# Why did I get a DNF?



## FailCuber (Feb 18, 2015)

So about 3 months ago one of my solves got DNF'ed. I don't know how can so I will give you a example. Look at rami's inspection in his 3rd solve on his first 1.69 world record. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPRLNYfD2OA you can see what happened right?? Same thing happened to me too but the judge and the organiser said that if you touch the timer even though you don't start it the inspection time is over. So I thought the rules were like that at the time. But after looking WCA rules now i know this isn't true. Also it's not because of inspection time ( obviously). Can anyone explain what happened??


----------



## uyneb2000 (Feb 18, 2015)

I feel like that is the judge's error. I always make sure to stop inspection after the competitor has started the timer and started their solve. If you turned the puzzle and the timer didn't start, it's a DNF. But if they just DNF'ed because you did what Rami did in the example provided, I think they should provide another solve if inspection was stopped by the judge, and was erroneous. Unless, of course, your inspection was coming very close. Do you have a video of what happened?

This stuff maybe should be left to Kit.


----------



## DeeDubb (Feb 18, 2015)

FailCuber said:


> So about 3 months ago one of my solves got DNF'ed. I don't know how can so I will give you a example. Look at rami's inspection in his 3rd solve on his first 1.69 world record. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPRLNYfD2OA you can see what happened right?? Same thing happened to me too but the judge and the organiser said that if you touch the timer even though you don't start it the inspection time is over. So I thought the rules were like that at the time. But after looking WCA rules now i know this isn't true. Also it's not because of inspection time ( obviously). Can anyone explain what happened??



Was that at the Christmas event in Daejeon?

Some of the judges did so bad there, and at the recent event as well. They miss too many timer resets which causes a lot of DNFs (I know it's our responsibility to check too, but it should be a reflex for judges to reset the timer).


----------



## kinch2002 (Feb 18, 2015)

Your time should have counted if you didn't do any moves, and you were still under the inspection time.
If you disagreed with your judge you should have gone to the delegate - did you do that?


----------



## Kit Clement (Feb 18, 2015)

I can't speak for your solve, but for Rami's third solve, A4d requires the competitor to confirm that the green light is on when starting the timer before the inspection period ends. Since no moves were made during the entirety of the inspection period, no penalty was applied.


----------



## Dene (Feb 18, 2015)

DeeDubb said:


> They miss too many timer resets which causes a lot of DNFs (I know it's our responsibility to check too, but it should be a reflex for judges to reset the timer).



Hang on, wut? That isn't a DNF, it's a re-solve


----------



## DeeDubb (Feb 18, 2015)

Dene said:


> Hang on, wut? That isn't a DNF, it's a re-solve



Oh really? I saw a few people get DNFs from the timer not being reset and them starting their solve.

I guess maybe i"m not explaining it well.

Competitor sits down, previous competitor's time is still on the timer, competitor inspects, puts their hands on the timer, and starts there solve, but since the timer was never reset, the timer doesn't start.


----------



## Arphy (Feb 18, 2015)

Hi! I am Joshua's friend. Joshua couldn't reply to comments because he was banned in the WCA regulations forum. So I am going to reply some of your posts. He told me that he has a video and he's going to upload it soon 







kinch2002 said:


> Your time should have counted if you didn't do any moves, and you were still under the inspection time.
> If you disagreed with your judge you should have gone to the delegate - did you do that?



He didn't make any moves in inspection. 


Kit Clement said:


> I can't speak for your solve, but for Rami's third solve, A4d requires the competitor to confirm that the green light is on when starting the timer before the inspection period ends. Since no moves were made during the entirety of the inspection period, no penalty was applied.


 Same as above.



DeeDubb said:


> Was that at the Christmas event in Daejeon?
> 
> Some of the judges did so bad there, and at the recent event as well. They miss too many timer resets which causes a lot of DNFs (I know it's our responsibility to check too, but it should be a reflex for judges to reset the timer).


Yeah, some of the judges weren't very good Me and FailCuber had to reset the timer. But this is a different case. and yes it was at Daejeon. oh and I saw you at the competition :O Hi !!


----------



## Laura O (Feb 18, 2015)

DeeDubb said:


> Oh really? I saw a few people get DNFs from the timer not being reset and them starting their solve.



Read A3b)
https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/regulations/#A3b



FailCuber said:


> So about 3 months ago one of my solves got DNF'ed.



And after 3 month you read the regulations and notice that this was a wrong decision?


