# [WCA Regulations 2012] Clarification about stopping the timer



## lachose (Dec 15, 2011)

I have seen several times people (including myself) stopping the timer with the cube falling on one of their hands. According to the actual regulations, it's +2.



WCA Regulations said:


> A6e) The competitor must not touch or move the puzzle until the judge has inspected the puzzle. Penalty: disqualification of the solve.



I'd say it's unfair in this case because if the puzzle falls on your hand you clearly can't move any part of it. So what about adding a rule that say it's up to the judge like the following rule



WCA Regulations said:


> A6f) The competitor must not reset the timer until the judge has written down the result on the competition sheet. Penalty: disqualification of the solve (courtesy of judge).



I know it's not an important rule and that doesn't change much but I think the rule needs to evoluate because of this case.


----------



## Olji (Dec 15, 2011)

You're probably dropping it in a bad way, I used to drop it in a risky way, which a judge pointed out and after that I'm dropping it in a safer manner.

Just drop it better and you should be good to go, solve it on the opposite side of the timer from where you're sitting/standing and then just release it while you stop the timer, or put it down completely and then stop it.


----------



## Cheese11 (Dec 15, 2011)

If it was up to the judge than every judge wouldn't implement the rule. Therefore I don't think it would work.


----------



## hcfong (Dec 15, 2011)

In what sense should A6f be evaluated? I don't see anything wrong with that regulation. The judge needs to be able to read the time from the stackmat timer and if he can't do that because a competitor resets the timer, there's no other option than to DNF. I can't see any other cause of resetting the timer before the judge can read it and write it down than as a fault of the competitor. I had this situation myself at a recent competition where the competitor stopped the timer, told me his time in French - which I don't speak - and resets the timer before I could read it. At the competition, there were no displays, so I had to read it from the actual timer itself which was on the other side of the table from me.


----------



## lachose (Dec 15, 2011)

A6f was just an example to say it can be up to the judge. I don't want this rule to change. I am only talking about A6e. Sorry if I wasn't clear. 

Maybe it's not a good idea to let the judge choose what to do if the cube is in contact with the competitor but I think this rule should be clarified because of the case I explained. Regarding the "you should have dropped it differently" argument, noone asks himself how to drop the cube before stopping the timer and why do they should ? Your cube is finished, you drop it instantly and you stop the timer. I can't see how this could be the cuber's fault. But mostly, I don't see why you should be punished if you clearly can't apply any move like in the case where the cube is on the top of one of your hand.
By the way, Yu Nakajima didn't receive any penalty because of what he did in his 1:08.70 AsR Megaminx Average (here, in the last 10 seconds) and he did much worse than what I described. But honestly I think it's normal that no penalty had been applied. 
Also, I don't think someone told Jonathan Tan Wei Xiat "you should have dropped the cube better" after this solve. He didn't drop the cube "correctly" as well but because there is no contact with the cuber, there's no penalty when there is a penalty if someone drops the cube and it falls on his hand. Again, I don't see why.


----------



## Pedro (Dec 15, 2011)

I agree with you that if the cube lands on your hand, it was not intentional. I wouldn't give you a penalty for that.

Maybe change the wording to 

A6e) The competitor must not _intentionally_ touch or move the puzzle until the judge has inspected the puzzle. Penalty: disqualification of the solve.


----------



## Dene (Dec 15, 2011)

Pedro said:


> A6e) The competitor must not _intentionally_ touch or move the puzzle until the judge has inspected the puzzle. Penalty: disqualification of the solve.


 
While I agree that something should be done about this rule, I do not think it is a good idea to try and determine the intention of a competitor in judging them.


----------



## Pedro (Dec 15, 2011)

What would be a good idea, then? (No offense intended)


----------



## Dene (Dec 16, 2011)

To be honest I'm not sure XD . As a general statement, I don't see anything wrong with touching the puzzle at the end of the solve at all. What difference does it make? The puzzle is still solved.


----------



## cuberkid10 (Dec 16, 2011)

At Marietta 2010, there was a rule saying if the cube hit the timer on the way down, it was +2... was this in the regulations, and just not stated clearly?


----------



## Owen (Dec 16, 2011)

Once you go to competitions, you'll learn that they'll usually let random people judge, and a lot of the time it's some ten year old who doesn't enforce the regulations. A majority of the solves I've done I've had to correct the judging procedure.

EDIT: Making a thread


----------



## lachose (Dec 16, 2011)

Dene said:


> To be honest I'm not sure XD . As a general statement, I don't see anything wrong with touching the puzzle at the end of the solve at all. What difference does it make? The puzzle is still solved.


