# Unusual rounds



## JustinTimeCuber (Aug 13, 2015)

The WCA doesn't seem very clear on certain aspects of rounds.

9g) A Combined Round consists of two phases of attempts, where competitors advance to the second phase if they meet a designated cutoff during the first phase.

Does that mean I could have a round of Pyraminx where there are 3 chances to make the cutoff? Could I make it so that you have to meet the cutoff both times? What if it were 4 times? If someone didn't make the cutoff, would they still have an average, with their best time removed and the remaining 3 averaged together?

9b1) Rubik's Cube, 2x2x2 Cube, 4x4x4 Cube, 5x5x5 Cube, Clock, Megaminx, Pyraminx, Square-1, Skewb, and Rubik's Cube: One-Handed.
9b1a) Round formats for these events are: "Best of X" (where X is 1, 2, or 3), and "Average of 5".

So, I could have a best of 2 round for 3x3? That'd be weird.

9p3) If a qualifying competitor withdraws from a round, they may be replaced by the best-ranked competitor below the cutoff from the preceding round.

Oh, wouldn't that be great, for the time I was 11th in round 2.


----------



## joshsailscga (Aug 13, 2015)

I mean, I think technically per the wording you could do all that you are suggesting. However, the reason behind the regulation is to save time at comps by eliminating super slow solves that would otherwise hold up the schedule. With that in mind, it makes sense to make the first 'phase' consist of two attempts (in case of an unusually bad result in one solve). Anything else would really not save any extra time. 
And again, yes you could have a best of two but it would be stupid because when we're talking about saving time why would you have a competition that would not result in a WCA-legal average?


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Aug 13, 2015)

joshsailscga said:


> I mean, I think technically per the wording you could do all that you are suggesting. However, the reason behind the regulation is to save time at comps by eliminating super slow solves that would otherwise hold up the schedule. With that in mind, it makes sense to make the first 'phase' consist of two attempts (in case of an unusually bad result in one solve). Anything else would really not save any extra time.
> And again, yes you could have a best of two but it would be stupid because when we're talking about saving time why would you have a competition that would not result in a WCA-legal average?



I'm not saying that it would make sense, I just think it could be funny if someone had a comp with something like that.


----------



## Dene (Aug 13, 2015)

In a combined round, you are literally combining two rounds into one. So you are limited by the acceptable formats for each event. For the most common events, this is either Best of 1, 2, 3, or Average of 5. So, for example, you could have a combined round which has Best of 1 in the first phase, and Best of 3 in the second phase. Then you could say "the top 20 competitors from the first phase get to compete in the second phase (Best of 3)."

However we do have an accepted standard for how we run events in order to stick with the spirit of the regulations. We don't do things to be annoying idiots, we do it for practical reasons. Anything out of the ordinary would have to go through the Board and there would need to be a good reason. For example, say there have been massive complications at a comp and the delegate makes the decision to, instead of cancelling pyraminx, make it a combined round with Best of 1 and Best of 3, or something like that, to save time.

You can't make it so that competitors have to meet the cutoff both times:
9g2) Whether a competitor proceeds to next phase of a Combined round, must be decided by _ranking (best x competitors)_ or by _result (all competitors with a best result under x)_ of the first phase.

You can't do it 4 times, as Best of 4 is not a possible format for events.

Yes you can have Best of 2 for 3x3 (but see my earlier comment about Board approval). Honestly though, the regulations are very clear so I don't even know why you feel you need to ask.

As for 9p3, this does get implemented more than you might realise, especially when people leave early when they were meant to be in a later round.


----------



## joshsailscga (Aug 13, 2015)

Dene said:


> ...



Dene, I've always wondered, what's the story behind your sig? Is it an inside joke or something?


----------



## MatejMuzatko (Aug 13, 2015)

inb4 Best-of-one open 2015
Competition for real men. Try to be concentrated now...


----------



## tseitsei (Aug 13, 2015)

Once again a great example of good principle: Just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you SHOULD do it...


----------



## Dene (Aug 13, 2015)

joshsailscga said:


> Dene, I've always wondered, what's the story behind your sig? Is it an inside joke or something?



erm well kinda, I guess... at least it would have been 5 or 6 years ago when I put it in there. I don't even remember who killermanp0 is.


