# [Indian NR] Kunaal Parekh - 15.03 Square-1 Single



## kunparekh18 (May 28, 2014)

[video=youtube_share;Lux2rIEjCD4]http://youtu.be/Lux2rIEjCD4[/video]



> My first ever NR, in my favourite event  it was an awesome feeling. I failed the average, but this was pretty cool


----------



## CyanSandwich (May 28, 2014)

Congrats!


----------



## guysensei1 (May 28, 2014)

Gj!


----------



## kunparekh18 (May 28, 2014)

CyanSandwich said:


> Congrats!





guysensei1 said:


> Gj!



Thanks!!


----------



## Iggy (May 28, 2014)

Well done!


----------



## MarcelP (May 28, 2014)

Awesome! I still have to learn how to solve the damn thing


----------



## kunparekh18 (May 28, 2014)

Iggy said:


> Well done!





MarcelP said:


> Awesome! I still have to learn how to solve the damn thing



Thanks!  its quite hard to learn, but once you get the hang of it its quite fun


----------



## ilikecubing (May 28, 2014)

gj :tu


----------



## Antonie faz fan (May 28, 2014)

Nice! But is it just me or did he turn the cube while inspecting?


----------



## kcl (May 28, 2014)

Antonie faz fan said:


> Nice! But is it just me or did he turn the cube while inspecting?



Doesn't look like it, seems like an illusion to me.


----------



## pipkiksass (May 29, 2014)

What the... awesome work Kunaal, been watching your progress with interest ever since race to sub 30 days - you're now significantly faster OH than I am 2H... and a national record holder!  congrats man, vvvgj!


----------



## kunparekh18 (May 29, 2014)

ilikecubing said:


> gj :tu



Thanks! 



Antonie faz fan said:


> Nice! But is it just me or did he turn the cube while inspecting?





kclejeune said:


> Doesn't look like it, seems like an illusion to me.



Thanks! Didn't look like I did though. 



pipkiksass said:


> What the... awesome work Kunaal, been watching your progress with interest ever since race to sub 30 days - you're now significantly faster OH than I am 2H... and a national record holder!  congrats man, vvvgj!



Thanks a lot, man! I've been practicing only OH and sq1 since November last year  and yeah the race to sub 30 days were so fun. Thanks again!


----------



## kunparekh18 (May 29, 2014)

This solve is DNF. I made a move in inspection. Board clarified with me and with the delegate. Sorry.

Mods please lock this thread or move it to another section.


----------



## Iggy (May 29, 2014)

kunparekh18 said:


> This solve is DNF. I made a move in inspection. Board clarified with me and with the delegate. Sorry.
> 
> Mods please lock this thread or move it to another section.





Good job for being so honest though :tu


----------



## ottozing (May 29, 2014)

That's really unlucky. One slight move that wouldn't have even affected the solve significantly... :/ I guess it's fair though. Hopefully you get NR single another time  And like Iggy said, well done for being upfront and honest.


----------



## TP (May 29, 2014)

Iggy said:


> Good job for being so honest though :tu



Indeed, good luck beating it in your next competition instead!


----------



## EMI (May 29, 2014)

When is it considered "making a move"? I always thought the definition of a move is turning a side more than 45 degrees. If so, I don't think you made a move. (One might argue that doing (1,0) (-1,0) is a move, but that's not clear in the regulations - and you only get +2 for more than 45 degrees, so...)


----------



## kunparekh18 (May 29, 2014)

ottozing said:


> That's really unlucky. One slight move that wouldn't have even affected the solve significantly... :/ I guess it's fair though. Hopefully you get NR single another time  And like Iggy said, well done for being upfront and honest.





TP said:


> Indeed, good luck beating it in your next competition instead!





Iggy said:


> Good job for being so honest though :tu



I know, it's sad  No problem, I'll just practice and beat it next time 

Here's my message to the Board and their reply:



Spoiler: My message



> Hello,
>
> My name is Kunaal Parekh, WCA ID 2013PARE01. I attended C^3 Open 2014 on the
> 26th and 27th of this month. In Square-1 Finals of the competition, my third
> solve was 15.032, which is below the Indian single NR at the moment.
>
> Video evidence (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lux2rIEjCD4) shows that
> around the 0:10 mark I made a small clockwise turn of the U layer, which
> after watching multiple times, is around 30 degrees, which is halfway
> through a corner piece in the Square-1 puzzle (I may be wrong, though).
>
> The delegate of the competition (Swaminathan Chandrasekaran) has informed me
> of the Board's decision to disqualify/DNF the attempt, and this mail is an
> attempt to clarify what exactly happened, why it happened, why it shouldn't
> have happened and as a hope that the Board would remove the DNF penalty on
> this solve.
>
> It happened because my Square-1 puzzle is extremely loose and tends to turn
> at a relatively softer touch, although I agree this is my mistake as it have
> maintained the puzzle that way.
>
> The misalignment was such that after the misalignment, I couldn't have done
> a 180 degree of the right layer ( a / turn ) as the puzzle was such that the
> slice passed halfway through a corner piece, making a / turn impossible.
> Thus it was not my intention to slice right away after inspection, which I
> wouldn't have been able to had I not misaligned the puzzle.
>
> It was also not of any advantage to me because I did not intend to make more
> parts of the puzzle visible to me with the misalignment as as seen in the
> video, I had done a y2 rotation before doing the misalignment, making the
> part of the puzzle visible after the misalignment already visible to me
> before I did it.
>
> I had not corrected the misalignment as even though my doing so is illegal
> according to the regulations, my correction would have been intentional, and
> I didn't want to make any intentional turns during inspection as I don't
> think that would be legal.
>
> I could have taken down the video before the delegate messaged you to
> protect my solve, but that would be dishonest and not in good sportsmanship.
>
> I deeply regret my actions and will take all efforts to prevent such
> incidents from happening in my future competitions, if I happen to compete.
>
> I kindly request you to please reconsider your decision of DNFing the solve,
> although I am in favour of any decision you take after reading this email.
>
> Thank you,
> Kunaal Parekh,
> 2013PARE01


I also want to add another point, my first move after starting the solve was a counter-clockwise turn of the U layer, whereas my misalignment was a clockwise turn. So if I hadn't misaligned, my starting move would have been easier as I would have to turn the U layer by a lesser angle. So the misalignment was actually disadvantageous to my solve.

Thank you,
Kunaal Parekh

Sent via Micromax Superfone








Spoiler: Board's Reply



Dear Kunaal Parekh,

Thank you very much for your message.
Unfortunately your solve will stay a DNF.

The regulations say this:
A3c1) The competitor must not apply moves during inspection. Penalty:
disqualification of the attempt (DNF).
In this case you applied a move, so the result is DNF.

You say the move was made because your puzzle is extremely loose. The
regulations say this:
3h3) Any modifications to a puzzle that result in poor performance by
a competitor are not grounds for additional attempts.
So there is no right for you to get a replacement for attempt.

I do believe that you did not do this intentionally. Otherwise it
would have been cheating of course.

Good luck in your next competition!

Have fun,

Ron





> [h=2][/h] When is it considered "making a move"? I always thought the definition of a move is turning a side more than 45 degrees. If so, I don't think you made a move. (One might argue that doing (1,0) (-1,0) is a move, but that's not clear in the regulations - and you only get +2 for more than 45 degrees, so...)​



I don't know. I thought of making that point to the board, but I was too tired to reply.

Mods, please don't close this thread; something productive might come out of this discussion.


