# WCA Guidelines 2012



## Lucas Garron (Jun 27, 2012)

Hi all,

Rather than debating all these little details, let's do something about it!

As you may be aware, we are planning to publish the next version of the Regulations with accompanying Guidelines. They will be just as binding, but they should contain all the interpretations and clarifications that don't belong in the rules. This way, delegates have a clear reference for making decisions.

However, there are a lot of small rules, and we could use your help in making sure we have everything covered. If you know (or want to know) something about the regulations that should be clarified, please post it in the thread with either the word QUESTION or the word SUGGESTION.
Like this:

SUGGESTION (A2): Competitors are not allowed to request a specific orientation for a puzzle.

SUGGESTION (3c): "Stickerless" puzzles like stickerless GuHongs are not allowed for any event. (WCA thread)

QUESTION (5b): If a single corner twists in place, what is the competitor allowed to do?

Some things that would help:

Please include a reference to a section of the regulations, if possible.
If the topic has been previously discussed, please provide links.
If you have any examples from real events that help illustrate the topic, please give us as much information as you can, so the WRC can make informed decisions when compiling and deciding the Guidelines. In particular, it helps to know about rulings from delegates at actual competitions around the world.


Thanks.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jun 27, 2012)

I'll work on this tomorrow. But for now, I'd like to mention that I hope both of your examples above are included - they need to be.


----------



## DrKorbin (Jun 27, 2012)

QUESTION (H): In multi-bld, if a competitor reaches his time limit, and some of his cubes have misalignment, are they treated as +2 or not solved?
(It seems to me Ron has said they are not solved, but I can't provide a link).

SUGGESTION (4d): If there is black and no white, the cube is scrambled black on top, green (or darkest adjanced color) on front.
link

SUGGESTION (2e1): Nationality is exactly a citizenship (i.e. you have a passport of this country (but how must young people who have no passport be treated?)), not membership of a nation in the sense of ethnic group.
link


----------



## MaeLSTRoM (Jun 27, 2012)

QUESTION (9F14): What is to happen if 2 competitors have the same average and the same best single?


Spoiler: Quote from IRC, talking about aachen open 2012 cutoffs for 3x3 final



(4:06:06 PM) AardappelsapBASc: the funny thing was there would be 12 people in the podium fnials
(4:06:14 PM) AardappelsapBASc: and number 12 and 13 had exactly the same avg..
(4:06:21 PM) AardappelsapBASc: so we looked at who had the best single
(4:06:31 PM) AardappelsapBASc: but they both also had the same best single xD
...
(4:06:48 PM) Rawrbert: so look at 2nd best solve instead? 
(4:07:03 PM) AardappelsapBASc: lol no, there is no solution for it in the regulations
(4:07:10 PM) AardappelsapBASc: so they could both be in the podium finals


----------



## vcuber13 (Jun 27, 2012)

QUESTION (3c): Should the use of stickerless cubes be only for blind events, and should it be at the delegates descretion?

SUGGESTION (3c): "Stickerless" puzzles like stickerless GuHongs are allowed ONLY for blind events.

SUGGESTION (5b): If a single corner twists in place, the competitor is allowed to twist it in place.


----------



## ardi4nto (Jun 27, 2012)

MaeLSTRoM said:


> QUESTION (9F14): What is to happen if 2 competitors have the same average and the same best single?
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Quote from IRC, talking about aachen open 2012 cutoffs for 3x3 final
> ...



Both will be have same position.
Just like FMC with same move counts.


----------



## Ickathu (Jun 27, 2012)

Suggestion 4g) [?]: Scrambling orientation for non-cubic puzzles (e.g., pyra, mega): Lightest color on bottom, darkest adjacent color on front


----------



## Julian (Jun 27, 2012)

ardi4nto said:


> Both will be have same position.
> Just like FMC with same move counts.


He's talking about a round before the finals.



Ickathu said:


> Suggestion 4g) [?]: Scrambling orientation for non-cubic puzzles (e.g., pyra, mega): Lightest color on bottom, darkest adjacent color on front


This doesn't work with the way megaminx is scrambled (or did you mean lightest colour on top?)