----------



## DGCubes (Aug 13, 2015)

MatejMuzatko said:


> inb4 Best-of-one open 2015
> Competition for real men. Try to be concentrated now...



Whoa, that sounds insane... they should do one in every country on the same day, haha.


----------



## AlexMaass (Aug 13, 2015)

DGCubes said:


> Whoa, that sounds insane... they should do one in every country on the same day, haha.



Yeah, also sounds like a nice way to hold all events at a competition.


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Aug 13, 2015)

Dene said:


> In a combined round, you are literally combining two rounds into one.



This just isn't a thing. All it mentions is the "first phase of attempts" and the "second phase of attempts". This doesn't imply that these are rounds. They may behave like rounds, in the way that you have to preform well in the first one to do the second one, but the regulations on rounds do not directly apply to these.

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

If these combined rounds were literally 2 rounds being combined into one, then you couldn't have a soft cutoff for rounds with under 8 people in them.

9p1) At least 25% of competitors must be eliminated between consecutive rounds of the same event.

This would imply that you couldn't set a soft cutoff of something ridiculously easy, because then more than 3/4 of people would get it.

My point by this is that these phases aren't literally rounds. I think that giving one chance to make the cutoff and then 4 more solves would be fine. Not normal, but fine.



Dene said:


> Anything out of the ordinary would have to go through the Board



Although it might be a good idea, I don't think there is any regulation that makes this necessary. The regulations say absolutely nothing about having 2 solves to meet the cutoff, and then 3 more after that. I think it should be just fine to go ahead and do it.


----------



## tseitsei (Aug 13, 2015)

JustinTimeCuber said:


> Although it might be a good idea, I don't think there is any regulation that makes this necessary. The regulations say absolutely nothing about having 2 solves to meet the cutoff, and then 3 more after that. I think it should be just fine to go ahead and do it.



Every competition must be approved by WCA board before the registration even appears in WCA website. So it definitely is necessary to have it approved by board.
And board has the power to interpret the SPIRIT of the regulations rather than the strict LETTER of the regulations (which is a good thing IMO). So if they say you can't do it you can't do it (I'm not saying they would do that, I'm saying they could do that quite easily...).


----------



## Dene (Aug 13, 2015)

JustinTimeCuber said:


> This just isn't a thing. All it mentions is the "first phase of attempts" and the "second phase of attempts". This doesn't imply that these are rounds. They may behave like rounds, in the way that you have to preform well in the first one to do the second one, but the regulations on rounds do not directly apply to these.



What exactly do you think the words "combined round" mean?

As for your other questions, read 9o again.


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Aug 13, 2015)

Dene said:


> What exactly do you think the words "combined round" mean?
> 
> As for your other questions, read 9o again.



"Combined Round" is literally defined in the regulations.
9g) A Combined Round consists of two *phases* of attempts, where competitors advance to the second phase if they meet a designated cutoff during the first phase. 

Phase ≠ Round. If it meant rounds, it would say that.


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (Aug 13, 2015)

JustinTimeCuber said:


> "Combined Round" is literally defined in the regulations.
> 9g) A Combined Round consists of two *phases* of attempts, where competitors advance to the second phase if they meet a designated cutoff during the first phase.
> 
> Phase ≠ Round. If it meant rounds, it would say that.



I'm pretty sure Dene was talking about why it was called "combined round" in the first place. The regulations just describe how they decided to implement the idea.


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Aug 14, 2015)

bobthegiraffemonkey said:


> I'm pretty sure Dene was talking about why it was called "combined round" in the first place. The regulations just describe how they decided to implement the idea.



I know that seems like what it should mean, but it doesn't. When the regulations say something, then that is, in most cases, exactly how it should be applied.

wait
you are a giraffe monkey
oh no...


----------



## tseitsei (Aug 14, 2015)

JustinTimeCuber said:


> I know that seems like what it should mean, but it doesn't. When the regulations say something, then that is, in most cases, exactly how it should be applied.



Once again spirit of the regulations > strict letter of the regulations imo...

