# Touching the puzzle after timer stop



## mark49152 (Apr 24, 2018)

There was a debate on FB about whether Sebastian's 18.84 WR should be +2 due to the unintentional touch after stopping the timer. Opinions?

IMHO this is clearly a good solve and it would be unfair and against common sense and WCA spirit to penalize it. However, they raise a good point because it highlights a weakness in the regs. 

Currently A6e says that if the touch happens before the judge has inspected the puzzle it's a DNF or +2 at the discretion of the judge. In my competition experience, it's unusual for a judge to clearly signal the completion of their "inspection" in which case it can only be at the judge's discretion to say whether they were satisfied the puzzle was solved before the touch happened. In Sebastian's case, if the judge was paying attention they would know if the cube was solved before the timer was even stopped, and the split second between timer stop and the touch would have been insufficient to call "okay" anyway. So it seems silly to say that the judge can use their discretion only to choose between +2 and DNF.

Thoughts?


----------



## Mike Hughey (Apr 24, 2018)

As I have understood this rule, it is always the word of the judge as to whether the judge has inspected the puzzle. The judge has the right to claim his inspection was complete before the competitor touched the puzzle. In this case, if the judge claims they had completed inspection before the competitor touched the puzzle (by watching it throughout), there should be no penalty, and the rule has not been violated.


----------



## Tabe (Apr 25, 2018)

Any judge or delegate that rules that touch a +2 needs their head examined.


----------



## guysensei1 (Apr 25, 2018)

mark49152 said:


> IMHO this is clearly a good solve and it would be unfair and against common sense and WCA spirit to penalize it.


I'm not a fan of adding "common sense" into regulations as it introduces pointless subjectivity. 

What would happen if the timer was stopped when the cube was, say 40 degrees misaligned? A sharp judge will be able to use your argument and say he was able to determine it was solved all along, but most people won't be able to differentiate 40 degrees and >45 degrees in a split second. 

I would much rather have all cube touches be penalised than have the possibility of the exact same scenario be ruled 2 different outcomes depending on who's judging.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Apr 25, 2018)

If we were going to do that, I believe it would require a rule change. We would need to clearly define when the cube may be touched, and that is not clearly defined by the rules today. And that would probably introduce the opportunity for a lot more penalties to occur due to confusion over the changed rules. I really personally prefer the way the rules are now.

As is today, if you are wise, you will not touch the puzzle until you first have signed the scoresheet and the judge has signed the scoresheet. But if you are unwise and do not, or accidentally touch the puzzle, you are at the mercy of the judge's decision due to your own carelessness, but if the judge is paying attention you are likely to not be penalized. I'm pretty happy with that arrangement.


----------



## mark49152 (Apr 29, 2018)

Mike Hughey said:


> As I have understood this rule, it is always the word of the judge as to whether the judge has inspected the puzzle. The judge has the right to claim his inspection was complete before the competitor touched the puzzle. In this case, if the judge claims they had completed inspection before the competitor touched the puzzle (by watching it throughout), there should be no penalty, and the rule has not been violated.


Yes I agree that's how it should be, but I think some others interpreted the regs as intending there should be a phase after stopping the timer in which the judge physically examines the cube, and the end of that phase is signalled by calling the result. See A6g and A7a. If the intent is that the judge should simply be satisfied that the cube was solved at the point the timer was stopped, the regs should say that explicitly.


----------



## weatherman223 (Apr 29, 2018)

https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/incidents/23

WRC Just declares it to be fine.


----------



## mark49152 (Apr 29, 2018)

...together with an update to reg A6e. Good call.


----------