----------



## DeeDubb (Feb 18, 2015)

Laura O said:


> Read A3b)
> https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/regulations/#A3b



It says the judge is supposed to prepare the timer. I'm guessing it says somewhere else what should happen if there is a failure due to judge error?


----------



## Laura O (Feb 18, 2015)

DeeDubb said:


> It says the judge is supposed to prepare the timer. I'm guessing it says somewhere else what should happen if there is a failure due to judge error?



Is it really that difficult to read the regulations?
https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/regulations/#article-11-incidents


----------



## Arphy (Feb 18, 2015)

Qouted from FailCuber : " Here is the video :




As you can see, the solve was like rami's third solve in his first world record. But look at the whole video you can see what the organiser,judge,me were talking about. Pls change my dnf  "


----------



## tarandeep5 (Feb 18, 2015)

Arphy said:


> As you can see, the solve was like rami's third solve in his first world record. But look at the whole video you can see what the organiser,judge,me were talking about. Pls change my dnf  "



It's hard to call, since it looks like you did turn the puzzle before you started the timer.


----------



## Arphy (Feb 18, 2015)

tarandeep5 said:


> It's hard to call, since it looks like you did turn the puzzle before you started the timer.



What????? Not even close!!!


----------



## tarandeep5 (Feb 18, 2015)

Seems like a turn to me: http://gyazo.com/157f5964d13a2f7c380a9ffdda8ec5ad. I don't know, that's just my opinion.


----------



## Arphy (Feb 18, 2015)

Is there anyway to change the time???


----------



## Lucas Garron (Feb 18, 2015)

FailCuber said:


> So about 3 months ago one of my solves got DNF'ed. I don't know how can so I will give you a example. Look at rami's inspection in his 3rd solve on his first 1.69 world record. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPRLNYfD2OA you can see what happened right?? Same thing happened to me too but the judge and the organiser said that if you touch the timer even though you don't start it the inspection time is over. So I thought the rules were like that at the time. But after looking WCA rules now i know this isn't true. Also it's not because of inspection time ( obviously). Can anyone explain what happened??



The Regulations are very clear on this. 



> A4d1) The competitor must start the solve within 15 seconds of the beginning of the inspection. Penalty: time penalty (+2 seconds).



That is, inspection time doesn't "end" until the solve starts. The judge in the video is making a mistake. If Rami had pause for a few seconds after putting the hand on his timer, the judge would have let him break the Regulations.


Also see:


> A3c2) If the parts of the puzzle are not fully aligned, then the competitor may align the faces, as long as misalignments stay within the limits of Regulation 10f.





> A3c3+) CLARIFICATION Although the judge is required to reset the timer for the competitor (see Regulation A3b), the competitor may reset it before/during the inspection phase if the judge accidentally neglected to do so.


----------



## Arphy (Feb 18, 2015)

Lucas Garron said:


> The Regulations are very clear on this.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So this should not be a DNF right??


----------



## Lucas Garron (Feb 18, 2015)

Arphy said:


> So this should not be a DNF right??



Yeah, assuming inspection didn't take over 15 seconds starting before the video.


A3c2 is a bit vague about competitors misaligning the puzzle if it wasn't already fairly aligned, but I've never seen anyone try to use it to give a penalty if the competitor didn't go past 45 degrees.


----------



## Arphy (Feb 18, 2015)

Lucas Garron said:


> Yeah, assuming inspection didn't take over 15 seconds starting before the video.
> 
> 
> A3c2 is a bit vague about competitors misaligning the puzzle if it wasn't already fairly aligned, but I've never seen anyone try to use it to give a penalty if the competitor didn't go past 45 degrees.


He told me the judge didnt' even say 8 seconds left and he said his inspection time was fairly short. But can you change the times? He really want's to get a better average and think it's unfair.


----------



## Stefan (Feb 18, 2015)

Lucas Garron said:


> The judge in the video is making a mistake.



What mistake, and how do you know? I can only see the judge's elbow.


----------



## Arphy (Feb 18, 2015)

Stefan said:


> What mistake, and how do you know? I can only see the judge's elbow.



See the whole video.


----------



## Stefan (Feb 18, 2015)

Arphy said:


> See the whole video.



No. Lucas replied to FailCuber specifically pointing to the third solve, and he said "*the* judge" and Rami had *two* judges in that video.


