Can the competitor continue ad infinitum?


----------



## Dene (May 15, 2012)

Tim Reynolds said:


> stuff



It is very easy to move all "attempted" cubes to the side, out of harms way, and check them for whether they are solved or not. If the competitor wants to come back to one of them that is tough luck. I don't see how what you said creates any problem.



Kian said:


> You have one hour of time and you must plan accordingly. It gets needlessly complicated and silly to let a competitor go over. You can do unofficial stuff on your own time without complicating the process. It will prove difficult, in large attempts, to get an accurate result at times. That is enough of a reason to not employ this measure.
> 
> And the argument that they "can" do it but don't have to is needlessly coercive and inconsistent (the opposite of what regulations should be). When do we stop it, then? 1:10? 1:40? Can the competitor continue ad infinitum?


 
Are you deliberately ignoring the fact that it would be at the discretion of the delegate, not the competitor?


----------



## Ranzha (May 15, 2012)

Perhaps when the competitor thinks they finished a cube, they let the judge know by flashing all sides at him/her before putting it down in that tight grid pattern. The judge will then keep a tally of solved and unsolved.
When I do MBLD, I keep the cubes separated pretty far. When I attempted six earlier this month, I kept the cubes probably a good 8cm apart each.


----------



## Noahaha (May 15, 2012)

Ranzha V. Emodrach said:


> Perhaps when the competitor thinks they finished a cube, they let the judge know by flashing all sides at him/her before putting it down in that tight grid pattern. The judge will then keep a tally of solved and unsolved.
> When I do MBLD, I keep the cubes separated pretty far. When I attempted six earlier this month, I kept the cubes probably a good 8cm apart each.


 
Would this allow people to go back to cubes?


----------



## Ranzha (May 15, 2012)

Noahaha said:


> Would this allow people to go back to cubes?


 
Only when the competitor thinks the cube is completely solved and is sure of it will he/she flash the sides to the judge.


----------



## Noahaha (May 15, 2012)

Ranzha V. Emodrach said:


> Only when the competitor thinks the cube is completely solved and is sure of it will he/she flash the sides to the judge.


 
The problem is that there would be no advantage to doing this ever, as it means you can't go back to the cube.


----------



## Dene (May 15, 2012)

Ranzha V. Emodrach said:


> Perhaps when the competitor thinks they finished a cube, they let the judge know by flashing all sides at him/her before putting it down in that tight grid pattern. The judge will then keep a tally of solved and unsolved.
> When I do MBLD, I keep the cubes separated pretty far. When I attempted six earlier this month, I kept the cubes probably a good 8cm apart each.


 
To me this seems like an absolutely horrible idea. What would be the point of making this rule? If it's to accommodate a change in the regulations for the rule currently been discussed, then that is a really bad reason. It doesn't make sense to force something that bad onto competitors because of a rule change about something completely different.


----------



## joey (May 15, 2012)

Dene said:


> It is very easy to move all "attempted" cubes to the side, out of harms way, and check them for whether they are solved or not. If the competitor wants to come back to one of them that is tough luck.


Erm what? The judge should NOT touch the competitor's cubes until after the attempt is over. No-one should.

This "rule" is stupid. Just stop them at 60mins. It doesn't make sense to let them continue, then it's unofficial. They can do that at home.


----------



## Godmil (May 15, 2012)

I'm with joey, if you've finished your solve, anything else you do is just wasting peoples time... unless you specifically got the all clear from the people involved... in which case why would you need to regulate it.


----------



## Pedro (May 15, 2012)

Dene said:


> It is very easy to move all "attempted" cubes to the side, out of harms way, and check them for whether they are solved or not. If the competitor wants to come back to one of them that is tough luck. I don't see how what you said creates any problem.


Agreed with Joey here. I don't want judge moving my cubes before I'm done. I'm not sure what you mean with "...that is tough luck", but I didn't like the way it sounds.
Do you mean that once I put the cube down, it belongs to the judge, who can move it wherever, and if I realise later I made a mistake I can't go back?