----------



## Ickathu (Jun 27, 2012)

Julian said:


> This doesn't work with the way megaminx is scrambled (or did you mean lightest colour on top?)



Oh yeah, I might have meant that. I don't do mega, so I'm not sure. I just know that, being a noncubic puzzle, scrambling orientation is not defined.


----------



## ZachyD543 (Jun 27, 2012)

what's the point of not being able to use stickerless cubes in competition? They are just like any other cube just without stickers. I think the WCA should take this into consideration and let us use these cubes.


----------



## tasguitar7 (Jun 27, 2012)

ZachyD543 said:


> what's the point of not being able to use stickerless cubes in competition? They are just like any other cube just without stickers. I think the WCA should take this into consideration and let us use these cubes.



The reasoning behind not allowing them is that if you turn a side of a stickerless cube 45 degrees you can see more colors of more pieces (due to the fact that the pieces are dyed the color instead of just having stickers) than you would if you used a stickered cube. It apparently allows an unfair advantage in look ahead.

Has anyone found any evidence that shows an actual advantage to using stickerless cubes?


----------



## oranjules (Jun 27, 2012)

With stickerless cubes you can see pieces you can't with any other cube (at least for dayan ones : the stickerless diansheng (with paint) are allowed)
EDIT : an example of help is turning the U face during F2L, with the LL in front of you (well, it become a F move) : you can see if there are bad edges in F2L slots, which you can't see normally from that angle


----------



## Bob (Jun 27, 2012)

ZachyD543 said:


> what's the point of not being able to use stickerless cubes in competition? They are just like any other cube just without stickers. I think the WCA should take this into consideration and let us use these cubes.



http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/s...ickerless-cubes-be-allowed-in-WCA-competition


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jun 27, 2012)

ZachyD543 said:


> what's the point of not being able to use stickerless cubes in competition? They are just like any other cube just without stickers. I think the WCA should take this into consideration and let us use these cubes.



Suggestion (3c): The rules for stickerless cubes should be the same for speedsolving and blindsolving - there should be no difference. I think I'd prefer that they be allowed, but the rules should be consistent either way.


----------



## cubernya (Jun 27, 2012)

Mike Hughey said:


> Suggestion (3c): The rules for stickerless cubes should be the same for speedsolving and blindsolving - there should be no difference. I think I'd prefer that they be allowed, but the rules should be consistent either way.



I disagree. In speedsolving, there is a supposed advantage. In blindsolving, though, the only advantage is when you turn the puzzle, at which point you can't see a thing (well maybe a little light)


----------



## Vincents (Jun 27, 2012)

This is a great start.

Message to everyone: Please provide sufficient justification for your suggestions. Saying "I feel this should happen" is not considered sufficient justification. Saying "I feel this should happen because X and Y have been allowed on these two instances in the past, and those rulings were reasonable because blahblahblah" is better.


----------



## MaeLSTRoM (Jun 27, 2012)

ardi4nto said:


> Both will be have same position.
> Just like FMC with same move counts.



Sorry, I should have been clearer, The problem was that only one of them should have proceeded to the finals, how should this be decided if it comes up again.


----------



## cubernya (Jun 27, 2012)

MaeLSTRoM said:


> Sorry, I should have been clearer, The problem was that only one of them should have proceeded to the finals, how should this be decided if it comes up again.



If it stays within the 25% limit, then it was legal to send them both to finals. If it doesn't, neither can go. As it stands now, one can't go and one can, but they can both be held back


----------



## @uguste (Jun 27, 2012)

SUGGESTION (9f14) : Take the sum of the counting times in count before the best time to resolve ties, because it is unfair that someone with a 10.101 average can get beaten by someone with a 10.104 average. There are several examples of such cases.

SUGGESTION (section A) : Clarifying the cumulation of penalty of different categories : if you get a +2 from "Starting the solve" and one for "Ending the solve", is it a +4 or a DNF ?