----------



## kinch2002 (Feb 18, 2015)

Regardless of whether this gets changed or not...
1. You should have involved the delegate at the time.
2. You shouldn't have waited 3 months after the competition.
3. You should try more official channels than a forum that is in no way affiliated with the WCA.
4. I presume you signed for the attempt eventually and therefore stated your agreement with the DNF.

The judge is expected to know the regulations but so are you. Find the delegate. Find the regulations. Resolve the problem straight away. That would have been easier.

I wouldn't blame anyone except yourself if the result isn't changed.


----------



## Arphy (Feb 18, 2015)

kinch2002 said:


> 3. You should try more official channels than a forum that is in no way affiliated with the WCA.
> .


Link please.


----------



## DeeDubb (Feb 18, 2015)

kinch2002 said:


> Regardless of whether this gets changed or not...
> 1. You should have involved the delegate at the time.
> *2. You shouldn't have waited 3 months after the competition.*
> 3. You should try more official channels than a forum that is in no way affiliated with the WCA.
> ...



Maybe he just assumed it was a DNF trusting the decision that came down, and then after seeing Rami's video months later, he realized it should not have been a DNF.

Also, this kind of victim blaming at the end is absurd.

What if English isn't his first language? Should he still be expected to know the pages and pages of rules better than two judges?

What if he's very young and lives in a culture where age plays a major role on how decisions are made and on your ability to state your case?

If this is NOT overturned, it only shows that video evidence doesn't help competitors, it can only hurt them.


----------



## Arphy (Feb 18, 2015)

DeeDubb said:


> Maybe he just assumed it was a DNF trusting the decision that came down, and then after seeing Rami's video months later, he realized it should not have been a DNF.



Yeah that's what happend to him.


----------



## Kit Clement (Feb 18, 2015)

Arphy said:


> Link please.



Here's a couple:
https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/forum/
https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/c.php?i=KAISTFall2014 (email contact links)



DeeDubb said:


> Also, this kind of victim blaming at the end is absurd.
> 
> What if English isn't his first language? Should he still be expected to know the pages and pages of rules better than two judges?



Yes, he should.

2t) Each competitor must be familiar with and understand the WCA Regulations before the competition.

And while not up to date, this can still aid in understanding the current regs given in English: https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/regulations/translations/korean/


----------



## DeeDubb (Feb 18, 2015)

Kit Clement said:


> 2t) Each competitor must be familiar with and understand the WCA Regulations before the competition.



How is this rule enforced? No one is tested on their knowledge before competing, as that would very impractical and also greatly hinder the amount of people competing.

If the judge knows and enforces the rules correctly, then the competitor's knowledge of the rules is irrelevant, so the only way this rule could come into play are situations like this where the judge makes an error, and either the competitor knows the rules or they don't. If we do know the rules then we can counter on the spot (possibly), if we don't, then we just have to suffer from the judge's error. Is that how this rule is intended to be enforced? All it does is allow the blame to be shifted from the judge to the competitor.

*Also to Joshua:* Send an email to Ilkyoo with your video link and the quote of the regulation. I'm sure he can help you with it.


----------



## Laura O (Feb 18, 2015)

DeeDubb said:


> If the judge knows and enforces the rules correctly, then the competitor's knowledge of the rules is irrelevant, so the only way this rule could come into play are situations like this where the judge makes an error, and either the competitor knows the rules or they don't. If we do know the rules then we can counter on the spot (possibly), if we don't, then we just have to suffer from the judge's error. Is that how this rule is intended to be enforced? All it does is allow the blame to be shifted from the judge to the competitor.



Obviously you miss one rule: 1e2) says "Every competitor must be available for judging". So the competitor's knowledge is definitely not irrelevant as a competitor is usually a judge as well.


----------



## DeeDubb (Feb 18, 2015)

Laura O said:


> Obviously you miss one rule: 1e2) says "Every competitor must be available for judging". So the competitor's knowledge is definitely not irrelevant as a competitor is usually a judge as well.



So the 5 year old girl next to me at the beginning of this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPxWsTYkhBU

must have been available to judge or she couldn't have competed? These rules don't make sense and alienate very young or handicapped solvers.


----------



## Laura O (Feb 18, 2015)

DeeDubb said:


> So the 5 year old girl next to me at the beginning of this video:
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPxWsTYkhBU
> 
> must have been available to judge or she couldn't have competed? These rules don't make sense and alienate very young or handicapped solvers.