----------



## guysensei1 (May 29, 2014)

Aww.

Rules are rules I guess. Just work hard next time!


----------



## DeeDubb (May 29, 2014)

Hey, you did it once, you'll do it again. Keep your chin up  Keep working hard, and your honesty will be rewarded.


----------



## kunparekh18 (May 29, 2014)

guysensei1 said:


> Aww.
> 
> Rules are rules I guess. Just work hard next time!





DeeDubb said:


> Hey, you did it once, you'll do it again. Keep your chin up  Keep working hard, and your honesty will be rewarded.



Yep, definitely, thanks for the encouragement


----------



## uberCuber (May 29, 2014)

EMI said:


> When is it considered "making a move"? I always thought the definition of a move is turning a side more than 45 degrees. If so, I don't think you made a move. (One might argue that doing (1,0) (-1,0) is a move, but that's not clear in the regulations - and you only get +2 for more than 45 degrees, so...)



10e2) If no further moves are required to bring the puzzle to its solved state, the puzzle is considered solved without penalty.
10e3) If one move is required, the puzzle is be considered solved with a time penalty (+2 seconds).

By 10f4, the puzzle is considered solved without penalty with a (-1,0) misalignment. So (-1,0) away from solved falls into the category "no further moves are required to bring the puzzle to its solved state." So (1,0) is not a move, according to section 10.

I always thought this was clear, and I assumed it was intentional because it is so difficult to even notice a (1,0) or a (0,1) being done in inspection. In this solve, neither Kunaal himself or his judge noticed that the face was turned during inspection. Since square-1's often reach the table not perfectly aligned, doing a (1,0) away from the intended scramble could be as little as turning 15 degrees. This isn't nearly as noticeable as 45+ degrees, and I wouldn't imagine a judge calling someone out for an accidental 15-degree turn of a face.


----------



## kunparekh18 (May 29, 2014)

I didn't notice I did the move, I was too excited. I bet even the judge didnt. After watching the video, I found I'd done a turn. 

The misalignment was halfway through a corner


----------



## Bhargav777 (May 29, 2014)

<3


----------



## kcl (May 29, 2014)

uberCuber said:


> 10e2) If no further moves are required to bring the puzzle to its solved state, the puzzle is considered solved without penalty.
> 10e3) If one move is required, the puzzle is be considered solved with a time penalty (+2 seconds).
> 
> By 10f4, the puzzle is considered solved without penalty with a (-1,0) misalignment. So (-1,0) away from solved falls into the category "no further moves are required to bring the puzzle to its solved state." So (1,0) is not a move, according to section 10.
> ...



I agree with this. Square 1's turn so easily that it's almost hard not to make a move simply picking up the puzzle. This is practically like saying it's a +2 for correcting a slight misalignment on 3x3.


----------



## Tim Major (May 29, 2014)

I noticed it the first time I watched this yesterday. I was going to comment but two things were clear;
-the turn actually lengthened your solution, as the first turm was the opposite.
-accidental

However, a corner is much less than 60 degrees. You yourself said you turned it 30 degrees, over half a turn = a turn. If this was the end of a solve it'd have to be plus 2. If you have U left to solve a 3x3 and you do U2, just because it's obviously accidental, and INCREASES your solution, doesn't mean it isn't +2.

I honestly think the board made the right decision, so as to not set a precedent for moves before solves being allowed.

Whilst this is my viewpoint, I obviously feel sorry for you, it wasn't intentional or advantageous to make that move, good luck getting this NR again.


----------



## ilikecubing (May 29, 2014)

I'm taking nothing away from Kunaal, the solve was pure brilliance.

But What would be the case if there was no video, I guess the solve would have stayed and it would have been an NR. Not only this solve, but there must be so many solves in which minute moves go unnoticed by judges. Unfortunately, Such carelessness in inexperienced judges is common. I think the regulations in relation to judging should be made more rigid than what they are now. If this solve wouldn't have been an NR, then it wouldn't even have come in front of the community.
Before a comp starts, all Judges should know that they have to make sure that the competitor is making no move to the puzzle. It is the judge who gets the best view of the competitor picking up and inspecting the puzzle. Maybe its time some important changes are made in respect to a judge's qualification to be able to judge in an official competition.

I have had several bad experiences with judges,some judges would just come to the table and say 'start' and instantly pick up the cover. It feels so disgusting and makes the competitor uncomfortable before the solve. I have to immediately ask them to keep the cover down and tell them to ask if I'm ready, it just disrupts my concentration. All judges should know that first, they are to ask the competitor if he/she is ready.
I would estimate that about 2-3% of the people who have ever judged me in a comp were unaware of the judging guidelines. Which is quite a lot.

Really, its time that set standards are brought into action specifically for judging


----------



## LucidCuber (May 30, 2014)

ilikecubing said:


> Really, its time that set standards are brought into action specifically for judging



I made a thread about problems I see with judging, although I was focused on deliberate cheating rather than inexperience and mistakes. On the one hand I understand the need for trustworthines and faith in judges, but on the other hand I think as speedcubing progresses we should move towards more professional standards. Of course we can't be as stringent as a Olympic event, but I think improvements in the judging procedure would raise confidence of non cubers as to the legitimacy of our records.


----------



## kunparekh18 (May 30, 2014)

Tim Major said:


> I noticed it the first time I watched this yesterday. I was going to comment but two things were clear;
> -the turn actually lengthened your solution, as the first turm was the opposite.
> -accidental
> 
> ...



Wait, I don't get you, a corner piece is 60 degrees, I turned the cube by 30 degrees, basically making it a (1,0) turn. However, a (1,0) turn at the end of the solve isn't +2 (regulations say it is 45 degrees for square-1)


----------



## mDiPalma (May 30, 2014)

It really infuriates me when solves are retroactively disqualified on the grounds of PRIVATE video evidence.

In this age of CGI and video-editing it is not impossible for me to go to a competition, get my friend to sign off on a fake 5.23 WR solve, go home, get the scramble for my "solve", figure out a great CFOP-esque solution, generate an accurate computer graphic of myself at the competition venue "doing the 5.23 WR solve", and post it to the forums.

Of course then, the WCA would be unable to disqualify the attempt on ANY grounds whatsoever. They have, in fact, video evidence that the solve did occur correctly, and I would sit on my 3x3 WR until Porkynator pulls a 25 move speedsolve out of thin air.

Disqualifying solves as a result of privately produced video evidence is likely a sin against God. It's a disgusting, petty peccancy done via the cover of e-mail because the accusers don't have the nerve to make such an egregious accusation in the midst of the accused. If you can't openly disqualify a solve at the competition immediately after the attempt, then you shouldn't do so at all!

The disqualification should be done AT THE COMPETITION BY THE GODFORSAKEN JUDGE THAT VOLUNTEERED TO OFFICIATE THE ATTEMPT. The concept of retroactively disqualifying solves on the basis of some private video evidence is liable to be corrupted by the fact that you're watching a horribly-pixelated, shaky, partially-zoomed, two-dimensional representation (with glare, heat, and depth inaccuracies) of an obscure diagonal-angle view of the attempt.

If you want to do that, then live the remainder of your contemptible existence in the same crass fashion. Answer test questions with knowledge garnered from a troll-joke-video online. Or marry someone you've only seen in a low-quality cell-phone video from the late nineties.

If you don't see the colossal mistake in post-judging attempts that have been already *legitimately* officiated, then you are closeminded, obstinate, pigheaded, shortsighted blockhead with no sense for the difference between reality and fantasy.

