# Was this actually a DNF?



## asacuber (Jan 3, 2016)

(I know this is late)
At PFO V3.0, in 2x2 finals, I had completed my third solve(3.97). However the judge did not reset the timer. Neither did I notice. The next solve, My judge came with the scrambled cube and I inspected and put my hands on the timer and then started the solve(Of course the timer did not start and I did not notice yet again).However after I completed the solve, I realised what happened and my judge called the delegate. He said that although it is the judge's responsibility to reset the timer,I should have noticed and he marked the solve a DNF.
So is it actually a DNF?
Also, most of the competitors were resetting the timers because the judges weren't, most of the time.


----------



## Sebastien (Jan 3, 2016)

Clearly an extra: 

A3b) The judge prepares the timer by turning it on and resetting if necessary. Separately, the judge also prepares a stopwatch for timing inspection.
A3c3+) CLARIFICATION The competitor may reset the timer before/during the inspection phase if the judge accidentally neglected to do so. However, it is the responsibility of the judge to make sure the timer has been reset (see Regulation A3b). If the competitor accidentally tries to begin the solve with a timer that the judge did not reset (i.e. the competitor performs inspection, places hands on the timer for a reasonable length of time, assumes that the timer will start normally, and begins to manipulate the puzzle), the attempt should be replaced by an extra attempt, at the discretion of the WCA Delegate.

But nobody can tell how the judge described the situation to the delegate, so you guys shouldn't just blame the delegate right away. Arguing surely would have helped in this situation, don't be shy if you know the regulations well. No delegate is free of errors, we are just humans.


----------



## Matt11111 (Jan 3, 2016)

This thread makes me realize that we should turn the WCA regulations into a handbook that judges are to be given to read before judging. Because pretty much anyone can be a judge. My dad could offer to judge, then he'd probably give someone whose cube popped during the solve an extra attempt because accidents happen. What the heck kind of judge did you have?


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Jan 3, 2016)

Matt11111 said:


> This thread makes me realize that we should turn the WCA regulations into a handbook that judges are to be given to read before judging. Because pretty much anyone can be a judge. My dad could offer to judge, then he'd probably give someone whose cube popped during the solve an extra attempt because accidents happen. What the heck kind of judge did you have?



it's at the delegate's discretion, however I do agree that this needs an extra attempt, there is nothing to suggest that he did it on purpose


----------



## asacuber (Jan 3, 2016)

Matt11111 said:


> This thread makes me realize that we should turn the WCA regulations into a handbook that judges are to be given to read before judging. Because pretty much anyone can be a judge. My dad could offer to judge, then he'd probably give someone whose cube popped during the solve an extra attempt because accidents happen. What the heck kind of judge did you have?



The judge was not bad- as I said before he first put it as a re attempt and went to the delegate to confirm


----------



## Dene (Jan 4, 2016)

JustinTimeCuber said:


> it's at the delegate's discretion, however I do agree that this needs an extra attempt, there is nothing to suggest that he did it on purpose



What's at the delegate's discretion? The regulations are clear on this.


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Jan 4, 2016)

Dene said:


> What's at the delegate's discretion? The regulations are clear on this.



I suck at pronouns
I was referring to the awarding of an extra attempt.
A3c3+) CLARIFICATION The competitor may reset the timer before/during the inspection phase if the judge accidentally neglected to do so. However, it is the responsibility of the judge to make sure the timer has been reset (see Regulation A3b). If the competitor accidentally tries to begin the solve with a timer that the judge did not reset (i.e. the competitor performs inspection, places hands on the timer for a reasonable length of time, assumes that the timer will start normally, and begins to manipulate the puzzle), the attempt should be replaced by an extra attempt, *at the discretion of the WCA Delegate.*


----------



## Dene (Jan 4, 2016)

JustinTimeCuber said:


> I suck at pronouns
> I was referring to the awarding of an extra attempt.
> A3c3+) CLARIFICATION The competitor may reset the timer before/during the inspection phase if the judge accidentally neglected to do so. However, it is the responsibility of the judge to make sure the timer has been reset (see Regulation A3b). If the competitor accidentally tries to begin the solve with a timer that the judge did not reset (i.e. the competitor performs inspection, places hands on the timer for a reasonable length of time, assumes that the timer will start normally, and begins to manipulate the puzzle), the attempt should be replaced by an extra attempt, *at the discretion of the WCA Delegate.*



Ah heh I thought you were talking about the popping case 

Interestingly though, I wonder what the point of the "discretion" is in this clarification. The only reason a delegate shouldn't give an extra is if they think the competitor is conspiring to get an extra attempt because of a bad scramble. But there would be no way to prove this. And if it was true that the competitor was being malicious, they should simply be banned. So the discretion part there seems pointless.

@Lucas?


----------



## biscuit (Jan 4, 2016)

Dene said:


> Ah heh I thought you were talking about the popping case
> 
> Interestingly though, I wonder what the point of the "discretion" is in this clarification. The only reason a delegate shouldn't give an extra is if they think the competitor is conspiring to get an extra attempt because of a bad scramble. But there would be no way to prove this. And if it was true that the competitor was being malicious, they should simply be banned. So the discretion part there seems pointless.
> 
> @Lucas?



Maybe bring this up on the github? If you don't want to I can


----------



## Dene (Jan 5, 2016)

Meh, Lucas will see this eventually. I'd ping him directly if I thought it was urgent.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Jan 5, 2016)

Dene said:


> Ah heh I thought you were talking about the popping case
> 
> Interestingly though, I wonder what the point of the "discretion" is in this clarification. The only reason a delegate shouldn't give an extra is if they think the competitor is conspiring to get an extra attempt because of a bad scramble. But there would be no way to prove this. And if it was true that the competitor was being malicious, they should simply be banned. So the discretion part there seems pointless.
> 
> @Lucas?



In general, extra attempts are at the discretion of the Delegate (11e). The Delegate (or someone they closely trust – see 1c) should certainly be *made aware* of incidents, and note them in the Delegate report.

Since A3c3+ makes it clear what the Delegate *should* do in the general case, I don't see a big problem.

This thread doesn't cover whether asacuber signed to accept the DNF. That would forfeit the de facto *right* to an extra attempt (see 11e), although the Delegate should use proper discretion whenever they do hear about such an incident.

You're welcome to open a GitHub issue about the specification of extra attempts throughout the Regulations, but I think the current state is fair and decent.


----------



## AlphaSheep (Jan 5, 2016)

When the judge asks if I'm ready, I've formed a habit of checking that the timer is reset before responding.

Also it's a good idea to know the regulations well. If you do, don't be afraid to argue with the delegate if you disagree (politely of course).


----------



## asacuber (Jan 5, 2016)

FastCubeMaster said:


> That would be annoying to get a DNF when it would be a resolve.



Meh yeah that solve was flowing quite well.


----------



## SpeedCuber71 (Jan 5, 2016)

Your thread has been shared by me to Indian cubers and the delegate has noticed. Wait for a while. You can thank me later. Also its sad that when i faced something worse than this last year and didn't even inform anyone lol.


----------



## pavanakula21 (Jan 5, 2016)

i know for that reason, i should give an extra attempt and in the same competition, i gave an extra for the same reason to others, how can i give DNF only to u, there might be someother reason also with it.


----------



## asacuber (Jan 6, 2016)

pavanakula21 said:


> View attachment 5786View attachment 5787
> i gave an extra for the same reason to others, how can i give DNF only to u,



I'm not sure whether this makes you remember, but actually you were the one who wrote DNF on my sheet.


----------



## asacuber (Sep 28, 2016)

Thread bump.
I meant no offense to the judge or delegate 
I created this thread not to demand a reattempt but just to confirm the reg.
Also maybe I must've explained the situation wrong.
Cheers


----------