I don't know if you're just trolling, didn't read the regulations or just try to find arguments for every single possibility...
The whole rule is: _Every competitor must be available for judging. If he is required to judge, a competitor may be excused only for a legitimate reason (e.g. being unfamiliar with a puzzle), at the discretion of the Delegate. Penalty: disqualification from the competition (see Regulation 2k)._

Nevertheless knowing the rules and being a good judge is no big deal, even for young competitors. It's still important to tell them to ask the delegate or experienced competitors if they are unsure about a decision. You probably will argue now that this doesn't work if they are shy, but in practice it does.


----------



## Kit Clement (Feb 18, 2015)

The reality of this is that the WCA is more of a community than an organization. There is no certification of judges outside of delegates, and even then there is no standard test or certification for delegate knowledge. Thus, rather than burden the responsibility of the rules on specific competitors/judges, none of whom would be paid to do this job, we put the responsibility of judging and understanding the rules on all competitors. Of course there's no way to enforce 2t, but it puts competitor at risk of being disadvantaged if he/she doesn't know the regulations.


----------



## Dene (Feb 18, 2015)

My goodness, this whole discussion is ridiculous.

The kid has obviously done nothing wrong. Who cares if he's taken months to figure it out. Can someone just re-instate the time?

DeeDubb: Tell your local delegate that resetting the timer is the judges responsibility, and failure to do so results in a re-solve, not a DNF.

Now can someone close this pointless thread?


----------



## kinch2002 (Feb 18, 2015)

My point was that he hasn't done anything wrong, but he missed many ways to avoid getting to this situation.
I hope it is re-instated, and hopefully he'll email the delegate about it to try and get that done.


----------



## Arphy (Feb 18, 2015)

Laura O said:


> Obviously you miss one rule: 1e2) says "Every competitor must be available for judging". So the competitor's knowledge is definitely not irrelevant as a competitor is usually a judge as well.


From FailCuber:
I did know all the rules. But the organiser was talking to me saying it is a dnf so I belived him because I thought he knew much more rules then me.


----------



## Arphy (Feb 19, 2015)

Posted on WCA forums, tEmailed Ilkyoo and WCA board. Hope WCA does something about it. And Again he did know all the rules.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Feb 21, 2015)

Arphy said:


> From FailCuber:
> I did know all the rules. But the organiser was talking to me saying it is a dnf so I belived him because I thought he knew much more rules then me.



FailCuber's post on the WCA forum says "Same thing happened to me too but the judge and the organiser said that if you touch the timer even though you don't start it the inspection time is over. So I thought the rules were like that at the time."

That leads me to know he did not know the Regulations clearly enough.

If you know the Regulations, you shoul know that you should consult the Delegate (not the organizer) about incidents, and you should do so immediately (11e).
In addition, the Regulations must always be available for reference at competitions. If you're unsure, you have the right to look it up.

It's best to know as much of the Regulations as possible, since you're responsible for adhering to them. But if something comes up that you don't know, bring it up all the way to the Delegate and you should be able to end up with the best outcome for everyone.


----------



## Arphy (Feb 21, 2015)

To Lucas He actually did know all the rules but he thought that the organiser knew much more. He's only 11 . I think the organiser did something wrong because he told him wrong rules.


----------



## Akash Rupela (Feb 21, 2015)

This must not change and stay a DNF. It totally deserved to not be a DNF if it was 3 months back. No matter what the judge says, you can always dispute with the delegate about an incident if you have read regulations. It is your fault if you have not. If the delegate had indeed been aware and made some mistake only then should this be considered for a correct solve. Because it is part of regulations that any dispute must be resolved in 30 minutes. 
Being 11 is no grounds for not knowing rules. As much as i value correct and fair decisions, I am against any re-instatement which violates the 30 minute regulation of resolving disputes when he did not raise any voice in the first place for months.


----------



## ryanj92 (Feb 21, 2015)

Akash Rupela said:


> Being 11 is no grounds for not knowing rules.


True, but it does make you more likely to believe someone else if they are telling you that they know the rules better... Even now, if Daniel or James were to come up to me at a comp and tell me I was doing something wrong, I would believe them because although I know the rules pretty well, I know that they know them better.
It's been made pretty clear that the kid knows the rules and was just following the authority of someone who made an honest mistake, the timescale is a bit crazy but I see no reason to not undo this DNF...


