Fellow cubers, Here is a question for the WCA regulations 2007. The current start procedure is: 1 reset the timer 2 uncover puzzle 3 inspect puzzle 4 cover puzzle 5 hands on timer 6 uncover puzzle 7 start solve Some say it is awkward that the puzzle is covered again. Also, with current regulations, you can inspect 15+2 (warning) seconds without a penalty, then inspect before you start the solve for 3+2 (warning) seconds. The new start procedure could be (proposal by Gilles Roux): 1 reset the timer 2 uncover the puzzle 3 inspect puzzle 5 hands on timer 7 start solve So the puzzle is not covered anymore after inspection. This means that after UNcovering the puzzle, the competitor must start the solve within 15 seconds. Does this sound like a good change to you? Please vote and give your feedback. Thanks, Ron

Hey Ron, I really like this idea. I can see two interpretations of this though. Once the 15 seconds has elapsed does the judge say "go" or something and then we get 1-2 seconds (mentally timed by the judge) before the competitor must actually start the solve? Or if you inspect for 15.00 seconds are you disqualified for that solve (because you did not start the solve within 15 seconds?) I guess it depends on whether the goal of this change is to shorten inspection time, which is what it seems to be, or to make it easier on the competitor. I think this is a very good and fair proposal to shorten the inspection time, assuming that is what it is intended for. My question to be clear is whether or not the competitor will be disqualified for inspecting for exactly 15.00 seconds. Chris

Chris, reducing inspection time is a separate issue, I don't know how you see a connection. Goal 1: Get rid of the visual interruption. Goal 2 (more important): Get rid of the messy interaction between competitor and judge.

[quote:uh4vr8do]Chris, reducing inspection time is a separate issue, I don't know how you see a connection. [/quote:uh4vr8do] It would be the same issue if the competitor is disqualified from that solve for inspecting for 15.00 seconds. I certainly would wait to hear the judge say "10 seconds" after the first 10 have elapsed, then I would put the cube down within 1-2 seconds so as to not risk being disqualified. Currently I make the judge tell me my time is up and to put the cube down most of the time so I can use my full 15 seconds. If the competitor is not disqualified for inspecting for 15.00 seconds, then I agree it doesn't really shorten the inspection time and isn't related. I just asked because it wasn't clear to me what happens after the competitor has inspected for 15 seconds under that new rule.

[quote="cmhardw":33la369v]My question to be clear is whether or not the competitor will be disqualified for inspecting for exactly 15.00 seconds.[/quote:33la369v] My idea is that the competitor is allowed no more than 15 seconds as inspection time. The inspection time starts when the judge uncovers the puzzle and it ends when the timer starts. Before the 15 second limit, the solve must have started. - The judge still says "10 seconds" if the competitor is not already in position. - The competitor puts the puzzle back on the surface. - He triggers the timer -> Green light. - Immediately, the judge says "Go" and the competitor can start. In case something wrong occurs (wrong position of fingers on pads, hands touching puzzle, hands not flat, etc.) the judge tells the competitor who has to comply. If the situation is not fixed early enough for the solve to start at 15s, the judge puts the cover, and we're back to the current regulation. If there's no special problem, but the competitor takes too much time and reaches 15s, same rule applies, the judge covers the puzzle. No +2 penalty nor disqualification. Because I think having the puzzle covered already is a penalty. Since there's still the possibility of having the judge covering the puzzle, it does not look very different than the current regulation. But for the vast majority of solves, it can make competitions smoother, less awkward, more natural for some cubers.