SUGGESTION (10e3) : Removing the +2 penalty for FMC (it's not clear in the regulations) and blind, because it doesn't make sense (and it solves the stupid multi-blind problem)

And about the stickerless cubes interdiction : if we decide to forbid the stickerless dayans, then we should forbid cube with tiles : with 1.5 mm tiles, you can see much more pieces and the advantage is way better than with a stickerless dayan cube.


----------



## cubernya (Jun 27, 2012)

@uguste said:


> SUGGESTION (9f14) : Take the sum of the counting times in count before the best time to resolve ties, because it is unfair that someone with a 10.101 average can get beaten by someone with a 10.104 average. There are several examples of such cases.
> 
> SUGGESTION (section A) : Clarifying the cumulation of penalty of different categories : if you get a +2 from "Starting the solve" and one for "Ending the solve", is it a +4 or a DNF ?
> 
> ...



9f14: If the averages are the same, then the sum can only be up to 0.01 off.
10e3: There is no +2 for FMC. It's solved or not solved. Stupid MBLD problem? The only problem is the +2 to +(n*2), which really isn't a problem


----------



## @uguste (Jun 27, 2012)

theZcuber said:


> 9f14: If the averages are the same, then the sum can only be up to 0.01 off.


But there still is a difference.


theZcuber said:


> 10e3: There is no +2 for FMC. It's solved or not solved. Stupid MBLD problem? The only problem is the +2 to +(n*2), which really isn't a problem


I know there is no +2 for FMC, but it is not clearly stated in the regulations. And I think having a +2 penalty in blind doesn't make sense because it is against the "spirit" of blind solving. In blind you don't go as fast as in speedsolving, and I never saw someone get a +2 in blind because the cube was unintentionally misaligned. You can also use the penalty with M2 : if you don't remember if you have to do M2 or not, you can just do R2 at the end of the solve and get a +2 penalty instead of a DNF.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jun 27, 2012)

theZcuber said:


> 10e3: There is no +2 for FMC. It's solved or not solved. Stupid MBLD problem? The only problem is the +2 to +(n*2), which really isn't a problem



I disagree - there is a stupid multiBLD problem. The problem is what to do if someone reaches the maximum time for the solve and then has a +2. This is not handled by the regulations: does it get treated as valid but with +2 time, or does it get treated as DNF (because the time is then over the limit)? Ron has made a pronouncement on the WCA Forum, but it's not covered in the regulations. We need to solve this stupid multiBLD problem. One way of doing it would be to remove +2 penalties for multiBLD, saying anything over 45 degrees off is a DNF.

If we're really going to allow stickerless cubes in BLD but not in speedsolving, that seems to justify the idea of having different rules for +2 as well between BLD and speedsolving.


----------



## DrKorbin (Jun 27, 2012)

@uguste said:


> I never saw someone get a +2 in blind because the cube was unintentionally misaligned.



I had +2 in blind on official competition once upon a time, and it was unintentionally.
I would also suggest discussing this or other issues in specific threads (or you can create them if there is no), to make it simple for organizers collecting suggestions and questions ITT.


QUESTION (don't know which section): What is the current status of pillowed 7x7 cubes?
Here Ron told they are permitted at least until a cubic is generally available and widely used.


----------



## MaeLSTRoM (Jun 27, 2012)

DrKorbin said:


> QUESTION (don't know which section): What is the current status of pillowed 7x7 cubes?
> Here Ron told they are permitted at least until a cubic is generally available and widely used.



Personally, I think that they should stay allowed. If they were to become banned, would it be the first original version of a cube that is not allowed in competition?


----------



## Sebastien (Jun 27, 2012)

I get the feeling that we should have released the new regulations before starting that thread...



DrKorbin said:


> QUESTION (H): In multi-bld, if a competitor reaches his time limit, and some of his cubes have misalignment, are they treated as +2 or not solved?
> (It seems to me Ron has said they are not solved, but I can't provide a link).
> 
> SUGGESTION (4d): If there is black and no white, the cube is scrambled black on top, green (or darkest adjanced color) on front.
> ...





vcuber13 said:


> SUGGESTION (5b): If a single corner twists in place, the competitor is allowed to twist it in place.





