# Świerklany Open 2011 4 WRs



## Adam96 (Jul 23, 2011)

http://antros.ovh.org/cubing/live/ 
4 new WRs!!
3x3 OH - 10.68 [Piotr (Juggler) Tomczyk, PL] faz?
6x6 mean of 3 - 2:10.87 - [Michał (Józek) Halczuk; PL]
7x7 single - 3:17.97 and mean of 3 - 3:25.10 [Michał (Józek) Halczuk, PL]
:tu  
//thx Anthony


----------



## collinbxyz (Jul 23, 2011)

First? Pretty cool though


----------



## Tao Yu (Jul 23, 2011)

Wow.... two of Faz'es WRs broken in one comp. Michal really deserves those WRs especially since he beat the7x7 WR single with an average! too bad he didn't get the 6x6 single...Michal (or Kevin)deserves it more than Faz


----------



## uberCuber (Jul 23, 2011)

Congratulations to both Piotr and Michal! That's awesome!


----------



## Anthony (Jul 23, 2011)

I think you confused two Piotrs. 

Piotr Tomczyk (Poland) 17.93,16.83,10.68,11.22,18.18

Almost beat the previous WR twice in a row. Counting 11, 16, 17.


----------



## RubikZz (Jul 23, 2011)

Congratulations to Piotr and Michal!!

Is it on video?


----------



## Adam96 (Jul 23, 2011)

I think Halczuk's WR will be, Piotr's - maybe.


----------



## MAHTI-ANSSI (Jul 23, 2011)

It looks like the competition had 2 rounds of 6x6 and 7x7 without having enough competitors...


----------



## antoineccantin (Jul 23, 2011)

edit:


MAHTI-ANSSI said:


> It looks like the competition had 2 rounds of 6x6 and 7x7 without having enough competitors...



You're right... Only 5 competitiors for 7x7 and a second round...


----------



## chicken9290 (Jul 23, 2011)

wow this amazing. did anyone get the 10.68 single on tape


----------



## Adam96 (Jul 23, 2011)

But WRs in 7x7 was in 1st round. 6x6 still has faz


----------



## macky (Jul 23, 2011)

I'm updating [wiki]List of World Records[/wiki]. What is (Józek)? His middle name?


----------



## antoineccantin (Jul 23, 2011)

9m3) Events with 7 or fewer competitors must have at most one round.

So no 6x6 WR?


----------



## Adam96 (Jul 23, 2011)

macky said:


> I'm updating [wiki]List of World Records[/wiki]. What is (Józek)? His middle name?


Yes, his middle name is Józef.


----------



## AustinReed (Jul 23, 2011)

I demand sub-10 OH officially.


----------



## Tao Yu (Jul 23, 2011)

antoineccantin said:


> So no 6x6 WR?


 
That seems does break the rule but disqualifing the solvewould be ridiculous. 2:10 is still the fastest average achieved by a human, which I think is the point of a WR

I know that if there wasn't the 2nd round michal mightn't have got the record but 2:10 is still the fastest average achieved by a human


----------



## uberCuber (Jul 23, 2011)

Tao Yu said:


> That seems does break the rule but disqualifing the solvewould be ridiculous. 2:10 is still the fastest average achieved by a human *in competition*, which I think is the point of a WR
> 
> I know that if there wasn't the 2nd round michal *wouldn't* have got the record but 2:10 is still the fastest average achieved by a human *in competition*


 
fix'd


----------



## Adam96 (Jul 23, 2011)

@Tao Yau - Yes, but his PB is 2:08.49 (mean of 3) (http://kostkarubika.org/speedcuberzy/512/)


----------



## RaresB (Jul 23, 2011)

wow congratulations to all. Polish people have quite the rubiks cube ability, just by looking at the 3x3 results the vast majority of competitors are sub-20, thats nice.


----------



## NaeosPsy (Jul 23, 2011)

Gratz for OH. Looks really lucky tho. xP


----------



## amostay2004 (Jul 23, 2011)

Tao Yu said:


> That seems does break the rule but disqualifing the solvewould be ridiculous. 2:10 is still the fastest average achieved by a human, which I think is the point of a WR
> 
> I know that if there wasn't the 2nd round michal mightn't have got the record but 2:10 is still the fastest average achieved by a human


 
So why don't we all just ignore the rules and have 100 rounds of 3x3 per competition. Since the times would count anyway even if it breaks the rules.