I'd say this rule exists because if there is one misaligned side, the judge can't know for sure if you moved the layer or not, even a little bit.

I propose this as a change to the rule : 

A6e) The competitor must not touch or move the puzzle until the judge has inspected the puzzle. Penalty: disqualification of the solve. If the cube is in contact with the competitor but he clearly can't apply any move, there is no penalty.

The formulation is probably not great but I think the rule can change to somethinng like that.

Btw, I said earlier it's +2 but I realize now it's DNF instead so it's even worse.


----------



## Dene (Dec 16, 2011)

Yea well, I guess that's basically what I meant. Maybe something like, the competitors hands and fingers must be completely stationary if in contact with the puzzle.


----------



## hr.mohr (Dec 16, 2011)

When the cube lands on the competitors hands after stopping the timer, then the cube is touching the competitor and not the other way around. The competitor is only allowed to move his hands after the judge has inspected the puzzle. No penalty.


----------



## lachose (Dec 16, 2011)

I didn't interpret the rule like that at all... I imagined that "touch" means contact and that's all but sure if we interpret it that way, there is no problem. Anyway, the rule can still be clarified because obviously I wasn't the only one to misinterpret it.

EDIT : I like Dene's suggestion, btw.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Dec 17, 2011)

hr.mohr said:


> When the cube lands on the competitors hands after stopping the timer, then the cube is touching the competitor and not the other way around.


I agree with lachose; this intention definitely not clear from the rules. I don't think it even makes sense to say that "cube is touching the competitor and not the other way around" because touching is obviously mutual.
We should either phrase this rule more leniently without making it easy to cheat, or clarify that if you're touching the puzzle at the end it is a penalty/DNF.


----------



## hr.mohr (Dec 19, 2011)

Lucas Garron said:


> I don't think it even makes sense to say that "cube is touching the competitor and not the other way around" because touching is obviously mutual.



The distinction lies in intent. During the solve the competitor touches the puzzle with the intent of manipulating it. After the attempt has ended and if the competitor has placed his hands on the timer, then there is no intent of manipulating the puzzle.

This issue is comparable to the "hands on ball / ball on hands" rule in soccer. If a player places his hands in a natural position and the ball is played onto his hands, then it's not a foul as it is ruled as "ball on hands". If the player extends his arm in the path of the ball, then it's a foul "hands on ball".


----------



## Kirjava (Dec 19, 2011)

It's best to avoid using rules that rely on detecting intent.


----------



## Godmil (Dec 19, 2011)

A wee possible problem here is if the rules are changed are you going to get people solving directly above the timer, then when they finish just let go and slam down. The delay between solving and stopping the timer could be very small, but it could make it harder for the judge to tell if the timer was stopped too early. I think the current rule about it not touching the hands or timer kinda make the cube be released further from the timer which makes the transition easier for the judge to see.


----------



## Cheese11 (Dec 19, 2011)

Now that I think of it, this happened to me during magic. My times were 1.75(+2) DNF 2.41 2.47(+2) 3.78

on the DNF the magic landed on my hand.


----------



## Jokerman5656 (Dec 19, 2011)

If the cube land on the competitors hands it's not really the cubers fault. I also have a question about stopping the timer and where the cube lands. I've been curious if it would be allowed to have the cube land on the timer once completed. The area I am referring to would be the spot where the display is and such. I see no reason why there would be any problem but if there is I think it should be clarified.


----------



## Cheese11 (Dec 19, 2011)

jokerman5656 said:


> If the cube land on the competitors hands it's not really the cubers fault. I also have a question about stopping the timer and where the cube lands. I've been curious if it would be allowed to have the cube land on the timer once completed. The area I am referring to would be the spot where the display is and such. I see no reason why there would be any problem but if there is I think it should be clarified.


 
Is there anything about it in the regulations?


----------



## Dene (Dec 19, 2011)

hr.mohr said:


> This issue is comparable to the "hands on ball / ball on hands" rule in soccer. If a player places his hands in a natural position and the ball is played onto his hands, then it's not a foul as it is ruled as "ball on hands". If the player extends his arm in the path of the ball, then it's a foul "hands on ball".


 
The problem with this analogy is that there are too many other factors going on in a soccer game, and a lot of decisions have to come down to the discretion of a referee. In speedcubing there is no real need for a referee to make discretionary calls. Black and white rules work in our sport, and allowing for discretionary calls just brings in ambiguity that is unnecessary.


----------