----------



## hcfong (Feb 21, 2015)

What he should have done is involve the delegate. The question is whether he knew who the delegate was? The delegate, especially in Europe, is not always clearly introduced at the competition so if you don't know how the delegate looks like, it could be hard to find him. anyway, I've watched the video and what suprirses me is that 4 people have failed to call the delegate. First the competitor, who may or may not have known who the delegate was. Then the judge, who grabbed a random bloke, who then grabbed another random bloke who made the final DNF decision. So, why didn't any of the last 3 people think of calling the delegate?


----------



## Dene (Feb 21, 2015)

Akash Rupela said:


> Being 11 is no grounds for not knowing rules. As much as i value correct and fair decisions, I am against any re-instatement which violates the 30 minute regulation of resolving disputes when he did not raise any voice in the first place for months.



I completely disagree, on the basis of you ignoring cultural differences. In traditional Asian families (of which there are very many) a kid of 11 yrs will only get smacked over the head if he speaks up to someone older. There is very much a "speak only when spoken to" mentality, with a strict obedience to authorities. 

I feel our regulations are the problem here, not the behaviour of this kid. His solve should absolutely be re-instated.


----------



## qqwref (Feb 21, 2015)

So now we're expecting a competitor (even an 11 year old) to be so confident, and to have memorized the regulations so well (remember there is almost never a printed copy at a competition) that even if the judge and an organizer tell him he's wrong, he will still be sure he is right, and will bring it up the chain of command to the WCA delegate? Does this seem completely ridiculous to anyone else?

This isn't someone arguing on a forum, with a copy of the regulations in another tab that he can copy-paste from, this is a kid at a competition trying to argue from memory. I don't think it's at all reasonable for someone to trust their memory over a few far more experienced cubers telling them they're mistaken.

Besides, everyone's acting like going to the delegate would automatically solve everything, but what if the delegate had the same misunderstanding of the judge and the organizer? Even delegates aren't perfect, you know - hell, a few of them have even been caught cheating.


----------



## tseitsei (Feb 21, 2015)

qqwref said:


> So now we're expecting a competitor (even an 11 year old) to be so confident, and to have memorized the regulations so well (remember there is almost never a printed copy at a competition) that even if the judge and an organizer tell him he's wrong, he will still be sure he is right, and will bring it up the chain of command to the WCA delegate? Does this seem completely ridiculous to anyone else?
> 
> This isn't someone arguing on a forum, with a copy of the regulations in another tab that he can copy-paste from, this is a kid at a competition trying to argue from memory. I don't think it's at all reasonable for someone to trust their memory over a few far more experienced cubers telling them they're mistaken.
> 
> Besides, everyone's acting like going to the delegate would automatically solve everything, but what if the delegate had the same misunderstanding of the judge and the organizer? Even delegates aren't perfect, you know - hell, a few of them have even been caught cheating.



+1 completely agree.

Just make the solve count. Several other people were wrong and not the competitor. Yes he should not have waited 3 months but he is 11 and SEVERAL other people told him the wrong rules. DNFing him for that seems rudiculous to me...


----------



## amostay2004 (Feb 22, 2015)

qqwref said:


> So now we're expecting a competitor (even an 11 year old) to be so confident, and to have memorized the regulations so well (remember there is almost never a printed copy at a competition) that even if the judge and an organizer tell him he's wrong, he will still be sure he is right, and will bring it up the chain of command to the WCA delegate? Does this seem completely ridiculous to anyone else?
> 
> This isn't someone arguing on a forum, with a copy of the regulations in another tab that he can copy-paste from, this is a kid at a competition trying to argue from memory. I don't think it's at all reasonable for someone to trust their memory over a few far more experienced cubers telling them they're mistaken.
> 
> Besides, everyone's acting like going to the delegate would automatically solve everything, but what if the delegate had the same misunderstanding of the judge and the organizer? Even delegates aren't perfect, you know - hell, a few of them have even been caught cheating.



This was the response I was looking for in the thread 
My advice to FailCuber though - let it go. At least from this thread you know you shouldn't be DNF-ed. You're 11, and will very likely get much better times in the near future.


----------



## Laura O (Feb 22, 2015)

tseitsei said:


> Just make the solve count. Several other people were wrong and not the competitor. Yes he should not have waited 3 months but he is 11 and SEVERAL other people told him the wrong rules. DNFing him for that seems rudiculous to me...



I didn't read all posts again, but as far as I remember nobody argumented that the solve should stay DNF because some things went wrong.