----------



## That70sShowDude (Jul 23, 2011)

Wow, awesome records. Glad I have some Polish blood.

In to see if the 6x6 WR counts.


----------



## MaeLSTRoM (Jul 23, 2011)

I think it is likely that It will get discounted. See here: http://worldcubeassociation.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=937


----------



## Benyó (Jul 23, 2011)

so where's the problem? i still didn't get it, there were 8 people in the 1st round and 7 < 8 i think

nice wrs guys (not like there are any other lame wr than István's)


----------



## RyanReese09 (Jul 23, 2011)

25% have to be cut IIRC from each round? CBF to look it up.


There wasn't enough cut, and if there were, not enough for another round.


----------



## Stefan (Jul 23, 2011)

Benyó said:


> so where's the problem? i still didn't get it, there were 8 people in the 1st round and 7 < 8 i think



Earlier there were only seven shown, someone got added later.



RyanReese09 said:


> 25% have to be cut IIRC from each round? CBF to look it up.
> There wasn't enough cut, and if there were, not enough for another round.



Um... looks like 50% were cut. Nice try.


----------



## RyanReese09 (Jul 23, 2011)

Stefan said:


> Earlier there were only seven shown, someone got added later.
> 
> 
> 
> Um... looks like 50% were cut. Nice try.


 I assumed that since Bence was saying 7 < 8, that 7 people were in the 2nd round.I don't understand what he was trying to say then.


----------



## Meep (Jul 23, 2011)

Stefan said:


> Earlier there were only seven shown, someone got added later.
> .


 
Did they just forget to add his results in or did they just sneak him in after? 'Cause there's 9l:

9l)	All competitors must compete in each round during the same time frame.


----------



## Vincents (Jul 23, 2011)

Yeah the last entrant that just got added looks kind of suspicious


----------



## JackJ (Jul 23, 2011)

Time Frame is kind of broad though. One could interpret it as they must all compete their solves before the competition ends. However I could be entirely wrong.


----------



## David1994 (Jul 23, 2011)

Any videos of the world records???


----------



## Meep (Jul 23, 2011)

JackJ said:


> Time Frame is kind of broad though. One could interpret it as they must all compete their solves before the competition ends. However I could be entirely wrong.


 
I think it's understood as everyone having to do their solves for a round, during that specific round.


----------



## tx789 (Jul 23, 2011)

7x7 is scarey


----------



## Stefan (Jul 24, 2011)

RyanReese09 said:


> I assumed that since Bence was saying 7 < 8, that 7 people were in the 2nd round.I don't understand what he was trying to say then.


 
Right, that was weird. I thought he meant the 7 from first round as discussed in this thread, but maybe he did mean second round and its last place being place 7 (which is flawed as actually there are only four (duplicated) persons).


----------



## Adam96 (Jul 24, 2011)

Michał Halczuk's WRs are recorded. Piotr's - no. 
6x6 WR is good. In first round were 8 competitiors.


----------



## qqwref (Jul 24, 2011)

Adam96 said:


> Piotr's - no.


D:

Do you have a scramble, by any chance?


----------



## Meep (Jul 24, 2011)

Adam96 said:


> Michał Halczuk's WRs are recorded. Piotr's - no.
> 6x6 WR is good. In first round were 8 competitiors.


 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it looked like they just snuck that 8th guy in after the discussion began.


----------



## amostay2004 (Jul 24, 2011)

Wait, so were there 8 competitors in the first round or 7? If there were 8 then it's not against the rules at all even if there are <8 in the 2nd round, unless what Meep said is true =/

And why is Piotr's WR not recorded?


----------



## TanLaiChen (Jul 24, 2011)

wow.......very fast......


----------



## Adam96 (Jul 24, 2011)

amostay2004 said:


> Wait, so were there 8 competitors in the first round or 7? If there were 8 then it's not against the rules at all even if there are <8 in the 2nd round, unless what Meep said is true =/
> 
> And why is Piotr's WR not recorded?