[quote="Gilles":12r085zf]- Immediately, the judge says "Go" and the competitor can start.[/quote:12r085zf] I'd rather have as little interaction as possible. Serious competitors are no babies and can detect the green light themselves. [quote="Gilles":12r085zf]If the situation is not fixed early enough for the solve to start at 15s, the judge puts the cover, and we're back to the current regulation.[/quote:12r085zf] I'd rather have as little interaction as possible. I fear judges will get confused and cover the cube when they shouldn't. So my proposal: 1a) Competitor and and judge go to timer. 1b) Judge places puzzle covered on the table. 1c) Both judge and competitor make sure the timer is ready. 2a) Judge clearly asks "ok?" and waits. 2b) Competitor clearly says "ok!". 2c) Judge uncovers puzzle. (Now the competitor has 17 seconds to inspect and start the timer.) 3a) If timer hasn't been started after 10 seconds, judge says "10 seconds". 3b) If timer hasn't been started after 15 seconds, judge says "15 seconds". 3c) If timer hasn't been started after 17 seconds, judge says "Disqualified" and the solve is disqualified. Thus for any regular solve, the judge's only job after uncovering the puzzle is to announce the elapsed time, because that's the one thing the competitor can't clearly determine himself. I did keep the two extra seconds because the stackmat takes about a second to go to green so you have to wait that second and unless you're superman you'll not instantly realize the green and start the solve so you'll wait slightly longer.

Clarification: with "regular solve" I meant "attempt that is not disqualified because of the 17 seconds rule". [quote="Gilles":1orgfo8r]... the judge puts the cover, and [b:1orgfo8r]we're back to the current regulation.[/b:1orgfo8r][/quote:1orgfo8r] Btw: terrible, terrible idea. Because the current regulation is already too complicated. Do you expect people (both competitors and judges) to get the new [b:1orgfo8r]and[/b:1orgfo8r] the old regulation right?

Hi Gilles, I agree with Stefan. One of the goals is to make the regulations easier for beginning judges. My proposal would be: 1-16 seconds before start: no penalty. 17-18 seconds before start: 2 second penalty. 19 or more seconds before start: DNF. Have fun, Ron

[quote="StefanPochmann":11gl7md4][quote="Gilles":11gl7md4]- Immediately, the judge says "Go" and the competitor can start.[/quote:11gl7md4] I'd rather have as little interaction as possible. Serious competitors are no babies and can detect the green light themselves. [/quote:11gl7md4] You missed the point, the light is not the problem. If it's not green, the timer won't start, and the competitor is responsible for it. Fine. The problem is the judge must check hands position (fingers on pads + flat). Can we say "+2 penalty when hands position not OK"? When there's a problem, it's often better to have the judge tell you when it occurs, not afterwards, when evidence is no more. I'm reluctant to allow 17 secs instead of 15 (because the timer sucks or whatever). 17!=15. I think some competitors would just wait for the "15 secs" message before starting. I feel the "10 secs" milestone is enough. In 5 secs, you have time to put the cube down and trigger the stackmat.

[quote="Ron":2jrj7wgu] My proposal would be: 1-16 seconds before start: no penalty. 17-18 seconds before start: 2 second penalty. 19 or more seconds before start: DNF. [/quote:2jrj7wgu] Why do you want a 17 second inspection time? [list:2jrj7wgu]- t < 15s : OK - 15s < t < 17s : 2s penalty - 17s < t : DNF[/list:u:2jrj7wgu]

Mmhh no. Another idea: [list:cu51y9yq]- t < 15s : OK. - 15s < t < 20s: +2s penalty. - 20s < t : DNF.[/list:u:cu51y9yq] A 2s penalty zone (between 15s and 17s) is too small. Because the judge can't stop his watch exactly when the solve starts (let's say +/-0.5s). 2s is too accurate for something that's a bit fuzzy. A larger zone is better suited. (Oh, but what if a competitor decides to use the full 20 secs to help him calculate edge parity that can make him save 5s on his 4x4x4 solve?) After all, Stefan's proposal is rather good. [i:cu51y9yq]3b) If timer hasn't been started after 15 seconds, judge says "15 seconds". 3c) If timer hasn't been started after 17 seconds, judge says "Disqualified" and the solve is disqualified. [/i:cu51y9yq] But there's still a problem with what we do with bad fingers positions.