If it is clear what it should mean then just interpret it means just that and don't try to make it more complicated than necessary...


----------



## joshsailscga (Aug 14, 2015)

tseitsei said:


> Once again spirit of the regulations > strict letter of the regulations imo...
> 
> If it is clear what it should mean then just interpret it means just that and don't try to make it more complicated than necessary...



Exactly, I was wondering why this was suddenly such a big deal.


----------



## Dene (Aug 14, 2015)

JustinTimeCuber said:


> "Combined Round" is literally defined in the regulations.
> 9g) A Combined Round consists of two *phases* of attempts, where competitors advance to the second phase if they meet a designated cutoff during the first phase.
> 
> Phase ≠ Round. If it meant rounds, it would say that.



The regulations actually have specific definitions (1 and 2) where necessary. 9g is clearly not a definition, but a description of how it works when rounds are combined.


----------



## Pedro (Aug 14, 2015)

JustinTimeCuber said:


> The WCA doesn't seem very clear on certain aspects of rounds.
> 
> 9g) A Combined Round consists of two phases of attempts, where competitors advance to the second phase if they meet a designated cutoff during the first phase.
> 
> Does that mean I could have a round of Pyraminx where there are 3 chances to make the cutoff? Could I make it so that you have to meet the cutoff both times? What if it were 4 times? If someone didn't make the cutoff, would they still have an average, with their best time removed and the remaining 3 averaged together?



Yes, you could have 3 chances to make the cutoff. 
I don't know what you mean with "meet the cutoff both times", since there's only two phases (as you pointed many times).
I'm not sure about having 4 attempts to meet the cutoff, since that would be kinda pointless. And yeah, Board would probably not approve that.



> 9b1) Rubik's Cube, 2x2x2 Cube, 4x4x4 Cube, 5x5x5 Cube, Clock, Megaminx, Pyraminx, Square-1, Skewb, and Rubik's Cube: One-Handed.
> 9b1a) Round formats for these events are: "Best of X" (where X is 1, 2, or 3), and "Average of 5".
> 
> So, I could have a best of 2 round for 3x3? That'd be weird.



Yes, you could, but I don't see why (unless a catastrophe happens during the comp and you have to change the format).



> 9p3) If a qualifying competitor withdraws from a round, they may be replaced by the best-ranked competitor below the cutoff from the preceding round.
> 
> Oh, wouldn't that be great, for the time I was 11th in round 2.



That happens a lot, as Dene said. Keep in mind that "they *may be* replaced". Organization may choose to not chase down the 101th placed in the previous round.


----------



## Matt11111 (Oct 18, 2015)

DGCubes said:


> Whoa, that sounds insane... they should do one in every country on the same day, haha.



Yep. The whole world going for a world record single. Sounds fun. But if I knew it was a single, that'd probably be the one solve that my cube decides to explode on me and lose a spring or something.


----------



## AlexMaass (Oct 18, 2015)

Matt11111 said:


> Yep. The whole world going for a world record single. Sounds fun. But if I knew it was a single, that'd probably be the one solve that my cube decides to explode on me and lose a spring or something.



Just realized, this might be a bad idea, because of sharing scramble information, unless everyone got a different scramble.


----------



## Matt11111 (Oct 19, 2015)

AlexMaass said:


> Just realized, this might be a bad idea, because of sharing scramble information, unless everyone got a different scramble.



Isn't that how it works at competitions? A group of people all compete at the same time with the same scramble?


----------



## AlexMaass (Oct 19, 2015)

Matt11111 said:


> Isn't that how it works at competitions? A group of people all compete at the same time with the same scramble?



It's focused on one scramble, so knowing the solution to that scramble would be much more impactful on your results instead of it being from an average of 5.

Plus at normal competitions, some events have different scramble groups, but in this format, its the same scramble for every single event.


----------



## Matt11111 (Oct 19, 2015)

AlexMaass said:


> It's focused on one scramble, so knowing the solution to that scramble would be much more impactful on your results instead of it being from an average of 5.
> 
> Plus at normal competitions, some events have different scramble groups, but in this format, its the same scramble for every single event.



Yeahhh, that might be a problem.


----------