1. 7x7 final is void. (But WRs are in 1st round)
2. Because nobody record.


----------



## David1994 (Jul 24, 2011)

Cant find any videos


----------



## Robert-Y (Jul 24, 2011)

Everyone who seems to have entered in the 666 first round were registered apart from Wojciech Fydrych.


----------



## rahulkadukar (Jul 24, 2011)

I don't see what the fuss is about as long as 

1. The scrambles were did using official WCA scrambles.
2. The WCA delegate had no problem with the second round.
3. Everybody present did not have a problem.

I mean its ok if there were 2 rounds as long as they were official.


----------



## Shortey (Jul 24, 2011)

rahulkadukar said:


> I don't see what the fuss is about as long as
> 
> 1. The scrambles were did using official WCA scrambles.
> 2. The WCA delegate had no problem with the second round.
> ...


 
The problem is that they did not follow the rules.


----------



## Adam96 (Jul 24, 2011)

Piotr Tomczyk - _10.68_ OH 3x3 *WR*: Easy F2L, OLL - FURU2R'U'RUR'F', PLL skip.


----------



## JuGglEr (Jul 24, 2011)

I confirm. It was like 3 move cross but I added few moves to preserve one pair, then quite easy F2L, oll and WR  Really happy about this, I didn't expect it at all. And next solve wasn't 11, but probably 17, I think it was already fixed.


----------



## amostay2004 (Jul 24, 2011)

Oh..I thought what he meant was that the WR wasn't official when he said that it wasn't recorded


----------



## Adam96 (Jul 24, 2011)

I mean, there aren't video.


----------



## Tao Yu (Jul 24, 2011)

For reasons rahulkadukar and I said I believe this should be WR. It is the fastest solve following all the rules. I think that a WR is so we know what is the best

However when I read what Amos says I changed my mind a bit as its clear that an extra round gave him more chance of getting the WR.
I think the easiest solution is to give the competitors of this comp less chances next time, or to give everyone else more chances.

However this is still a bit unfair as I don't see what the competitors did wrong. Unless it was a HaiYan-like incident and I see no reason to do this.
And there is obviously a reason for the rule about the rounds so making everyone break the rule is maybe not worth it.

I'm curious to know how this will end up.


----------



## Meisen (Jul 24, 2011)

It is actually very easy. If the rules were followed the record stands, if they were not followed the record is no record.

It's sad for the competitor that his record is disallowed when it's of no fault of his own, never the less, the rules must be followed.

If, in retrospect, wca finds this unfair, they can change the rules, but that will not matter for this competition/record.

If wca decides to allow this record, it all falls to pieces. As someone stated earlier, why not have a hundred rounds of 3x3...

Rules are there for a reason, to make surroundings as similar as possible for all competitors all over the world.

Again, sad for the competitor with the disallowed record, but i guess he can use this as motivation to beat his "old record" in the next official tournament


----------



## Vincents (Jul 24, 2011)

Robert-Y said:


> Everyone who seems to have entered in the 666 first round were registered apart from Wojciech Fydrych.


 
This, I think, is what has most of us going WTF? What's happening here? The possible scenario we're all up in arms about is that due to discussion on this thread about the lack of competitors, they got some random dude to make the round legal, and only added him to the results when they were made aware of their mistake. The fact that he only DNFed twice and didn't even start a third time also doesn't help matters.


----------



## Meep (Jul 24, 2011)

Robert-Y said:


> Everyone who seems to have entered in the 666 first round were registered apart from Wojciech Fydrych.



Yeah I don't think the 6x6x6 WRs should count, as it seems like they added the guy to the first round after the final round had already finished (and after people started pointing out that there were 7 people).


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jul 24, 2011)

I think speculation should stop here, and we should see what the delegate tells the WCA. If the rules were followed, the record should count; if not, it should not. It's silly to speculate about this here on the Forum.

We should really not speculate on what was viewed on live results, since often they are unreliable (the delegate has not had time to check things over, scoresheets may have been temporarily misplaced but known about, etc.).

Also, it is entirely reasonable for someone to have had 2 DNFs and a DNS; perhaps they had a hard cutoff and the person with the DNFs didn't make the cutoff. In that case, they would be assigned DNFs.