It'a fact that it would have been better to ask a delegate, know the rules and also notice this earlier, so I don't see the problem, why this should not be discussed in a public forum.


----------



## Arphy (Feb 28, 2015)

Wow, He contacted board and ilkyoo and posted on the wca forums and still nothing.


----------



## GuRoux (Feb 28, 2015)

Arphy said:


> Wow, He contacted board and ilkyoo and posted on the wca forums and still nothing.



how long ago?


----------



## Arphy (Mar 6, 2015)

GuRoux said:


> how long ago?



It's been like 3 weeks lol wca said they will fix it but they didnt.


----------



## kinch2002 (Mar 6, 2015)

Illkyoo is on national service at the moment and is not contactable. The other Board members are waiting for him to return (10 days or so). Hopefully you'll hear back at that time.


----------



## SpeedCubeReview (Mar 19, 2015)

I've got a DNF question

So, I have never done a competition, but I've seen couple videos where people finish their solve and the timer goes to 0. There was a recent video I saw where it happened to Feliks (I'll try to hunt for the video again if this doesn't make sense). Can someone tell me what makes that happen.


----------



## natezach728 (Mar 19, 2015)

ViolaBouquet said:


> I've got a DNF question
> 
> So, I have never done a competition, but I've seen couple videos where people finish their solve and the timer goes to 0. There was a recent video I saw where it happened to Feliks (I'll try to hunt for the video again if this doesn't make sense). Can someone tell me what makes that happen.



They accidentally hit the reset button with their thumb or so.


----------



## AlexMaass (Mar 19, 2015)

ViolaBouquet said:


> I've got a DNF question
> 
> So, I have never done a competition, but I've seen couple videos where people finish their solve and the timer goes to 0. There was a recent video I saw where it happened to Feliks (I'll try to hunt for the video again if this doesn't make sense). Can someone tell me what makes that happen.



Accidentally hitting the reset button or like hitting the timer so hard that the battery temporarily loses connection to the stackmat, so the timer shuts off because it temporarily has no power.


----------



## SpeedCubeReview (Mar 19, 2015)

SO does it count as zero, or is there a save function that they can go back to see when it was hit. That would be horrible if a solve didn't count because of a bad battery compartment or poorly placed reset button.


----------



## natezach728 (Mar 19, 2015)

ViolaBouquet said:


> SO does it count as zero, or is there a save function that they can go back to see when it was hit. That would be horrible if a solve didn't count because of a bad battery compartment or poorly placed reset button.



Nope, its considered a DNF. That would be cool though, to see the last reset time or something.


----------



## Ranzha (Mar 19, 2015)

ViolaBouquet said:


> SO does it count as zero, or is there a save function that they can go back to see when it was hit. That would be horrible if a solve didn't count because of a bad battery compartment or poorly placed reset button.



Why would you think a time could count as zero?

Pro timers haven't had the best reputation of being reliable...


----------



## ryanj92 (Mar 19, 2015)

ViolaBouquet said:


> SO does it count as zero, or is there a save function that they can go back to see when it was hit. That would be horrible if a solve didn't count because of a bad battery compartment or poorly placed reset button.



The way it's done at comps I've been to is that if you can replicate what happened (or the delegate can), then it counts as a timer malfunction and you get an extra solve, otherwise DNF.


----------



## Stefan (Mar 19, 2015)

ryanj92 said:


> The way it's done at comps I've been to is that if you can replicate what happened (or the delegate can), then it counts as a timer malfunction and you get an extra solve, otherwise DNF.



If I can replicate hitting the reset button, I get an extra solve?


----------



## AlexMaass (Mar 19, 2015)

ViolaBouquet said:


> SO does it count as zero, or is there a save function that they can go back to see when it was hit. That would be horrible if a solve didn't count because of a bad battery compartment or poorly placed reset button.



I'm actually working on a custom made display which seems to be much cheaper than speed stacks displays, I might add that in as a feature, I don't think it would be fair to allow that save function to be used to save reset times in competition though. I'm just working on a working prototype though, shipping is taking a while on the last component I need. >.>


----------



## Ranzha (Mar 19, 2015)

Stefan said:


> If I can replicate hitting the reset button, I get an extra solve?



I believe they were referring to replicating malfunction from stopping the timer with too much force.


----------



## Stefan (Mar 19, 2015)

Ranzha said:


> I believe they were referring to replicating malfunction from stopping the timer with too much force.