This guy just made a legitimate Square-1 NR, and you should be ashamed of the retraction that you've made.


----------



## DeeDubb (May 30, 2014)

mDiPalma said:


> It really infuriates me when solves are retroactively disqualified on the grounds of PRIVATE video evidence.
> 
> In this age of CGI and video-editing it is not impossible for me to go to a competition, get my friend to sign off on a fake 5.23 WR solve, go home, get the scramble for my "solve", figure out a great CFOP-esque solution, generate an accurate computer graphic of myself at the competition venue "doing the 5.23 WR solve", and post it to the forums.
> 
> ...



Aside from a lot of the unnecessary creative language in this post, it does bring up an interesting point.

Had the record not been filmed, it would be a NR. That's a fact. Not every solve is filmed which means people who don't have filmed solves do put themselves at an advantage in cases like this. Without video, it's one judges eyes seeing it live. With video, it could be thousands watching multiple times in slow motion. It's not hard to see why the judge missed it. Most of us certainly missed this the first time watching the video.

Some sports have video replay to allow for retraction of live judges errors, however, there are strict guidelines on when and how the replay can be used. I can only think of one example in any major sport where a private video was used to penalize someone, and that was Tiger Woods getting a 2 stroke penalty for his ball moving slightly when he cleared debris around it. Had it not been Tiger Woods (just like, had it not been someone going for a national record in this video), there likely would not have been a video evidence to catch him. Tiger Woods' penalty was controversial for the same reason that this should be controversial.

I think the rules have to be examined and adjusted to interpret when and how video replay can be used to make it fair for everyone.


----------



## uberCuber (May 30, 2014)

Definitely agree with the above two posts. This honestly makes me glad my official solves aren't recorded, which is kinda sad.

But I would still like to see a response to my earlier post, because even with the video I don't think is DNF anyway.


----------



## kunparekh18 (May 30, 2014)

Even if it were somehow argued that this solve isn't a DNF, would it be possible for the board to change the results after they're uploaded on the WCA site?


----------



## newtonbase (May 30, 2014)

I have to disagree with some of the preceeding posts. I believe that if a solve is against the rules then it shouldn't stand. Just because some people would have gotten away with it doesn't make it legitimate. It is unfortunate as it is a great solve but maybe the rules need changing to allow an error like this if there is no advantage gained.


----------



## ryanj92 (May 30, 2014)

kunparekh18 said:


> Even if it were somehow argued that this solve isn't a DNF, would it be possible for the board to change the results after they're uploaded on the WCA site?



I'm pretty sure it's happened before, so yeah

(Back at UKO12 one guy in the final was given +2's on every solve for bad timer stops, based on video evidence. i'm pretty sure he was warned at the time after like his 3rd solve, but i'm pretty no penalties were applied until later. also i've seen results that have been uploaded wrong (inconsequential mistypes during data entry, like 32.13 instead of 31.23) which have been since corrected by checking scorecards)

EDIT
Kunaal, have you informed the board about uberCuber's post? I think he makes a legitimate point 

tbh SQ-1 is an awful puzzle for this sort of thing, even puzzles without 'reasonable wear' tend to slip around on their own, it's more a consequence of the design everyone uses than anything else... the act of putting the scrambled puzzle in a box, carrying it over to a judging station, and placing it ready for a solve probably changes the orientation from what it should be anyway


----------



## kunparekh18 (May 30, 2014)

ryanj92 said:


> I'm pretty sure it's happened before, so yeah
> 
> (Back at UKO12 one guy in the final was given +2's on every solve for bad timer stops, based on video evidence. i'm pretty sure he was warned at the time after like his 3rd solve, but i'm pretty no penalties were applied until later. also i've seen results that have been uploaded wrong (inconsequential mistypes during data entry, like 32.13 instead of 31.23) which have been since corrected by checking scorecards)
> 
> ...



I did message them, linking to uberCuber's post, minutes after he posted. They haven't replied. I just guess they've stopped caring 

His point is legit. When I told the WCA sq1s are loose, they pointed me to a regulation saying I should have provided a better puzzle. I don't think anything can be done at this point. :/

If someone can point a board member active on the forums to that post it'd be great.


----------



## Petro Leum (May 30, 2014)

I agree with MdiPalma. While his logic also works the other way round, that is, someone who gets their solves recorded, would be able to get an extra attempt when a misscrambled cube is noticed that has put him at a disadvantage, while when you dont record your solves, you likely wont ever notice your cube wasnt scrambled correctly. As long as recording is not part of the regulations and the judging itself, youre kinda just getting a penalty for trying to get your solves on vid, and it doesnt pose equal circumstances for all competitors when some are judged using video evidence and some are not. of course it is hard to "ignore" mistakes made when you see them in a vid, but if you cant penalize the mistakes made that were not filmed, it is not fair towards the competitor.

TLDR; better judging or ****. we cant record every solve, so dont even start judging by vids.

EDIT: in one point i disagree with MDiPalma. While when you sign up to a competition you already techincally volunteer to scramble/judge , many do actually refuse to judge unless reminded by the delegate (I myself have been guilty of this in the past for various reasons) So generalizing "the judge who volunteered" is not quite correct


----------



## qqwref (May 30, 2014)

Perhaps we should change the regulation...

A3c1) The competitor must not deliberately apply moves during inspection. Penalty: disqualification of the attempt (DNF).


----------



## Petro Leum (May 30, 2014)

what if i get a misaligned cube and i fix the misalignment in the inspection time in the wrong way, so the scramble is technically altered by 1 move? would i get a DNF? i couldnt have known, right? im kinda frightened now to have **** like this happen to me when i try to get my solves recorded.


----------



## JackJ (May 30, 2014)

qqwref said:


> Perhaps we should change the regulation...
> 
> A3c1) The competitor must not deliberately apply moves during inspection. Penalty: disqualification of the attempt (DNF).


Oh, I don't know. How will we be able to define what deliberately is?


----------



## kunparekh18 (May 30, 2014)

qqwref said:


> Perhaps we should change the regulation...
> 
> A3c1) The competitor must not deliberately apply moves during inspection. Penalty: disqualification of the attempt (DNF).





JackJ said:


> Oh, I don't know. How will we be able to define what deliberately is?



Exactly what I was thinking of.


----------



## mDiPalma (May 30, 2014)

newtonbase said:


> I have to disagree with some of the preceeding [sic] posts. I believe that if a solve is against the rules then it shouldn't stand. Just because some people would have gotten away with it doesn't make it legitimate. It is unfortunate as it is a great solve but maybe the rules need changing to allow an error like this if there is no advantage gained.



The problem with attempts like these are exclusively in the JUDGES, not in the COMPETITORS.

I don't have any problem counting this solve as a DNF, so long as the disqualification is made AT THE COMPETITION BY THE JUDGE ASSIGNED TO OFFICIATE THE ATTEMPT. Whether or not you accept the privately produced video as reliable evidence, you must acknowledge the fact that the judge for this attempt FAILED TO FULFILL HIS DUTY.

He should have 1) NOTICED THE PRE-MOVE, 2) POINTED IT OUT, and 3) GOTTEN A RESCRAMBLE (OR REVERSE SCRAMBLE) FOR THE COMPETITOR.