----------



## Vincents (Jul 24, 2011)

Okay, I will stop, but I'll post a few FACTS just because I spent the last 30 minutes clicking before I saw Mike's post.

Wojciech Fydrych:
- Is an organizer of this competition,
- Has never competed in a WCA competition before (I could not find a WCA profile page),
- Was registered for 3x3, 4x4, 3x3OH, and Megaminx,
- Averaged 16.48s in 3x3 Round 1 (26.19 17.84 15.80 14.34 15.80 ),
- Averaged 27.13s in 3x3 Round 2 (26.97 19.25 20.13 34.28 50.28),
- Averaged 24.37s in 3x3OH Round 1 (25.18 25.31 20.30 23.46 24.48 ),
- Averaged 23.30s in 3x3OH Finals (20.90 20.08 24.43 26.58 24.58 ),
- Averaged 1:16.26 in 4x4 Combined Finals (1:13.41 1:16.43 1:22.90 1:18.94 1:11.31 ),
- Did not enter 5x5,
- Averaged a DNF in 6x6 First Round (DNF DNF DNS),
- Averaged a DNF in Megaminx (2:30.99 2:39.02 DNS DNS DNS)


Although I could not find it, a quick glance at 6x6 Round 1 results shows a possible cutoff of 5:00.00, as everyone who had a first solve time under 5:00.00 also started solves 2 and 3; everyone who didn't did not start solves 2 and 3 (except for Mr. Fydrych). This is based on results as currently posted.

And that's all I'm saying for now.


----------



## Kirjava (Jul 24, 2011)

rahulkadukar said:


> I mean its ok if there were 2 rounds as long as they were official.


 
You can't just have as many rounds as you like.


----------



## Forte (Jul 24, 2011)

Yeah it's like Amos was saying, having 100 rounds of 3x3 instead of 1 round will obviously increase your chances of better times, so how is 2 rounds any different?


----------



## yockee (Jul 24, 2011)

Tao Yu said:


> Wow.... two of Faz'es WRs broken in one comp. Michal really deserves those WRs especially since he beat the7x7 WR single with an average! too bad he didn't get the 6x6 single...Michal (or Kevin)deserves it more than Faz


 
Why do they deserve it more than Feliks? If Feliks gets a record, it's because he worked really hard to get it! Anyone can beat him at anytime if they work hard enough. Feliks will probably be practicing a LOT of OH and 6x6 until he gets the records back.


----------



## iEnjoyCubing (Jul 24, 2011)

Congratz! Did anyone film those solves?


----------



## antoineccantin (Jul 24, 2011)

iEnjoyCubing said:


> Congratz! Did anyone film those solves?


 


Adam96 said:


> Michał Halczuk's WRs are recorded. Piotr's - no.



...


----------



## Adam96 (Jul 27, 2011)

Video of WR - 6x6 mean of 3 : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbRhKQ8LLyE
and single ER: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Q_3tgm2zr4


----------



## Tao Yu (Jul 27, 2011)

When will they be sure whether to count it or not ? 

I think they should ban the competitors of 6x6 and 7x7 in this comp at the next comp they go to. This way I think it is fair.
I think the WR must stay. WRs aren't physical possesions and shouldn't be treated that way. They are a record of the limits of abilty in the same conditions as everyone else . This is why I think what is above should be done.
Since the above makes the conditions the same I think they should stay.


----------



## Kirjava (Jul 27, 2011)

Tao Yu said:


> I think they should ban the competitors of 6x6 and 7x7 in this comp at the next comp they go to. This way I think it is fair.
> I think the WR must stay. WRs aren't physical possesions and shouldn't be treated that way. They are a record of the limits of abilty in the same conditions as everyone else . This is why I think what is above should be done.
> Since the above makes the conditions the same I think they should stay.


 
Wants same conditions for everyone.

Requests exceptions for certain people.