Ickathu said:


> Suggestion 4g) [?]: Scrambling orientation for non-cubic puzzles (e.g., pyra, mega): Lightest color on bottom, darkest adjacent color on front





Mike Hughey said:


> Suggestion (3c): The rules for stickerless cubes should be the same for speedsolving and blindsolving - there should be no difference. I think I'd prefer that they be allowed, but the rules should be consistent either way.



All this is either already implemented or in discussion.



theZcuber said:


> If it stays within the 25% limit, then it was legal to send them both to finals. If it doesn't, neither can go. As it stands now, one can't go and one can, but they can both be held back



Exactly this! There is no other logical way to treat this situation. But perhaps we should add the sum of all counting solves as criteria before better single...


----------



## cubernya (Jun 28, 2012)

Sebastien said:


> I get the feeling that we should have released the new regulations before starting that thread...



I don't think anyone would have a problem with the WRC releasing a draft version to the public, which could take care of a lot of issues already brought up


----------



## Ranzha (Jun 28, 2012)

QUESTION (1f2) I know this should probably fall under discretion of the main judge, but what if a competitor doesn't know notation for a specific event? In particular, I can think of a few events that this could apply to, namely megaminx and clock (and perhaps even square-1).
Magics lol


----------



## hcfong (Jun 28, 2012)

Ranzha V. Emodrach said:


> QUESTION (1f2) I know this should probably fall under discretion of the main judge, but what if a competitor doesn't know notation for a specific event? In particular, I can think of a few events that this could apply to, namely megaminx and clock (and perhaps even square-1).
> Magics lol



if you don't know the notation for a specific puzzle, there's a good chance you don't know how to solve it. I think it's generally accepted that not knowing the notation for a puzzle because you simply don't know how to solve it, is a valid excuse not to scramble for that event.

But I guess this could be clarified in the guidelines.


----------



## 5BLD (Jun 28, 2012)

Well, why should there be 'excuses' not to scramble etc? Won't there be enough volunteers anyway?
Also I am one of those who doesn't really know how to read sq1 notation but can solve it, albeit slowly. Megaminx too.


----------



## vcuber13 (Jun 28, 2012)

Ranzha V. Emodrach said:


> QUESTION (1f2) I know this should probably fall under discretion of the main judge, but what if a competitor doesn't know notation for a specific event? In particular, I can think of a few events that this could apply to, namely megaminx and clock (and perhaps even square-1).
> Magics lol



what we do is have a person than knows how to scramble scramble for the fastest person or two and when they are done they start scrambling

for example at the last comp Justin scrambled for me and when i was done he scrambled for Neil and Neil and I scrambled most of the cubes after because we are so much faster at it.



Edit:

QUESTION
3l) Cube puzzles must have at most one logo. For Rubik's Cube or bigger cube puzzles the logo must be placed on one of the centre pieces.

what about square1s?


----------



## Ranzha (Jun 28, 2012)

vcuber13 said:


> what we do is have a person than knows how to scramble scramble for the fastest person or two and when they are done they start scrambling
> 
> for example at the last comp Justin scrambled for me and when i was done he scrambled for Neil and Neil and I scrambled most of the cubes after because we are so much faster at it.


This is often the case around these parts as well. There are usually very experienced competitors at the scrambling table, so it has never been a practical issue. However, the technical issue still kinda remains.
Perhaps, "For ease of competition flow, competitors should familiarise themselves with scrambling notation for the event(s) they are competing in."



vcuber13 said:


> QUESTION
> 3l) Cube puzzles must have at most one logo. For Rubik's Cube or bigger cube puzzles the logo must be placed on one of the centre pieces.
> 
> what about square1s?


If "centre piece" relates to a piece connected to the core (or something; uncertain how to phrase this), the logo on Square-1s is most definitely on a centre piece.