The retroactively assigned DNF is around 2% the fault of the poorly maintained Square-1, and 98% the fault of the judge. I always thought there was some regulation that protected competitors from the mistakes of their judges. But I guess that is only a formality included to make the capricious regulations of this paltry organisation appear more legitimate. I forgot that the WCA has no genuine interest in providing for_ more competitions in more countries with more people and more fun, under *fair and equal conditions*_, as their mission statement would otherwise suggest.

This lamentable organisation is really beginning to aggravate me, and others, I expect.


----------



## XTowncuber (May 30, 2014)

mDiPalma said:


> the judge for this attempt FAILED TO FULFILL HIS DUTY.


That's a bit harsh. To be honest, after I knew a move had been performed I still had to watch the video 3 times in order to see it. Sure he's supposed to catch that, but it was hard to see, so do try to be polite.


----------



## Petro Leum (May 30, 2014)

mDiPalma said:


> The problem with attempts like these are exclusively in the JUDGES, not in the COMPETITORS.
> 
> I don't have any problem counting this solve as a DNF, so long as the disqualification is made AT THE COMPETITION BY THE JUDGE ASSIGNED TO OFFICIATE THE ATTEMPT. Whether or not you accept the privately produced video as reliable evidence, you must acknowledge the fact that the judge for this attempt FAILED TO FULFILL HIS DUTY.
> 
> ...



MCL incoming

Matt's cubing League! The only Speedsolving organization that MATTERS! *Badumm-tss*

fo real tho, i think while alot of things in the WCA and the regulations arent perfect, theyre trying their hardest to make everyone happy and fulfill their mission.


----------



## EMI (Jun 1, 2014)

So... the results are up now, and it says DNF. Explanation anybody?

btw, as far as I can tell an (accidental) 30 degree turn during inspection on a 3x3 would not make that solve DNF. This might be to fix a misalignment or not, it doesn't matter. A turn is only a turn if it is 45 degrees or more, because otherwise everything could be considered a turn. And if that goes for 3x3, it has to go for Square-1 too, as the 45 degree rule applies for it, too.


----------



## Antonie faz fan (Jun 1, 2014)

EMI said:


> So... the results are up now, and it says DNF. Explanation anybody?
> 
> btw, as far as I can tell an (accidental) 30 degree turn during inspection on a 3x3 would not make that solve DNF. This might be to fix a misalignment or not, it doesn't matter. A turn is only a turn if it is 45 degrees or more, because otherwise everything could be considered a turn. And if that goes for 3x3, it has to go for Square-1 too, as the 45 degree rule applies for it, too.



thats is true but however if this will become a rule there are no doubt people wil use this as an advantage...


----------



## ottozing (Jun 1, 2014)

Antonie faz fan said:


> thats is true but however if this will become a rule there are no doubt people wil use this as an advantage...



Sorta this.

The problem with square-1 is that the U/D layers could be slightly misaligned and still provide a slight advantage because how U/D layers on a sq1 are often moved in less than 45 degree increments before the next turn. In this case, all it ended up doing was lengthening the solution by one move, but perhaps someone could do this on both the U/D layers slightly and save 2 moves on cubeshape.

It really sucks that this has to be DNF, and I wish it weren't so, but alas this is not the case :/


----------



## 10461394944000 (Jun 1, 2014)

this is not a dnf


----------



## EMI (Jun 1, 2014)

Even if you use this to your advantage in inspection I think the solve is legal. Because a (1,0) is not a move.
(Of course this is a bit of a problem, but as long as the rules don't clarify the definition of a move on a Square-1, this can't be DNF)


----------



## Future Cuber (Jun 1, 2014)

GJ and i suppose this was at the C^3 open in chennai
i was there as well


----------



## DeeDubb (Jun 1, 2014)

I think this NR will not be lost in vain. I hope WCA officials are taking notice and this situation will lead to better and more fair rules for both the definition of a preinspection move (especially in SQ-1), as well as how cameras can be used for judging.


----------



## Future Cuber (Jun 1, 2014)

DeeDubb said:


> I think this NR will not be lost in vain. I hope WCA officials are taking notice and this situation will lead to better and more fair rules for both the definition of a preinspection move (especially in SQ-1), as well as how cameras can be used for judging.



Ya got that one right


----------



## Kirjava (Jun 1, 2014)

mDiPalma said:


> The problem with attempts like these are exclusively in the JUDGES, not in the COMPETITORS.
> 
> I don't have any problem counting this solve as a DNF, so long as the disqualification is made AT THE COMPETITION BY THE JUDGE ASSIGNED TO OFFICIATE THE ATTEMPT. Whether or not you accept the privately produced video as reliable evidence, you must acknowledge the fact that the judge for this attempt FAILED TO FULFILL HIS DUTY.
> 
> ...



Can you show me where in the regulations it says a competitor can have an extra attempt if he makes moves during inspection?

It took me multiple views of the video to see what happened. You can forgive the judge for not spotting this. 

You are acting like a moron.


----------



## Goosly (Jun 1, 2014)

mDiPalma said:


> I don't have any problem counting this solve as a DNF, so long as the disqualification is made AT THE COMPETITION BY THE JUDGE ASSIGNED TO OFFICIATE THE ATTEMPT. Whether or not you accept the privately produced video as reliable evidence, you must acknowledge the fact that the judge for this attempt FAILED TO FULFILL HIS DUTY.
> 
> He should have 1) NOTICED THE PRE-MOVE, 2) POINTED IT OUT, and 3) GOTTEN A RESCRAMBLE (OR REVERSE SCRAMBLE) FOR THE COMPETITOR.
> 
> The retroactively assigned DNF is around 2% the fault of the poorly maintained Square-1, and 98% the fault of the judge.



You are a funny guy. I didn't see the move when watching the video, even after reading the topic, thus knowing he made a move somewhere. I would never have noticed it if I was the judge, since I would also need to keep track of the inspection time and calling "8" and "go".


----------



## DeeDubb (Jun 1, 2014)

Goosly said:


> You are a funny guy. I didn't see the move when watching the video, even after reading the topic, thus knowing he made a move somewhere. I would never have noticed it if I was the judge, since I would also need to keep track of the inspection time and calling "8" and "go".



How is it fair to punish him after the fact when the vast majority of judges wouldn't have caught the error live? He's essentially being punished for sharing his solve.


----------



## TDM (Jun 1, 2014)

DeeDubb said:


> He's essentially being punished for sharing his solve.


Yet when Chris Olson posted a video of him overinspecting in a 'WR average', the solve was still given no penalty and he got the WR.


----------



## Goosly (Jun 1, 2014)

DeeDubb said:


> How is it fair to punish him after the fact when the vast majority of judges wouldn't have caught the error live? He's essentially being punished for sharing his solve.



I'm not saying it's fair. Why are you quoting me exactly?


----------



## mDiPalma (Jun 1, 2014)

Kirjava said:


> Can you show me where in the regulations it says a competitor can have an extra attempt if he makes moves during inspection?
> 
> It took me multiple views of the video to see what happened. You can forgive the judge for not spotting this.
> 
> You are acting like a moron.



1e) Each event must have one or more judges.
1e1) A judge is responsible for executing the procedures of the event.
1e1a) A judge may judge multiple competitors simultaneously at the discretion of the Delegate, as long as the judge is able to ensure that all WCA Regulations are followed at all times.