----------



## MaeLSTRoM (Jul 27, 2011)

Tao Yu said:


> When will they be sure whether to count it or not ?
> 
> I think they should ban the competitors of 6x6 and 7x7 in this comp at the next comp they go to. This way I think it is fair.
> I think the WR must stay. WRs aren't physical possesions and shouldn't be treated that way. They are a record of the limits of abilty in the same conditions as everyone else . This is why I think what is above should be done.
> Since the above makes the conditions the same I think they should stay.


 
Just no.
The WR will be accepted or not, but that is in the hands of the WCA.
The competitors should not be banned because they did nothing wrong, if anything the organisers should be reprimanded.
WR's can be taken away if necessary, look at the recent Sebastian Pino Castello incident.

tl;dr: Just No, seriously, No.


----------



## Tao Yu (Jul 27, 2011)

No but Sebastian cheated.
I said only banned for one comp. If next time they get a round then the get 3 rounds, one extra. They would have gotten 2 rounds of the 2nd round didn't occur
So banning them at their next comp means they get a total of 2 rounds as they would have if not for the extra round.


----------



## Vincents (Jul 27, 2011)

Tao Yu said:


> No but Sebastian cheated.
> I said only banned for one comp. If next time they get a round then the get 3 rounds, one extra. They would have gotten 2 rounds of the 2nd round didn't occur
> So banning them at their next comp means they get a total of 2 rounds as they would have if not for the extra round.


 Rounds are not created equal though; no matter how much we want them to be...


----------



## r_517 (Jul 27, 2011)

there aren't any faults with the competitors. they shouldn't be banned. They didn't cheat, they didn't manipulate the competition process.
if the second round shouldn't exist, then the results shouldn't be valid either. i think this had happened before (correct me if my memory serves me wrong)

however i'm interested in who modified the competitor list. if this guy intentionally added an extra competitor who actually didn't compete in that event, i would call that "manipulating the competition" and this guy deserves some penalty.


----------



## aaronb (Jul 27, 2011)

•9r2) All competitors of an event who are not directly qualified for the first round of the event, must compete in the qualification round of the event.

Wojciech Fydrych wasn't registered, so had to of been in a qualification round, for him to be allowed in the first round, which, correct me if I'm wrong, there wasn't. Unless being a host of an event make you qualified in an event, then his times in 6x6 shouldn't count, meaning there were only 7 competitors and the record doesn't count. But I think if I interpreted this rule wrong, and he was allowed to compete in a round, then the record should count.

Basically, I believe, it comes down to if Wojciech Fydrych was allowed to compete, making there 8 competitors.

EDIT: Well actually, after reading qqwref;s post I believe it comes down to when Wojciech Fydrych was added to the results, if he decided to take DNF's for the first round, before the second round I think it should count.


----------



## qqwref (Jul 27, 2011)

My personal opinion: this case is not the same as one where 100 3x3 rounds are held. The reason is that having 100 rounds is always disallowed, but having two rounds is allowed whenever the event is popular enough to deserve it. The event was already very close to the limit, so this is not a case of a total disregard of the rules to get more attempts. Remember that this situation is one where there was one person short of the WCA regulation to have two rounds, and then one person was added later on to satisfy the regulation. Ethically I see no difference between this and adding the extra person *before* having a second round - which has happened multiple times before. I remember a situation a while ago where only one person (who was world-class) wanted to compete in a BLD event, and the rules at the time required at least two people in every event, so someone else agreed to take a DNF rather than prevent the top cuber from a record attempt that he otherwise deserved.

IMO the rule that requires a specific number of people to have attempted an event is already arbitrary and a bit silly. I don't like how the luck of whether a random stranger decides to drop out of an event (or a random stranger shows up and decides to try an event) can affect whether someone else gets one round or two, and even though being able to add a DNF-only cuber to an event violates the spirit of the regulations, I think it's actually more fair in the end.



aaronb said:


> •9r2) All competitors of an event who are not directly qualified for the first round of the event, must compete in the qualification round of the event.
> 
> But I think if I interpreted this rule wrong, and he was allowed to compete in a round, then the record should count.


You did interpret the rule wrong. If there is no requirement to participate in the first round, then there is no qualification round, and anyone can compete. In fact, this is the case in almost all competitions - only the very largest competitions have qualifications for the first round, and even then it is only done to save time.