I don't see the point in putting this into the regulations. Regulations are about official stuff at competitions. Official multi bld solves have 60 min maximum (or n*10, n=cubes). If the time is reached, stop the competitor, check the cubes, write down result. And if they want to, they can continue solving somewhere else.
We usually don't have enough time/judges/tables to allow people to stay there and solve for as long as they feel like...


----------



## Sebastien (May 15, 2012)

I think Dene means taht the cubes can be moved after the time limit is reached to count them, NOT before the time limit is reached. 

Anyway: in my opinion this whole discussion is completely useless as I don't think the regulation says that _a competitor_ needs to be stopped when the time limit is reached. The regulation just says that _the attempt_ is stopped when the time limit is reached. The attempt is stopped automatically at the point where the time passes by 60:00 (or 10:00*n, n < 6), no further action is needed for this act of _stopping_.
All further action is just up to the judge/delegate/organiser.


----------



## TMOY (May 15, 2012)

IMHO the discussion is not useless, precisely because it clearly shows how most people are misinterpreting the rule. Personally I would rewrite it as soething like:

H1b1) When the total time is reached, the attempt is over and the number of solved and unsolved cubes are counted, which determines the final result The competitor may continue solving (discretion of the judge and the organizer) but everything he does after the time limit is considered unofficial.


----------



## aronpm (May 15, 2012)

I don't think the competitor should be allowed to continue. By continuing, they are interfering with the tallying and they really _really_ should not be touching their cubes after their solve is over.

The (new) MBLD event is based on the 60 minute limit. If you go over that limit, too bad; your solve is over and you should stop. If you want to do old style MBLD, where times can be over 60 minutes, go home and do it.


----------



## kinch2002 (May 15, 2012)

aronpm said:


> they really _really_ should not be touching their cubes after their solve is over


This.
A6e) The competitor must not touch or move the puzzle until the judge has inspected the puzzle. Penalty: disqualification of the solve.
I believe that allowing a competitor to carry on conflicts with this regulation, and definitely conflicts with the reasoning behind the regulation i.e. that judges need to be given time to inspect the puzzle for +2 etc, during which the competitor shouldn't be interfering.
I propose that the wording is made stronger in the current regulation by adding a 'must' in there


----------



## MaeLSTRoM (May 15, 2012)

joey said:


> Erm what? The judge should NOT touch the competitor's cubes until after the attempt is over. No-one should.
> 
> This "rule" is stupid. Just stop them at 60mins. It doesn't make sense to let them continue, then it's unofficial. They can do that at home.


 
I agree with this.
Also, I think I saw a video of a multi attempt where the cubes were moved during the attempt by the judge then counted, OK that was fine because they were all solved, but because you can go back to fix a wrong cube, you could go back to apply a wrong correction possibly. So I think the cubes should be only touched by the competitor during the attempt, and then should be stopped at 60 mins, and then counted by the judge.


----------



## Mike Hughey (May 15, 2012)

Here's the thread I was thinking of; it was started over 3 years ago!
http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=545

Upon rereading that thread, it appears fairly clear to me that there were issues that really never were properly addressed in that thread. Allowing the opportunity to continue really seems like it creates difficulties that are unnecessary and unpleasant. I agree with Daniel that we should probably enforce the current rules, if for no other reason than to guarantee the competitor is not touching any puzzle during inspection.

What could be done is this: the judge stops the competitor at one hour; the competitor chooses to leave the blindfold on and puts the cube down in a known orientation. The judge then inspects all cubes (being careful to restore the position and orientation of cubes as they are inspected), determines the score, and records it. Then the judge may, at the discretion of the organizational team, tell the competitor to resume solving, and restart the stopwatch. Of course, this time is now completely unofficial, and does not count. All the rules are followed, the competitor is still able to try to finish (with a bit of a distraction, which is most definitely deserved anyway since the competitor didn't make the hour cutoff), and everyone should be happy. Of course, this is only allowed if the organizational team allows it; I probably wouldn't allow it at any of my competitions, and I'm a multiBLD guy.