11e) If an incident occurs during an attempt, the WCA Delegate may award a competitor an extra attempt, replacing the attempt during which the incident occurred. The competitor must appeal verbally or in writing to the judge and WCA Delegate at the time of the incident, before finishing the original attempt, to be eligible for an extra attempt. An appeal does not guarantee the competitor an extra attempt.
11e1) If a competitor is awarded an extra attempt, the extra attempt must be scrambled using a different scramble sequence. This scramble sequence must be generated using the current official version of the official WCA scramble program (see Regulation 4f).

The judge (who is responsible for executing ALL the WCA regulations) FAILED TO DO SO in pointing out (and possibly remedying) the pre-"move". This "incident", if correctly pointed out should have awarded Kunaal Parekh another attempt. Though this attempt may not have been as good as the NR, it would likely still have been better than a retroactively assigned DNF on the basis of privately produced video evidence.

Also, *I don't care that a judge can't spot this in real time.* It's still a regulation. Either it's the fault of an ignorant judge or a silly, unimplementable rule. The competitor should NOT be punished for this.


----------



## Goosly (Jun 1, 2014)

mDiPalma said:


> The competitor should NOT be punished for this.



What do you mean by "this"? The "mistake" of the judge (if you want to call it a mistake), or making a move during inspection?


----------



## Bindedsa (Jun 1, 2014)

mDiPalma said:


> 1e) Each event must have one or more judges.
> 1e1) A judge is responsible for executing the procedures of the event.
> 1e1a) A judge may judge multiple competitors simultaneously at the discretion of the Delegate, as long as the judge is able to ensure that all WCA Regulations are followed at all times.
> 
> ...



If you do moves during inspection, is that not automatically a DNF? why should you get another attempt.


----------



## Goosly (Jun 1, 2014)

Bindedsa said:


> If you do moves during inspection, is that not automatically a DNF? why should you get another attempt.



Because the judge didn't notice it, therefor it is an incident and he gets another attempt. It is impossible to give him another attempt though, since this cannot be noticed at the competition if the judge didn't notice it. Unless we add a judge to judge every judge.


----------



## kunparekh18 (Jun 1, 2014)

C'mon Board, take notice of all the posts here...


----------



## mDiPalma (Jun 1, 2014)

Ok, perhaps I thought this was too self-explanatory. Here is the sequence:

The judge reveals the cube and starts inspection for the competitor. The competitor makes a 30 degree turn *which is technically not a move*.

Continuation 1) The judge sees the move. The judge is the most intelligent man at the venue and knows that a 30 degree turn IS NOT a move under the regulations and allows the solve to continue. In this case, the retroactively assigned DNF does a huge sum of injustice to this judge's intelligence and the credibility of the competitor. *In this case, the fault is on the WCA.*

Continuation 2) The judge sees the move and incorrectly believes that it is against regulations. He maliciously allows the solve to continue under some evil underworldly influence. He correctly allows the solve to continue because he decided to break the rule that he misremembered. *In this case, the fault is on the judge.*

Continuation 3) The judge does not see the move. He failed to do his duty. The fault is on him. Still, the 30 degree turn is not a move and the solve should NOT be discounted. But the judge did not pay enough attention. *In this case, the fault is on the judge for not watching, and on the WCA for retracting this NR.*

Those are the ONLY possibilities, generally speaking. The 30-degree "move" that was made during inspection was either directly (and correctly) officiated to be legal, or indirectly (and incorrectly) officiated to be illegal.

Assuming this legal, 30-degree pre-"move" was made, the blame can only thereafter fall on the WCA and/or on the volunteer judge. The competitor, who acted completely legally, should suffer no punishment for he has crossed no regulation.


----------



## Goosly (Jun 1, 2014)

^ So this means that I can make 30-degree "moves" (as you call it) during the inspection on all of my 3x3 solves? I'm gonna start doing that.


----------



## qqwref (Jun 1, 2014)

JackJ said:


> Oh, I don't know. How will we be able to define what deliberately is?


Like many other things, I think this can be at the discretion of the judge or delegate. If you ask me it should be pretty obvious in practice. In this case, a layer Kunaal was not touching made a slight turn while he was rotating the puzzle; thus it's clearly an unintentional turn. Of course, if you see someone shaking the cube back and forth to try to get the top layer to rotate, then it becomes deliberate.


I'm also interested in the idea about whether (1,0) counts as a move. If you just look at the misalignment rules, it doesn't count as a move. This is the kind of thing the regulations need to be more clear about. A move of 1 degree in inspection is OK; a move of 90 degrees is not; where does it become unacceptable, and is this the same as the +2 penalty standard?


----------



## EMI (Jun 1, 2014)

Goosly said:


> ^ So this means that I can make 30-degree "moves" (as you call it) during the inspection on all of my 3x3 solves? I'm gonna start doing that.



Well, as Michael pointed out - if not, where excactly is the border? If you accidentaly twist a side 1 degree, it's obviously not a problem.

BTW Not everything that's legal has to be used to one's advantage.


----------



## 10461394944000 (Jun 1, 2014)

Goosly said:


> ^ So this means that I can make 30-degree "moves" (as you call it) during the inspection on all of my 3x3 solves? I'm gonna start doing that.



yes, you should be allowed to. i dont see what advantage you are expecting from that though.


----------



## Goosly (Jun 1, 2014)

10461394944000 said:


> yes, you should be allowed to. i dont see what advantage you are expecting from that though.



None. I'm just wondering what the reaction of the judges would be.


----------



## blade740 (Jun 1, 2014)

I think it's a shame that this solve was disqualified. (-1,0) is not a full move according to the regulations, and in any case the move didn't make the solve easier in any way.

Disqualifying the solve after the fact based on video evidence is well within the board's rights, and while I think it's a bit annoying, I can't really argue with that. However, I stand by my judgement that this was NOT a move, and should not be penalized.

A bit of anecdotal evidence: I myself have done this exact sort of thing many times. I have also, repeatedly, received square-1s from the scrambling table in an "untwistable position" (meaning that a turn like this was made by the scrambler, runner, or judge before it got to me). My action in these cases has always been to leave the puzzle "as-is" (as Kunaal did) to avoid making any intentional moves, and I have never once been penalized. Now this is beginning to cause doubt: what should I do in a situation like this to avoid a penalty?


----------



## AJ Blair (Jun 1, 2014)

blade740 said:


> I think it's a shame that this solve was disqualified. (-1,0) is not a full move according to the regulations, and in any case the move didn't make the solve easier in any way.
> 
> Disqualifying the solve after the fact based on video evidence is well within the board's rights, and while I think it's a bit annoying, I can't really argue with that. However, I stand by my judgement that this was NOT a move, and should not be penalized.
> 
> A bit of anecdotal evidence: I myself have done this exact sort of thing many times. I have also, repeatedly, received square-1s from the scrambling table in an "untwistable position" (meaning that a turn like this was made by the scrambler, runner, or judge before it got to me). My action in these cases has always been to leave the puzzle "as-is" (as Kunaal did) to avoid making any intentional moves, and I have never once been penalized. Now this is beginning to cause doubt: what should I do in a situation like this to avoid a penalty?



I imagine that the best thing to do from this point on is to ask the judge or runner to take it back to the scrambler and have it set to the proper position and placed delicately on the table in front of you, very similar to what happens if a Clock tips over and all of the pins get pushed up when placed on the table. It seems silly that should have to be done and it takes up a bit more time that could be spend moving things along, but it seems to me to be the safest route to take. 