----------



## Sebastien (Jun 28, 2012)

Ranzha V. Emodrach said:


> "For ease of competition flow, competitors should familiarise themselves with scrambling notation for the event(s) they are competing in."



How would that be helpful compared to the current version?

Of course, every competitor must be available for scrambling and judging for every event. A delegate in a bad mood can disqualify you if you don't know how to scramble a specific puzzle, so better learn how to scramble all puzzles (this is really not much work). This never happens in practice, as there are almost always enough people that can scramble a puzzle.


----------



## Ranzha (Jun 28, 2012)

Sebastien said:


> How would that be helpful compared to the current version?
> 
> Of course, every competitor must be available for scrambling and judging for every event. A delegate in a bad mood can disqualify you if you don't know how to scramble a specific puzzle, so better learn how to scramble all puzzles (this is really not much work). This never happens in practice, as there are almost always enough people that can scramble a puzzle.



Sure, a delegate can disqualify a competitor for not knowing, but that would be a dick move. It's unethical and doesn't promote the positive atmosphere competitions should strive to have (for the betterment of the community, and the like).

A couple of examples I can think of right now:
At some competitions I go to, there is a young competitor who only competes in Magic. Assuming this competitor doesn't know how to solve other puzzles presently, asking this competitor to scramble for other puzzles would be folly.
In a different case, at the last competition I went to, there was a first-time competitor who was entering 3x3 and 3x3OH. At this point, this competitor didn't know how to solve any other puzzles. He had no previous access to these puzzles (which aids significantly in familiarising with scrambling notation).
Therefore, I think my suggestion is a lot easier to abide by from both a technical and practical point of view.


----------



## cubernya (Jun 28, 2012)

I have a question: If the regulation says *should*, then why does it say disqualification...


----------



## vcuber13 (Jun 28, 2012)

whats an example?


----------



## cubernya (Jun 28, 2012)

vcuber13 said:


> whats an example?



That competitors should be available for scrambling
1f2) All competitors *should* be available for scrambling, if needed by organisation team.* Penalty:* disqualification of the competitor for the competition.

Another suggestion:
2h)	Competitors must be fully dressed. Competitors may dress in jeans, pants, shorts, slacks, skirts, foot-wear, T-shirts or dress shirts. Hats may be worn. Clothes must not display vulgar language or have inappropriate pictures.
This could easily be change to "Competitors must be appropriately dressed."


----------



## Ranzha (Jun 28, 2012)

theZcuber said:


> That competitors should be available for scrambling
> 1f2) All competitors *should* be available for scrambling, if needed by organisation team.* Penalty:* disqualification of the competitor for the competition.



Either change to "must" or make the penalty less severe. Or, you know, change to what I suggested earlier.


----------



## cubernya (Jun 28, 2012)

Ranzha V. Emodrach said:


> Either change to "must" or make the penalty less severe. Or, you know, change to what I suggested earlier.



If it says should, there can't be a penalty. Things just don't work that way. It was must a few years ago, but it was changed because not all competitors know notation. However, lots of puzzles can be solved intuitively (realistically any cubic puzzle, using some blockbuilding on 2x2, Heise on 3x3, OBLBL on bigcubes), or the notation is completely different from typical speedsolving notation (Megaminx).

I'm also in favor of making SiGN the official notation, especially for fewest moves where it's already generally accepted (I think)


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jun 28, 2012)

With regard to availability for scrambling, I think the intent is really something like this:
1. If you're a competitor, you should make yourself available for scrambling. That means you're willing to scramble (even if you don't know how - if you don't know how, you must be willing to be taught).
2. If you as a competitor refuse to scramble when asked, simply because you're unwilling (not because you're unable), then you can be disqualified from the competition.

I suspect this is really what was intended by the regulation. Since it is somewhat unclear, it would probably be nice to clarify it.