I think that the rules should be left as they are today, but a procedure like the one I describe above could be mentioned in the guidelines, as an option for organizers to use if they desire it.

I always try to make it a point to specifically request my judge to stop me exactly at the end of my hour; I don't want to have to suffer through any more of a multi attempt than I have to.  In fact, if I'm not at US Nationals, I usually ask the judge to stop me on 4x4x4 BLD attempts that go over the ten minute stackmat limit. (Admittedly, I don't risk it at Nationals; you never know when you might get an awful scramble with 10 wing cycles to memorize.)


----------



## Ton (May 15, 2012)

theZcuber said:


> As you can see, the regulations clearly state that the attempt is stopped. However, there are many cases where it was not stopped. This has caused for some discussion on the WCA forums, but has never made it onto SpeedSolving. This topic has not been brought up in around two years now, and I believe that it is time for a very minor change to the regulations.
> 
> I believe that the total number of cubes solved and unsolved should in fact be counted at the end of the time (10*#; <=60 minutes). However, I personally see no reason why the competitor should not be allowed to continue the solve, given that the organisation team gives it the ok. The attempt should be able to be stopped at any time after the required time is up, but should not be required to be stopped after the time.
> 
> ...


 
You assume a mbf attempt solve always 1 cube at a time, this is not the case. Some methods start to solve on all cubes and build from there. So your "continue to solve" will create a loop hole, a mbf attempt that starts with a part of the solve on all cubes; hence current rule is fair


----------



## Cubenovice (May 15, 2012)

Mollerz said:


> As a competitor, you can always ask with your judge if you think time is going to be tight and decide between yourselves whether or not to interrupt at the hour mark.



Can you?
At my next 4BLD attempt after centers I will flash my cube at the judge and ask if all my centers are done, I might save myself (and the judge a lot of work)

Ehm???????


----------



## DrKorbin (May 15, 2012)

Cubenovice said:


> Can you?
> At my next 4BLD attempt after centers I will flash my cube at the judge and ask if all my centers are done, I might save myself (and the judge a lot of work)
> 
> Ehm???????


I guess it is direct hint from judge to competitor about current state of the cube, therefore should be forbidden. (BTW, regulations don't forbid judge to say "hey you got UBL and FDR twisted, correct them"). Because if a judge says "you haven't solve centers, so stop it", you can ignore him, make a guess about right centers and solve the entire cube successfully.
What Mike says is judge giving information only about time, not the cube state.

BTW, I want clarify if it is permitted for a competitor to make request in Multi-BLD for a judge: "Please tell me when there will be 5 minutes left".


----------



## Bob (May 15, 2012)

DrKorbin said:


> BTW, regulations don't forbid judge to say "hey you got UBL and FDR twisted, correct them"


 
Yes they do.

A5b) While inspecting or solving the puzzle, the competitor must not have any assistance from anyone or any object (other than the surface). Penalty: disqualification of the solve.


----------



## cubeflip (May 15, 2012)

I get what you're saying. That is a nice idea, but it would be really unfair for some people who aren't allowed to continue. If what you're saying became official, then someone could organize a competition with a 5 hour MultiBLD event, and the people there would have a significant advantage. Didn't Maskow just post a 42/44 MultiBLD (good job btw)? That's cool, but it was over an hour. The bottom line is, everything needs to be fair. We can't have one person getting an hour+ when another only gets an hour. I think this part of the regulations is fine how it is.

EDIT: oh, after 60 minutes the competitor can continue but the official result is still capped at 60min. That sounds good. Sorry.