I've been in this exact situation several times. I've even had the square-1 tipped on it's side when the cover is removed and have had to rotate it while picking it up to even be able to inspect it. Doing that on a well-used square-1 causes at least one side to rotate on its own, if not both. This not only causes a technical DNF but it also sucks up a chunk of the inspection time as well trying to be delicate enough to not cause any more moves while inspecting. I'm not exactly sure what the best course of action is here to prevent this from happening again, but I do think that it is something that needs to be remedied.


----------



## joey (Jun 2, 2014)

TDM said:


> Yet when Chris Olson posted a video of him overinspecting in a 'WR average', the solve was still given no penalty and he got the WR.



That's pretty bad.


----------



## kcl (Jun 2, 2014)

joey said:


> That's pretty bad.



It really wasn't. It wasn't his fault at all and it was very close to 15 seconds.


----------



## Rubiks560 (Jun 2, 2014)

Man...it's sad to see this stuff happen so much to official solves. (Well it seems like it has happened a lot) I feel like this is going to make people stop sharing videos when they notice something like this.

Glad you were honest about the solve and I hope you get NR again.


----------



## DavidCip86 (Jun 2, 2014)

That was a really good solve...but I have a lot of respect for your honesty and your attitude. Keep up the good work, and you'll get the NR soon


----------



## XTowncuber (Jun 2, 2014)

10461394944000 said:


> this is not a dnf



Very well put. 

Could someone who knows stuff please confirm that the board has at least heard these doubts?


----------



## Tim Major (Jun 2, 2014)

So far I can think of 4 cases where video evidence has changed/proposed to change results.

Cameron was 3rd at WC2011 2x2, winning money and a trophy I think, when he uploaded the video, a solve was DNFd, and he sent the money/trophy to the new 3rd place iirc

The 5 +2s at the UK comp

Chris Olsen's where a +2/DNF WASN'T added (judge error)

Now this where video evidence DID change the result.

Video evidence that isn't owned by the WCA shouldn't be used in my opinion after a comps completion, but if it IS, we need consistency


----------



## 10461394944000 (Jun 2, 2014)

Tim Major said:


> The 5 +2s at the UK comp



what? i dont remember this


----------



## aashritspidey (Jun 2, 2014)

Tim Major said:


> Video evidence that isn't owned by the WCA shouldn't be used in my opinion after a comps completion, but if it IS, we need consistentcy



Exactly.. So basically This is partiality.. I'm not against the board or olson or anything. But the thing is, Chris's over inspection wasn't deliberate... So was kunaal's But then why is it that kunaal's is DNF and Chris's legal?


----------



## TDM (Jun 2, 2014)

Tim Major said:


> but if it IS, we need consistentcy


This is all I care about. As long as it's consistent I'm happy.


----------



## Bindedsa (Jun 2, 2014)

TDM said:


> This is all I care about. As long as it's consistent I'm happy.


Exactly, If in the past any violations made in a video resulted in a change in results, no one would have a discussion the fairness. It would probably be discussed the first time, but after it is decided we would accept it. Instead, every time something likes this comes up we have no clear precedent.


----------



## kunparekh18 (Jun 2, 2014)

XTowncuber said:


> Very well put.
> 
> Could someone who knows stuff please confirm that the board has at least heard these doubts?



This is what I want to confirm, I sent the board one email with the link to this thread and the posts regarding the doubts about a (1,0) move, and I got no reply. I tried messaging Lucas Garron here on the forums, no reply there too. Maybe they noticed it but haven't bothered replying?

Let it be DNF, just answer the doubts, please


----------



## Sa967St (Jun 2, 2014)

XTowncuber said:


> Could someone who knows stuff please confirm that the board has at least heard these doubts?


 Yes, they are aware of this situation, and are currently discussing it.


----------



## kunparekh18 (Jun 2, 2014)

Sa967St said:


> Yes, they are aware of this situation, and are currently discussing it.



Thank you very much!


----------



## ryanj92 (Jun 2, 2014)

10461394944000 said:


> what? i dont remember this


Nick Horne, UKO12 finals


----------



## Kirjava (Jun 2, 2014)

mDiPalma said:


> This "incident", if correctly pointed out should have awarded Kunaal Parekh another attempt.



I'm pretty sure that if the competitor does moves during inspection, it should be DNF and he should not be awarded an extra attempt.


----------



## Kit Clement (Jun 2, 2014)

XTowncuber said:


> Very well put.
> 
> Could someone who knows stuff please confirm that the board has at least heard these doubts?



Yes, they have.

EDIT: thought I was on the last page, I was wrong and didn't see Sarah's reply


----------



## mDiPalma (Jun 2, 2014)

Kirjava said:


> I'm pretty sure that if the competitor does moves during inspection, it should be DNF and he should not be awarded an extra attempt.



Well first, he didn't do any moves.

Second, if the judge did his job and LOOKED for any moves and questioned the legality of the slight turn that was made, he should have pointed that out to the competitor, preventing the solution in the first place, seeking the delegate to remedy the situation. This would have likely lead to a new scramble for a replacement attempt, with heightened awareness for the crumby state of the competitor's Square-1 with possibly the delegate as the judge (who understands the WCA regulations better than a volunteer judge).


----------



## Rubiks560 (Jun 2, 2014)

mDiPalma said:


> Well first, he didn't do any moves.
> 
> Second,* if the judge did his job* and LOOKED for any moves and questioned the legality of the slight turn that was made, he should have pointed that out to the competitor, preventing the solution in the first place, seeking the delegate to remedy the situation. This would have likely lead to a new scramble for a replacement attempt, with heightened awareness for the crumby state of the competitor's Square-1 with possibly the delegate as the judge (who understands the WCA regulations better than a volunteer judge).



Have you ever helped judge through a whole day before? You get really tired after judging for 5+ hours. Perhaps he was tired and he let this slip. 
And honestly, even after watching the video a ton it was hard for me to spot the turn. I can't imagine it would be a whole lot easier to spot in person. 
Give the guy a break. If I had to bet, you would have missed it as well.


----------



## tseitsei (Jun 2, 2014)

mDiPalma said:


> Well first, he didn't do any moves.
> 
> Second, if the judge did his job and LOOKED for any moves and questioned the legality of the slight turn that was made, he should have pointed that out to the competitor, preventing the solution in the first place, seeking the delegate to remedy the situation. This would have likely lead to a new scramble for a replacement attempt, with heightened awareness for the crumby state of the competitor's Square-1 with possibly the delegate as the judge (who understands the WCA regulations better than a volunteer judge).



Well, I agree that this solve shouldn't be DNF since square-1 move is (poorly) defined in the regulations to be more than 45 degrees.


BUT I don''t understand how competitor would get a new attempt for this if the judge spotted this in the competition.

1. If we use the interpretation that square-1 move is more than 45 degrees turn(as I think we should because that's what the regulations say currently):
The judge notices the slight turn, but knows the regulations and let's the solve continue because everything is going well according to regulations.

2. If we use the interpretation that WCA board seems to be taking that (1,0) is also considered as a move:
The judge sees the move being made in inspection. Penalty for doing so is clearly said to be DNF not a new attempt. Otherwise I could just do a turn on 3x3 or 2x2 or any event during my inspection if I notice that scramble is hard and then get a new attempt...


----------



## Kirjava (Jun 2, 2014)

mDiPalma said:


> Well first, he didn't do any moves.