------------

One thing that I think might be nice to add to the guidelines:

Suggestion(G4 and G5): It would be helpful to have very clear instructions on how Magic and Master Magic should be judged. In particular, mention that the competitor should not be touching the puzzle either before the timer starts or after the timer stops, and mention the valid hand positions for starting and stopping the timer. I realize the current regulations (A4b, A4b1, A6c, A6d, and A6e) all actually cover these issues, but I fear that too many people judging Magic or Master Magic may not think about how significant this is with those puzzles, and I think it would be helpful to clarify it explicitly. Perhaps it's silly of me to bring this up, because it's already officially in the rules, but I just tend to think it needs more weight.

Additional clarification on rules A4b and A6c might be nice too. The way I interpret the rules is this: for A4b, you must have some part of at least two fingers touching the stackmat as your hands come off the timer, and for A6c, you must have some part of your hand past your wrist (palm or fingers) touching the timer at the end. Note that A6c doesn't require fingers to be touching - some people seem to think it does. Note also that A6c doesn't guarantee that A6d and A6e will be followed - you can be fully holding the puzzle while stopping the timer legally according to A6c - it's only A6d and A6e that prevent it.


----------



## Dene (Jun 28, 2012)

Mike Hughey said:


> If we're really going to allow stickerless cubes in BLD but not in speedsolving, that seems to justify the idea of having different rules for +2 as well between BLD and speedsolving.



But there's a much easier solution to that :tu


----------



## Neo63 (Jun 29, 2012)

Ranzha V. Emodrach said:


> If "centre piece" relates to a piece connected to the core (or something; uncertain how to phrase this), the logo on Square-1s is most definitely on a centre piece.



Um why must there be at most one logos on the cube? If this rule is extended to square-1 then that means my square-1 is disqualified...  since there are words on both the left and right middle pieces, unless words do not count as logos.


----------



## Ranzha (Jun 29, 2012)

Neo63 said:


> Um why must there be at most one logos on the cube? If this rule is extended to square-1 then that means my square-1 is disqualified...  since there are words on both the left and right middle pieces, unless words do not count as logos.



I don't quite understand what you mean. Can you post pictures?


----------



## jonlin (Jun 29, 2012)

He means his middle layer caps have designs or words on them. The caps are in the middle layers so you can tension it.


----------



## Ranzha (Jun 29, 2012)

jonlin said:


> He means his middle layer caps have designs or words on them. The caps are in the middle layers so you can tension it.



Oh, I see. I personally count the logo as a single sticker, but seeing as that Sq-1 keeps the same cube orientation the entire solve, there's no advantage.
Just to be safe, however, I'd stick to a one-sticker logo.


----------



## Neo63 (Jun 29, 2012)

Ranzha V. Emodrach said:


> Oh, I see. I personally count the logo as a single sticker, but seeing as that Sq-1 keeps the same cube orientation the entire solve, there's no advantage.
> Just to be safe, however, I'd stick to a one-sticker logo.



I still don't quite understand how more than one logo would give you an advantage. And I'm assuming words count as logos too?

EDIT: jonlin's explanation was good, sorry.


----------



## vcuber13 (Jun 29, 2012)

Neo63 said:


> I still don't quite understand how more than one logo would give you an advantage. And I'm assuming words count as logos too?
> 
> EDIT: jonlin's explanation was good, sorry.



i thought you had cubesmith stickers on though


if the logo was on the front would it still work?


----------



## Neo63 (Jun 30, 2012)

vcuber13 said:


> i thought you had cubesmith stickers on though
> 
> 
> if the logo was on the front would it still work?



No I have the original mf8 stickers, cubesmith doesn't sell sets with my colour scheme. I don't know what you mean by logo on the front.


----------



## Ranzha (Jun 30, 2012)

Neo63 said:


> No I have the original mf8 stickers, cubesmith doesn't sell sets with my colour scheme. I don't know what you mean by logo on the front.



Having a logo on the left and right sides for Square-1 doesn't change anything. However, for simplicity of complying with the regs, a one-sticker logo would be preferred.
It is easier to let the regulation be than to make this a lot more difficult.