----------



## Tao Yu (Jul 27, 2011)

I see that the problem is that nobody knows what the penalty should be as it was not stated in the regulations, and who should be punished.
If it was not the competitors fault they why should they be stripped of a WR? The rule never said the penalty was to DNS or DNF all the solves?
Also by banning I mean 6x6 and 7x7 only. And its probably as fair as it can be as they get the amount of rounds as they should.
There should be a penalty to the people who organised the comp as they were to blame.

Anyway I think rule 9m3) should have some penalty, be it what I said or something different. As Vincent said this is still not fully fair .


----------



## Kirjava (Jul 27, 2011)

qqwref said:


> IMO the rule that requires a specific number of people to have attempted an event is already arbitrary and a bit silly. I don't like how the luck of whether a random stranger decides to drop out of an event (or a random stranger shows up and decides to try an event) can affect whether someone else gets one round or two, and even though being able to add a DNF-only cuber to an event violates the spirit of the regulations, I think it's actually more fair in the end.


 
I agree with this. However, I don't agree with ignoring regulations that you dislike.


----------



## TMOY (Jul 27, 2011)

Tao Yu said:


> Also by banning I mean 6x6 and 7x7 only. And its probably as fair as it can be as they get the amount of rounds as they should.


 
Sorry but the idea is still plain silly.

- As already stated above, there's no reason to punish anybody who did nothing wrong.
- Competitions can be very different from each other, and this kind of ban may result in a much harsher punishment than just deleting the faulty round (what if Miichal's next competition was Worlds ?)
- Next competition may not be the same for everybody. Do you expect all competition organizers to dig into the results of all previous competitions for deciding whether John Doe should be banned or not of a given event ?


----------



## r_517 (Jul 27, 2011)

qqwref said:


> My personal opinion: this case is not the same as one where 100 3x3 rounds are held. The reason is that having 100 rounds is always disallowed, but having two rounds is allowed whenever the event is popular enough to deserve it. The event was already very close to the limit, so this is not a case of a total disregard of the rules to get more attempts.......


 
Adding some people before the second round to create a second round is not against the existing rule (though I don't like the way of it.); but adding a person after the whole competition was over, is ridiculous. 

btw i suggest that nobody should be allowed to add an event for themselves after the competition begins, neither should the delegate be able to add or remove an extra round once the event begins, unless every one of the competitor involved in that event agrees. 
(i had seen several times some former WR holder demanded a second round, and caused a lot of trouble to others)


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jul 27, 2011)

My question is: do we actually know that a person was actually added after the round was finished? We know that the person showed up later in live results, and that they had DNF solves. But these were live results, not official results. It's entirely possible the scoresheet was simply not entered by accident, and the person competed along with everyone else. It seems unreasonable to me that people are speculating that the results should be tossed out when we don't even know what happened.

Was anyone there at the competition who knows what *actually* happened?


----------



## qqwref (Jul 27, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> I agree with this. However, I don't agree with ignoring regulations that you dislike.


I don't see adding competitors as ignoring a regulation - it is a loophole that goes against the intent the rule, but satisfies the words of it.



TMOY said:


> - Competitions can be very different from each other, and this kind of ban may result in a much harsher punishment than just deleting the faulty round (what if Miichal's next competition was Worlds ?)


This is an interesting point. One possible option would be to not let the people compete in the *first* round of whatever their next competition is, but advance them to the next round if there is one. Since any very large and important competition will have multiple rounds of 6x6x6, I don't think this would take away anything but the attempt itself.



r_517 said:


> but adding a person after the whole competition was over, is ridiculous.


Maybe - but a DNF is a DNF, so I don't think adding someone during the competition (without having them do solves) is much different from adding them after (again, without having them do solves). So it might be a bit silly, but it's not really wrong to do it.



r_517 said:


> neither should the delegate be able to add or remove an extra round once the event begins, unless every one of the competitor involved in that event agrees.


So wait, if the delegate decides that a round needs to be cut because of time constraints, this is only allowed if everyone who would be in that round agrees to give up their solves? (Also: if there is extra time and the delegate wants to add another round, does this mean many competitors must all agree on which one to add, or else none can be added? For instance, if half the competitors from 3BLD would rather have an extra 3BLD round and the other half would rather have another 3OH round, does this mean we can't do either one?) And should we try to contact competitors who have left the competition because they are done with their solves, in order to get their opinion?