We're discussing the hypothetical situation where a move was performed.



mDiPalma said:


> Second, if the judge did his job and LOOKED for any moves and questioned the legality of the slight turn that was made, he should have pointed that out to the competitor, preventing the solution in the first place, seeking the delegate to remedy the situation. This would have likely lead to a new scramble for a replacement attempt, with heightened awareness for the crumby state of the competitor's Square-1 with possibly the delegate as the judge (who understands the WCA regulations better than a volunteer judge).



No, if the judge had seen moves performed in inspection it's very clear that the solve should be made DNF. Another attempt should *not* be given.

https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/regulations/#A3c1


----------



## Goosly (Jun 2, 2014)

Kirjava said:


> We're discussing the hypothetical situation where a move was performed.



I think some people are discussing the actual situation and others are discussing the hypothetical situation, which makes this thread confusing to read (well, at least I'm confused).


----------



## mDiPalma (Jun 2, 2014)

Rubiks560 said:


> Have you ever helped judge through a whole day before? You get really tired after judging for 5+ hours. Perhaps he was tired and he let this slip.
> And honestly, even after watching the video a ton it was hard for me to spot the turn. I can't imagine it would be a whole lot easier to spot in person.
> Give the guy a break. If I had to bet, you would have missed it as well.



Oh yeah, I would have definitely missed this LOL. But I respect that that's my fault, or the fault of ridiculous regulations. I'm sure that dozens of these sort of failing-to-judge-properly incidents occur at every competition (from timer stops, to misalignments, to inspection problems, etc). If that's the case, the WCA needs to look into ways for easing/streamlining the judging process. To solve this specific problem, the WCA could add an extra phase to the inspection process during which the judge briefly compares 3 sides of the cube to a generated image of the way the scramble should appear. This would also prevent competitors from getting the same scramble twice, or getting an incorrect scramble.



Kirjava said:


> We're discussing the hypothetical situation where a move was performed.



Nope, since we truly cannot know whether or not a move was performed by the competitor, we have to consider all possibilities.



Kirjava said:


> No, if the judge had seen moves performed in inspection it's very clear that the solve should be made DNF. Another attempt should *not* be given.
> 
> https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/regulations/#A3c1



I agree. However, if the judge SEES something during inspection, he should point it out during inspection, right? Therefore, the solve wont continue, and the delegate can come over and verify that a move was truly made during the inspection phase. If the delegate, knowing the regulations, believes that the state of the puzzle is evident of a move being made during inspection (he has access to the scramble sheets, if need be), then he can declare the solve a DNF at the competition. I have no problem with this. This is how the DNF should have been applied. I agree with you in this case.

On the other hand, if the judge calls over a delegate, and the delegate rules that a turn was not made sufficiently (30 degrees or something), then the competitor deserves another attempt, because his first attempt was "ruined" by the judge.

So yes, I suppose you could abuse this, by making 44-degree moves during inspection, and forcing the judge to call a delegate, but the retry is purely at the discretion of the delegate, who likely would not cooperate with your malicious plot more than 2 or 3 times.

Regardless, above are the two ways that the attempt should have been officiated. However, at the fault of the judge or the or the impossible-to-implement regulations, this competitor was rejected a legitimate attempt. He deserved one of three things: 

1) a DNF declared for his attempt immediately after/during the attempt, or
2) a counting 15.03 NR Square-1 single, or
3) another attempt.

Can you agree with me on that?

The WCA is pulling some major Hocus Pocus, and I know I'm not the only dissatisfied observer.


----------



## Kirjava (Jun 2, 2014)

mDiPalma said:


> Nope, since we truly cannot know whether or not a move was performed by the competitor, we have to consider all possibilities.



The post you were replying to clearly stated the exact scenario I was talking about; _"Can you show me where in the regulations it says a competitor can have an extra attempt if he makes moves during inspection?"_

The part which you disagreed with me on pertained to this exact concept and that's the one I am arguing for.



mDiPalma said:


> I agree. However, if the judge SEES something during inspection, he should point it out during inspection, right?



No, it doesn't matter if he does or doesn't point it out during inspection. 

Also, delegate intervention isn't required for correct enforcement.

At least now that I've pointed to the exact regulation, you understand that you were wrong.


----------



## mDiPalma (Jun 2, 2014)

Kirjava said:


> The post you were replying to clearly stated the exact scenario I was talking about; _"Can you show me where in the regulations it says a competitor can have an extra attempt if he makes moves during inspection?"_



Truly making moves (>45 degrees) during inspection does not warrant additional attempts. Nobody has EVER argued otherwise in this thread.



Kirjava said:


> The part which you disagreed with me on pertained to this exact concept and that's the one I am arguing for.



We've yet to disagree on anything. It's just that you are twisting my statements to apply to scenarios other than those which I intend, and I am offering repeated, unnecessary clarification only for you to revert back to applying my arguments incorrectly.



Kirjava said:


> No, it doesn't matter if he does or doesn't point it out during inspection.



It does matter for legitimacy. It is so much simpler for a delegate to officially declare an attempt as a DNF immediately during/after an attempt, rather than through some privately produced video footage, weeks later.

Also, you introduce a good point, we ought to be forced to assume that the judge was completely fulfilling his duties and, during the inspection phase, observed the 30-degree move, and deemed it sufficiently less than 45 degrees for the attempt to continue. Because the ONLY evidence we have involves the judge NOT pointing out the turn that was made, is that not evidence enough to declare that a turn was not made?

How quick we are (myself included) to pin negligence on this judge, when he may very well have applied the regulations before our very eyes in the video.



Kirjava said:


> Also, delegate intervention isn't required for correct enforcement.



Delegate intervention is required, however, to resolve disputes between competitors and judges. That sort of dispute would have inevitably occurred if the judge had pointed out that a "move" may have been made during inspection. 



Kirjava said:


> At least now that I've pointed to the exact regulation, you understand that you were wrong.



I've not said anything wrong as of yet. You are consistently misrepresenting my argument as "making moves in inspection warrants additional attempts." And citing the obvious rules that contradict this crass opinion that you generated for me.

My argument is actually: "A good judge and a good set of regulations would have PREVENTED this entire debate from taking place. The final officiations of the attempt in question should have been made on May 26 or 27, 2014 in Chennai, India, not over forum posts on the WCA site, weeks later. As no officiation was made at the time of the attempt, there is no sense in retroactively (and incorrectly, mind you) assigning a DNF as a result of low quality, privately produced video evidence. As a result, I believe that the solve should stand as the Indian NR. The only two relevant and possible alternatives would have been for the judge to have pointed out that a move may have been made during the inspection phase to the competitor. This would have, after inciting delegate intervention to confirm/deny that a move was made, resulted in either a DNF or another attempt for the competitor. Notice, that this officiation is hypothetically being legitimately and accurately made DURING the attempt, not weeks after via some private video evidence."


----------



## Kirjava (Jun 3, 2014)

mDiPalma said:


> Truly making moves (>45 degrees) during inspection does not warrant additional attempts. Nobody has EVER argued otherwise in this thread.





mDiPalma said:


> the judge for this attempt FAILED TO FULFILL HIS DUTY.
> 
> He should have *1) NOTICED THE PRE-MOVE, 2) POINTED IT OUT, and 3) GOTTEN A RESCRAMBLE (OR REVERSE SCRAMBLE) FOR THE COMPETITOR.*



lol


----------



## mDiPalma (Jun 3, 2014)

Kirjava said:


> lol



I've seen more lolworthy things in the encyclopedia. 