----------



## Bob (Jun 30, 2012)

I think the regulations could make an exception for this puzzle. An additional logo does not give any additional information. In fact, I think it would be fine for the regulations to allow multiple logos if all logos are on center stickers.


----------



## blakedacuber (Jul 1, 2012)

Don't think there's anything about this n WCA rules and Regs etc. For Irish Open2012 there was about a week to go before the comp and the weather had suddenly become bad and some flights were cancelled luckily Daniel's wasn't but what would've happened if the flight had of been cancelled until say a few days later? Could someone with a lot of competition experience be nominated to be a stand in delegate r would the competition be just unofficial?


----------



## Neo63 (Jul 1, 2012)

Bob said:


> I think the regulations could make an exception for this puzzle. An additional logo does not give any additional information. In fact, I think it would be fine for the regulations to allow multiple logos if all logos are on center stickers.



I never understood why the rule for maximum of one logo exists. What information would additional logos provide?


----------



## hcfong (Jul 1, 2012)

blakedacuber said:


> Don't think there's anything about this n WCA rules and Regs etc. For Irish Open2012 there was about a week to go before the comp and the weather had suddenly become bad and some flights were cancelled luckily Daniel's wasn't but what would've happened if the flight had of been cancelled until say a few days later? Could someone with a lot of competition experience be nominated to be a stand in delegate r would the competition be just unofficial?



Here's a quotation from Ron on the WCA forums which may apply in these situation, even though the context is not the same. 

"We only need new WCA delegates if there is actually a competition without a WCA delegate.
In that case you have to ask a recommendation from an existing WCA delegate who knows you very well.
If you are in a new country then you may need to travel to meet with an existing WCA delegate, or ask an existing WCA delegate to travel to you and make a recommendation after the competition.
If that is impossible then please contact me by e-mail to see how we can solve this."

Here's the quote in its original context: http://worldcubeassociation.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=439


----------



## Kattenvriendin (Jul 1, 2012)

The reason -in my eyes- is likely the orientation of the piece in question that has the sticker on it. Like when you are solving a 4-color mastermorphix the small corner piece that sits in the center of each color can be rotated wrong, resulting in the puzzle not being solved and you having to do another sequence of moves to sort it out.

You don't see this while solving because there is no up or down to be seen, however suppose there is a sticker on it of which you KNOW the bottom is facing a certain color, then you'd know the piece was rotated incorrectly were it facing another color. As you see this happening while you are solving you can take countermeasures and correct it and thus you MAY have an advantage over other cubers that don't have this sticker because it saves you time.

The fact that only one sticker max is allowed on any and all cubes, I think, is that they have to make a sweeping rule about this, otherwise as the Dutch say "is het einde zoek". Roughly translated: you can keep making exceptions for this cube, and exceptions for that cube, and you can keep doing this every time a new shape cube that is entered in a competition comes out. Very time consuming, and very annoying to adapt the rules all the time. Hence the sweep.

I could be wrong, of course, but this is why -I- think this rule is there.


----------



## TMOY (Jul 1, 2012)

blakedacuber said:


> Don't think there's anything about this n WCA rules and Regs etc. For Irish Open2012 there was about a week to go before the comp and the weather had suddenly become bad and some flights were cancelled luckily Daniel's wasn't but what would've happened if the flight had of been cancelled until say a few days later? Could someone with a lot of competition experience be nominated to be a stand in delegate r would the competition be just unofficial?


Such a situation happened at Neptune Open 2011, when Clément discovered only a few days before the comp that he couldn't make it and no other delegate had registered. As a result, a new delegate got nominated.


----------



## Sebastien (Jul 5, 2012)

At Austrian Open 2011 the delegate had problems during his travel so he only arrived in the middle of the first day. The organisers were informed about this so in the beginning of that day Ron was called and he nominated an experiences competitor as delegate for the time the actual delegate had not arrived.

I don't think such a situation should be in the WCA regs. It should be obvious that the board should be contacted if no delegate is available or that a delegate should contact the board if it is clear he can't male it.


----------