Nah, Viola was explicitly referring to both, and Ryan didn't restrict it. And while I focused on the reset button because that's more clearly not a malfunction, I'd say depending on how hard you hulksmash the timer, it can also be considered your fault instead of the timer's.


----------



## Kit Clement (Mar 19, 2015)

Stefan said:


> Nah, Viola was explicitly referring to both, and Ryan didn't restrict it. And while I focused on the reset button because that's more clearly not a malfunction, I'd say depending on how hard you hulksmash the timer, it can also be considered your fault instead of the timer's.



Yeah, that's why my process is usually to ask the judge if they were watching the end of the solve, and if they noticed that the competitor was particularly hard in stopping the timer. Usually, I consider these factors before allowing a resolve:

1) The judge was paying attention to notice anything about the end of the solve, or there is video evidence available.
2) The timer stop appeared to be not involving the reset button.
3) The competitor did not use too much force.
4) The timer appears to be low on batteries or the reset is easy to reproduce.


----------



## Shane724 (May 11, 2015)

Question related to this thread: If you start the timer, don't start your solve, reset the timer, and start again, all within the 15 second inspection time, is that a DNF or is it legal?


----------



## guysensei1 (May 11, 2015)

Shane724 said:


> Question related to this thread: If you start the timer, don't start your solve, reset the timer, and start again, all within the 15 second inspection time, is that a DNF or is it legal?



If you start the timer, inspection is over. If you stop the timer and the cube isn't solved or in a +2 state, DNF.


----------



## AustinReed (May 11, 2015)

Hmmm....Reminds me of my situation....


----------



## Dene (May 11, 2015)

Shane724 said:


> Question related to this thread: If you start the timer, don't start your solve, reset the timer, and start again, all within the 15 second inspection time, is that a DNF or is it legal?



Technically if the timer is started it should be a DNF, but I think discretion can be applied by a delegate in a situation like shown by AustinReed.


----------



## Shane724 (May 12, 2015)

Dene said:


> Technically if the timer is started it should be a DNF, but I think discretion can be applied by a delegate in a situation like shown by AustinReed.



Ok, what if, unlike in Austin's situation, I were to pick up the cube, then put it down, stop the timer, and start it again, and it was well under 15 seconds? 
My assumption is that it's DNF, but I do this a lot in practice (when I don't get a good grip on the cube or something).


----------



## biscuit (May 12, 2015)

yeah that's a dnf. Work on picking it up with a good grip I guess


----------



## Shane724 (May 13, 2015)

biscuit said:


> yeah that's a dnf. Work on picking it up with a good grip I guess



Yeah I have been; it's never happened to me in a competition though so that's good.


----------



## Kian (May 13, 2015)

Dene said:


> Technically if the timer is started it should be a DNF, but I think discretion can be applied by a delegate in a situation like shown by AustinReed.



I think that really ought to be a DNF. It's a very slippery slope, and it feels like something that a competitor needs to be responsible for.

On an unrelated note, that is my brother judging, having seen that in years.


----------



## FailCuber (May 13, 2015)

AustinReed said:


> Hmmm....Reminds me of my situation....
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nf_tMBfKEFs



I don't think so. The timer started in that solve, but mine didn't. So it's a completely different situation.


----------



## Dene (May 13, 2015)

Kian said:


> I think that really ought to be a DNF. It's a very slippery slope, and it feels like something that a competitor needs to be responsible for.



I would definitely call it discretionary. We don't want to penalise a new competitor for freaking out and getting nervous. I wouldn't give an experienced competitor leeway.

Of course, I want to clearly distinguish this from a case of "timer malfunction", where, say, the timer gets stuck on 0.08 or w/e, and the competitor notices before starting the solve and resets the timer and re-starts; this is surely to the competitor's detriment, so DNFing is unnecessarily cruel.


----------



## Lucas Garron (May 14, 2015)

Dene said:


> I would definitely call it discretionary. We don't want to penalise a new competitor for freaking out and getting nervous. I wouldn't give an experienced competitor leeway.
> 
> Of course, I want to clearly distinguish this from a case of "timer malfunction", where, say, the timer gets stuck on 0.08 or w/e, and the competitor notices before starting the solve and resets the timer and re-starts; this is surely to the competitor's detriment, so DNFing is unnecessarily cruel.



We already have a way to deal with this: A6b.

If the time is under 0.06, it is considered a timer malfunction, and the correct course of action is to give an extra attempt.
Anything higher than that is the responsibility of the competitor; I don't consider this "unnecessarily cruel".