Read the paragraph above your second quote. I was talking, once again, about the two possibilities for the attempt. The paragraph above what you quoted refers to the possibility that a turn was truly made, responding to the message of another individual, then applies a literary transition, referencing the analysis of the video evidence which suggests that any turn made was only 30 degrees. The paragraph that you quoted refers to the possibility that a turn was not truly made. Please, if I've left out a possibility, let me know, and quit hiding behind these semantic arguments. You clearly know what I'm trying to get at from the absurd amount of times I've had to rephrase myself.



Spoiler






Kirjava said:


> you ... clearly stated the exact ... regulations it says a competitor can have an extra attempt if he makes moves during inspection
> ... that's the one I am arguing for.
> 
> At least now ... I ... understand...



I can also quote _you_ out of context and twist _your_ words.


----------



## Kirjava (Jun 3, 2014)

mDiPalma said:


> The paragraph that you quoted refers to the possibility that a turn was not truly made.



Are you some kind of logic obfuscation wizard? In the piece I quoted, you even refer to it as 'the pre-move'.

You just say that the judge didn't do his duty because he didn't stop the solve and award an extra attempt. 

A judge shouldn't be interfering with a solve unless he is absolutely sure it is a DNF.


----------



## goodatthis (Jun 3, 2014)

Although I would prefer to stay neutral on this topic, this whole discussion brings up some interesting points about legitimacies of WCA competitions. 

I have only been to 2 competitions, yet I have noticed lots of infractions on WCA rules and examples of bad judging as well. For example:

- I had a judge ask me when I had a +2, "So do I just write DNF?"
- I've had, on two occasions, judges letting me go past a hard cutoff and I have to let them know.
- When my 3x3 was misaligned by about 43 degrees, a loudmouthed kid who was my judge was about to write +2 before I suggested that we call a delegate over. 
- Head judges scrambling right in front of competitors, you could potentially undo the last several moves of a scramble (or the whole scramble)

And I've heard of several others, like in Mitch Lane's Worlds video where he picked up a 7x7 during inspection and the judge said, "Uhh, that's a DNF." 

I really think that judges should be asked to fill out a brief quiz before they can judge, just like 4 or 5 questions, like "What is the default time limit at which a judge should use a stopwatch?" or "What is the penalty for stopping the timer with your wrists?'


----------



## Petro Leum (Jun 3, 2014)

mDiPalma said:


> I've seen more lolworthy things in the encyclopedia.
> 
> Read the paragraph above your second quote. I was talking, once again, about the two possibilities for the attempt. The paragraph above what you quoted refers to the possibility that a turn was truly made, responding to the message of another individual, then applies a literary transition, referencing the analysis of the video evidence which suggests that any turn made was only 30 degrees. The paragraph that you quoted refers to the possibility that a turn was not truly made. Please, if I've left out a possibility, let me know, and quit hiding behind these semantic arguments. You clearly know what I'm trying to get at from the absurd amount of times I've had to rephrase myself.
> 
> ...



this is why i never argue with kirjava. you will never get anywhere constructive. If you let him win, theres at least a good chance its constructive.



goodatthis said:


> Although I would prefer to stay neutral on this topic, this whole discussion brings up some interesting points about legitimacies of WCA competitions.
> 
> I have only been to 2 competitions, yet I have noticed lots of infractions on WCA rules and examples of bad judging as well. For example:
> 
> ...



I agree, but i dont think that's realistic with the system we have in place, where every competitor (and even every guest iirc) volunteers to judge by participating at the competition. I myself cannot keep every single regulation word for word in my mind, and when im on a competition, i dont wanna spend all the time im not having official solves myself with judging. We are not in a situation to say "If you wanna judge, you have to fill out a quiz first, sign here and there and wear a suit". We NEED judges, and it is neither realistic to have every competitor be a perfect judge, nor is it to have some people who are superb judges perform judging as a full-time job while all the other competitors sit back and socialize.


----------



## mDiPalma (Jun 3, 2014)

There is a regulation that requires that competitors know the WCA rules.

But is there no similar rule for judges?


----------



## goodatthis (Jun 3, 2014)

mDiPalma said:


> There is a regulation that requires that competitors know the WCA rules.
> 
> But is there no similar rule for judges?


 
Exactly. And maybe at least just make sure that a faster person's judge is competent, or have only the head judges (or just trusted ones) judge for the finals.


----------



## qqwref (Jun 3, 2014)

Sure, there's a regulation that requires that competitors know the WCA rules. But what's the penalty if they don't? The regulations still apply, whatever they might believe, so really it's just for their own good - a recommendation. Now, for judges, knowing the regulations is a lot more important, since the competitors might not know them. There's still no penalty, but the regulations may NOT be applied if the judge doesn't know them! So the lack of penalty or oversight is fine for competitors, since not knowing the regulations only hurts themselves, but it's not fine for judges, since not knowing the regulations can negatively impact many solves.


----------



## Bhargav777 (Jul 1, 2014)

Time to change the title?


----------



## Sa967St (Jul 1, 2014)

Bhargav777 said:


> Time to change the title?


And move the thread back to the WR/CR/NR subforum. 

Done and done.


----------



## Hari (Jul 1, 2014)

Sa967St said:


> And move the thread back to the WR/CR/NR subforum.
> 
> Done and done.



Woot


----------



## LucidCuber (Jul 1, 2014)

Why, what changed?


----------



## piyushp761 (Jul 1, 2014)

LucidCuber said:


> Why, what changed?


The solve is valid again


----------



## LucidCuber (Jul 2, 2014)

What caused the change?


----------



## uberCuber (Jul 2, 2014)

LucidCuber said:


> What caused the change?



Presumably some of the arguments presented in this thread.



uberCuber said:


> 10e2) If no further moves are required to bring the puzzle to its solved state, the puzzle is considered solved without penalty.
> 10e3) If one move is required, the puzzle is be considered solved with a time penalty (+2 seconds).
> 
> By 10f4, the puzzle is considered solved without penalty with a (-1,0) misalignment. So (-1,0) away from solved falls into the category "no further moves are required to bring the puzzle to its solved state." So (1,0) is not a move, according to section 10.


----------



## kunparekh18 (Jul 2, 2014)

I'm so happy   thanks, everyone, thanks WCA.


----------



## Deleted member 19792 (Jul 2, 2014)

Wow! Congrats!


----------



## Lazy Einstein (Jul 2, 2014)

Wow. Congratulations again!


----------



## maps600 (Jul 2, 2014)

Woah!!! GJ! I need to get into Square1


----------



## Iggy (Jul 2, 2014)

Yay congrats


----------



## MarcelP (Jul 2, 2014)

kunparekh18 said:


> I'm so happy   thanks, everyone, thanks WCA.



Whooohoo! Congrats. Well deserved NR.


----------



## Kit Clement (Jul 2, 2014)

When the WRC was asked for our opinion, the initial report stated that the move in inspection was (2,0), which is not the case. Technically, a (1,0) move is currently allowed in inspection, which caused the change, but this loophole will be fixed.


----------



## DeeDubb (Jul 2, 2014)

Kit Clement said:


> When the WRC was asked for our opinion, the initial report stated that the move in inspection was (2,0), which is not the case. Technically, a (1,0) move is currently allowed in inspection, which caused the change, but this loophole will be fixed.



Square 1 needs special rules because it's a lot easier to misalign than a 3x3. If someone turns a 3x3 44 degrees during inspection, is it currently a DNF?


----------



## TankRed (Jul 2, 2014)

I think it depends on the judge. The regulations say that during inspection the competitor can realign the faces, but not turn them.


----------