----------



## Kirjava (Jul 27, 2011)

qqwref said:


> I don't see adding competitors as ignoring a regulation - it is a loophole that goes against the intent the rule, but satisfies the words of it.


 
I didn't say it was


----------



## r_517 (Jul 27, 2011)

Mike Hughey said:


> Was anyone there at the competition who knows what *actually* happened?


 This is what I want to express. Though I highly doubt that the one who appears neither in 5x5's nor 6x6's registration list would decide to give himself 3 DNF/DNS's in 6x6. Anyway that's just guessing. I hope the board is investigating it.



qqwref said:


> I don't think adding someone during the competition (without having them do solves) is much different from adding them after (again, without having them do solves).


That's why I suggest "nobody should be allowed to add an event for themselves after the competition begins"



qqwref said:


> So wait, if the delegate decides that a round needs to be cut because of time constraints, this is only allowed if everyone who would be in that round agrees to give up their solves......


Well I can change the object to "everyone who progressed to the (potential) next round (under the progression regulation which is made before the competition)".
It's silly to ask someone who has left the venue, but it's also unfair to them to add another round without informing them. For example, if there are 10 competitors in 4x4, only 1 round is set in the timetable, you ranked the 4th and leave the venue. Isn't it unfair to you if the delegate suddenly announce that another round will be added? (Well this might not be the best suggestion, but I've seen several times that other competitors missed their train/flight because a WR holder demands a second round.)


----------



## Vincents (Jul 27, 2011)

I keep seeing people argue that the competitors should not be punished for the mistakes of the competition organizer because it's not their fault.

Aren't all competitors supposed to know the WCA regulations? It's a requirement (that's rarely checked) to attend every competition. If there were only 7 people in a Round 1, Round 2/Finals would never have existed in the first place, and any competitor who actually read the regulations (which are there for a reason. We don't just cherry-pick what we like. That's what discussion on new/modified regulations every year is for) would know that every single one of his/her solves could be nullified post-competition. Just because someone set some sort of record in the round-that-never-should-have-existed-if-there-were-only-7-people-in-the-first-round does not make that solve "special" and "worthy of inclusion by ignoring regulations", because that solve never should have taken place.

Of course since there were apparently 8 competitors, this might all be a moot point.


----------



## r_517 (Jul 27, 2011)

Vincents said:


> I keep seeing people argue that the competitors should not be *punished* for the mistakes of the competition organizer because it's not their fault.


 i assume by saying "punished" you only mean the results should be invalid.


----------



## qqwref (Jul 27, 2011)

r_517 said:


> That's why I suggest "nobody should be allowed to add an event for themselves after the competition begins"


Oh, you meant "nobody should be allowed to participate in an event that they didn't sign up for before the competition". I still don't agree with this. because I think it's unfair to competitors who sign up very early, as compared to people who sign up very late (or even at the competition right before it starts) who would then be more sure of what they will want to compete in. If this rule was in place, I think people would just end up signing up for more events than they really want to do, just in case, and that could be difficult for organizers.



r_517 said:


> Well I can change the object to "everyone who progressed to the (potential) next round (under the progression regulation which is made before the competition)".


Do we need to decide and publish a progression regulation before the competition then? In my experience the exact round cutoffs are often decided during the competition, to try to do as many solves as possible without running over time. It generally depends on what times people get, and that's hard to predict.



Vincents said:


> Aren't all competitors supposed to know the WCA regulations? [...] If there were only 7 people in a Round 1, Round 2/Finals would never have existed in the first place, and any competitor who actually read the regulations [...] would know that every single one of his/her solves could be nullified post-competition.


Wait, are you saying it should be the responsibility of competitors - not the organizer - to personally check that there have been enough people in a round to allow for the next one? If the organizer hasn't released the round's results to the competitors before the next round starts, how do you propose this be done? Should competitors keep track of the number of people doing solves in a round?