----------



## Julian (May 15, 2012)

cubeflip said:


> I get what you're saying. That is a nice idea, but it would be really unfair for some people who aren't allowed to continue. If what you're saying became official, then someone could organize a competition with a 5 hour MultiBLD event, and the people there would have a significant advantage. Didn't Maskow just post a 42/44 MultiBLD (good job btw)? That's cool, but it was over an hour. The bottom line is, everything needs to be fair. We can't have one person getting an hour+ when another only gets an hour. I think this part of the regulations is fine how it is.


Haha, no, the suggestion is that anything allowed past 1h is unofficial (score is tallied at 60-minute mark).


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (May 15, 2012)

I agree in principal, but it's unlikely to happen much. If the delegate/organiser allows, the judge doesn't mind and the competitor wishes to, they can continue past 1 hour, provided that the number of solved cubes can easily be counted at the 1 hour mark with minimal enough disruption to the competitor, which is at the judge's discretion. I find it unlikely that all those will happen though in most cases. If the first part is met, the competitor may be wise to make an effort to make counting easier for the judge, to increase the chance that the judge feels comfortable counting the cubes unambiguously, to try and prevent the attempt being stopped.

Personally, I would just stop at 1 hour and save energy, MBLD is tiring enough.


----------



## Dene (May 16, 2012)

joey said:


> Erm what? The judge should NOT touch the competitor's cubes until after the attempt is over. No-one should.


 
:fp

And that goes for you too Pedro. 

@Sebastian The rule certainly isn't very clear about it. Stopping the attempt to me would be interpreted as "stop the competitor". If nothing else comes out of this thread, at least that could be clarified.


----------



## amostay2004 (May 16, 2012)

I personally don't see any reason why anyone would wanna continue solving after the hour limit. To prove that you could solve all of them, even after 1 hour? Please. Like Mike said, I think people would rather not go through any unnecessary effort if the time limit has passed.

I'm with everyone that says the attempt and the competitor should be stopped at the hour mark.


----------



## joey (May 16, 2012)

Dene said:


> :fp
> 
> And that goes for you too Pedro.


Explain? What did I misunderstand?


----------



## Mollerz (May 16, 2012)

Cubenovice said:


> Can you?
> At my next 4BLD attempt after centers I will flash my cube at the judge and ask if all my centers are done, I might save myself (and the judge a lot of work)
> 
> Ehm???????



Before the attempt starts. For example if I'm doing 6 cubes I know I'll only be around 20 minutes but if I try for 14+ then I know I'll be very close to the 1 hour mark. That'd against regulations otherwise.

In terms of the whole idea of it. I agree with stopping if they aren't on their last cube basically.


----------



## Sebastien (May 16, 2012)

Dene said:


> @Sebastian The rule certainly isn't very clear about it. Stopping the attempt to me would be interpreted as "stop the competitor". If nothing else comes out of this thread, at least that could be clarified.


 
Yes Dean, this should probably be clarified.


----------



## Dene (May 16, 2012)

joey said:


> Explain? What did I misunderstand?


 
I clearly meant that the cubes would be moved once the hour was up. Of course the judge shouldn't touch the cubes during the attempt.

EDIT: To be fair, I wasn't "clear" about that, but surely that was the common sense interpretation of what I said.


----------



## Kirjava (May 16, 2012)

Multibld attempts are an hour. We shouldn't cater to this at all.


----------



## qqwref (May 16, 2012)

I think the rule should be like this:
- Judge cannot touch cubes during the attempt.
- When the time limit is up or the competitor stops their attempt, the judge notifies the competitor that the attempt is over. At this point the competitor must let go of any cubes they are touching, and may not touch any of their cubes until the judge finishes determining and recording their multiBLD score.

But after the judge determines their multiBLD score, who cares? We don't have or need a regulation that says "competitor must get up from their chair" or "competitor must remove their cubes from the table", or even "competitor must immediately remove blindfold to look at the cubes". After the judge determines and records the score, if the judge and delegate agree it's OK for the competitor to sit there for a while more, I see no reason why the competitor would be unable to unofficially continue with their solve. We don't need a regulation for this.


----------