----------



## Dene (May 14, 2015)

I think you've missed the context. I'm talking about if the competitor starts the timer, then notices the error immediately, before even touching the cube (or having just picked it up without making a move). 

In this case I think it is within the discretion of the delegate to allow the competitor to reset the timer then start it again and solve as normal. 


If you haven't missed the context and you're just being a big meanie, well...


----------



## Lucas Garron (May 14, 2015)

Dene said:


> I'm talking about if the competitor starts the timer, then notices the error immediately, before even touching the cube (or having just picked it up without making a move).



If it's the competitor's error, it's the competitor's error. If it's the timer's fault, it's not the competitor's fault. That's what the 0.06 limit is for, and it's very clear about this.

Delegate's discretion is useful (and it might be appropriate to make exceptions on a new competitor's first attempt), but there is no point in allowing Delegates to make inconsistent rulings about such clearly specified, well-trodden ground.


----------



## AlexMaass (May 14, 2015)

I personally see no reason to dnf a competitors solve if he accidentally stopped and started the timer without doing a turn and then resets the timer and then does the solve, as long as he doesn't go over the 15 second inspection limit.


----------



## AustinReed (May 14, 2015)

I should probably outline the context of the video of my solve. It wasn't nerves or anything that caused the timer to start. The green light on the stackmat was out, so when I didn't see it go on, I thought the timer froze or something. Starting and immediately stopping the timer was my first instinct on what to do.


----------



## Ranzha (May 14, 2015)

AlexMaass said:


> I personally see no reason to dnf a competitors solve if he accidentally stopped and started the timer without doing a turn and then resets the timer and then does the solve, as long as he doesn't go over the 15 second inspection limit.



There is no guarantee that the judge will continue timing inspection using the stopwatch after the timer starts.


----------



## AlexMaass (May 15, 2015)

Ranzha said:


> There is no guarantee that the judge will continue timing inspection using the stopwatch after the timer starts.



Oh I didn't think of that.


----------



## Dene (May 16, 2015)

Lucas Garron said:


> If it's the competitor's error, it's the competitor's error. If it's the timer's fault, it's not the competitor's fault. That's what the 0.06 limit is for, and it's very clear about this.
> 
> Delegate's discretion is useful (and it might be appropriate to make exceptions on a new competitor's first attempt), but there is no point in allowing Delegates to make inconsistent rulings about such clearly specified, well-trodden ground.



The 0.06 limit might be in place to address timer malfunctions, but as we all know it's nothing more than an arbitrary number. We had to pick a number and came up with it, but it has no true meaning or significance. This rule was also put in place to deal with people that basically go through their solve and at the end realise there has been an issue with starting the timer. Now you're taking that rule and applying it to a subtly different context which is unfair.

If the competitor notices the issue before starting the solve, and they put the puzzle back down, quickly reset the timer and go again, it's already to their detriment. Why DNF them when there's no harm in allowing them to proceed and get a proper time?

I also find it ironic that you were recently arguing that we shouldn't allow people to deliberately DNF solves (I still don't really understand why...) and now you're arguing to DNF people when it's unnecessary.


This total policing of the regulations is starting to get out of hand. I feel that people in control of the direction of the WCA are steadily moving away from the goals and values of the WCA... it's ridiculous.


----------



## AlexMaass (May 16, 2015)

Dene said:


> If the competitor notices the issue before starting the solve, and they put the puzzle back down, quickly reset the timer and go again, it's already to their detriment. Why DNF them when there's no harm in allowing them to proceed and get a proper time?


Like Ranzha said, "There is no guarantee that the judge will continue timing inspection using the stopwatch after the timer starts"


----------



## Dene (May 16, 2015)

AlexMaass said:


> Like Ranzha said, "There is no guarantee that the judge will continue timing inspection using the stopwatch after the timer starts"



coz lyk, u no, dats da biggist probz here eh


----------



## Ranzha (May 16, 2015)

AlexMaass said:


> Like Ranzha said, "There is no guarantee that the judge will continue timing inspection using the stopwatch after the timer starts"



While this is an issue, I don't think it's worth it to DNF people who don't even get to make a turn, granted they're within inspection time and haven't made any moves during inspection.

I'm not sure if it's worth suggesting that inspection phase should stop after the first move is executed. After thinking about it, I don't think it's worth it at all. However, if someone finds an air-tight method of doing this, that'd be cool.


----------