----------



## r_517 (Jul 27, 2011)

qqwref said:


> Do we need to decide and publish a progression regulation before the competition then? In my experience the exact round cutoffs are often decided during the competition, to try to do as many solves as possible without running over time. It generally depends on what times people get, and that's hard to predict.


 My fault. "before the round" instead of "before the competition".

According to regulation 9p2) "Either the best x competitors proceed to the next round, or all competitors who beat a specific result (*announced before the round*)."


----------



## Bob (Jul 28, 2011)

I suppose it's worth clarifying the consequences of breaking that rule as it has happened before. When rounds are held that should not be due to a lack of competitors, the rounds that should not have been held are deleted. The fact that a WR occurred is irrelevant and should not mean exemption to this rule. Similarly, if an organizer allows too many competitors to the next round (ie - doesn't cut 25%), competitors who should not have made the next round have those results deleted. We have been doing things this way since these rules went into effect and I don't expect to see a change to this methodology any time soon.

Please note that I am commenting in general for WCA competitions and not to this specific instance since I am not making the determination on what happens. What you can expect, though, is that if the round should not have happened, the entire round will be deleted. If the round was legally held, it will stand. It is that plain and simple.


----------



## Ron (Jul 28, 2011)

The WCA delegate confirms that the 8th competitor competed BEFORE the 6x6 final started.


----------



## Kirjava (Jul 28, 2011)

Looking at the results, it doesn't seem like he competed at all


----------



## TMOY (Jul 28, 2011)

I don't know what ha actually did, but even if he did nothing else than starting the timer, stopping it and signing his DNF, he still counts as a competitor. Stretching the rules is not breaking them.


----------



## Ron (Jul 28, 2011)

> I don't know what ha actually did


The WCA delegate told us that the 8th competitor competed BEFORE Michal Halczuk in the first round.
The competitor had a POP during his first solve. Since there was a cut of 4 minutes and as an organiser the competitor wanted to run everything on time, he stopped finishing his solve. The competitor did not start his second solve so (DNF DNF DNS) should have been (DNF DNS DNS).


----------



## Vincents (Jul 28, 2011)

Completely unreleated: why do we capitalize all the letters of POP? Does it stand for something?


----------



## Kirjava (Jul 28, 2011)

Piece Out (of) Puzzle


----------



## Bob (Jul 28, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> Piece Out (of) Puzzle


 
I think I would prefer POOP.


----------



## cookieyo145 (Jul 28, 2011)

Bob said:


> I think I would prefer POOP.


 
Like the shirt you were wearing at washington dc open 2011.


----------



## qqwref (Jul 28, 2011)

Vincents said:


> Completely unreleated: why do we capitalize all the letters of POP? Does it stand for something?


I think it's because a long time ago it was standard to allow someone to do another solve if they popped during an unofficial average. So you will see averages like this: 14.69 13.08 POP 15.18 (12.70) (16.90) 15.21 15.79 15.55 14.26 14.14 14.18 15.86. I guess people would capitalize POP so you wouldn't confuse it with other stuff (it would be similar looking to DNF).


----------



## Dene (Jul 28, 2011)

Bob said:


> I think I would prefer POOP.


 
I'm with Bob.


----------



## DavidWoner (Jul 28, 2011)

Reasonable explanation:

- Wojciech Fydrych competes in 6x6, does poorly with his DNF DNF DNS attempts.
- As the organizer, thinks "Whatever I won't even bother entering my results since they are so bad, I'll just throw my card away" or something similar.
- Realizes this results in there being too few competitors, enters his results later.

Again this is speculation, but it is a reasonable alternative to what people have been suggesting.


----------



## Adam96 (Jul 29, 2011)

http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/c.php?i=SwierklanyOpen2011


----------



## JuGglEr (Jul 30, 2011)

Ok, so I finally got WR scramble, here is my reconstruction R U2 R D2 L2 U2 L' D2 F2 D F L R' B' U2 F D' B R U' L

y'zU'xU'RzyzU'2RU
z'U'RU'R2UR2U'R'U'2RUR'
UzUR'U'z'
URUyRU2R'U'RUR'F'U2 Damn, 8.00 first try at home, could have easily been sub 10 :< However I remember how my hands started to shake when I realized that it could be a skip.


----------