Gilles, I think that the inspection time should be (slightly) elongated to allow for the green light. I did a simulated inspection time under a reasonable proposal, and here were the results: -I gave 15 seconds to preinspect -I put the cube down at 15 seconds and stopped inspecting, reset the timer (it's likely that this will be occasionally forgotten before inspection), started the timer, and waited for the green light -I lifted my hands off the timer at just over 18 seconds on my inspection stopwatch. If you have to have started the solve at 15 seconds then you'll have to be done inspecting in under 12 seconds. Most cautious cubers would therefore be forced to stop at about 10 seconds as a precaution. Wasn't the 10 second preinspection period idea shot down? Let's also not forget that not all beginner cubers--those who will often take a while preinspecting--own or are familiar with Stackmats. We shouldn't disqualify them for technicalities on their first competition attempts ever. My proposal is at 15 seconds they're told to put the cube down and have 1 second to do so. Then, they have 3 seconds to start the attempt. For each of those, if they exceed that time, they receive a 2 second penalty if it's exceeded by less than 3 seconds, otherwise it's disqualified. I'm afraid of allowing less time then that.

Here's my thought: 1. After 10 seconds, the judge starts a countdown: "5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0". 2. If the competitor puts the cube down and places his/her hands on the timing pads by "0", it is a normal solve. 3. If the competitor hasn't put the cube down and placed his/her hands on the timing pads by "0" but does so within two seconds after that, there's a 2-second penalty. 4. Otherwise, it's a DNF. 5. After the competitor is ready (and has indicated this to the judge, within a reasonable amount of time after being asked), the judge says "go", and the competitor must start the solve within two seconds. There could also be a separate no-inspection competition. Happy cubing!

[quote="Ravi":2k9bdoun]After 10 seconds, the judge starts a countdown: "5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0".[/quote:2k9bdoun] I like that. More continuous and avoids the question whether "10 seconds" means "elapsed" or "left".

Hi guys, OK, good feedback. It looks like we are going to change the starting procedure. But let us wait some more. I am working on the new version of the regulations, and within a few days we will announce and ask the community for feedback. I think now we have come to this proposal: 1 reset the timer 2 judge asks if competitor is ready 3 when competitor confirms, the judge uncovers the puzzle 4 competitor inspects the puzzle 5 competitor must start the solve within 15 seconds 5a after 10 seconds of inspection, the judge says 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0 5b if 0 is reached before the solve has started: 2 second penalty 5c after 0 the judge counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 5d if 5 is reached before the solve has started: DNF In case of incorrect hand position: 2 second penalty. In case of incorrect starting/stopping (for example: competitor starts and stops unintentionally while placing his hands) the competitor must reset the timer. The extra time is part of the 15 seconds inspection time or overtime. That is it. Have fun, Ron

[quote="Ron":1nqeqx9r]2 judge asks if competitor is ready 3 when competitor confirms, the judge uncovers the puzzle[/quote:1nqeqx9r] Please require that the judge clearly asks "OK?" and the competitor clearly answers "OK!". Or something like that. Don't leave it open to interpretation. As competitor, I've had judges who falsely interpretated some movement of me as a nod and uncovered when I wasn't ready yet. Very bad. As judge, I've had competitors who only nodded, at least I (apparently rightfully) thought so and uncovered, but I didn't feel safe doing so. Let's require clear communication.

Hello everyone, Ok I like most of the ideas that are going around. I am with Stefan on a need for clear communication. However I know that most of the time judges aren't trained to the fullest. It is very hard to find a judge that is not a cuber. The best idea I have came up with is like a swimming competition. Before each competition there would be a meeting for the officials of how to exactly judge/time. I will be making a short video after the new WCA rules are posted in 2007 that will go through exactly what the judges need to know. Most judges don't understand simple stuff like if the cube is solved or not solved. Or a finish that is not with the finger tips. having this in the video would be a relief for the main judge and make competitions that more professional looking. As for the 15 second time limit. Is the puzzle not being covered anymore? This would be awesome and would feel more like "home" especially when the judge is counting down. However, Not that this will affect me, but do you guys think that some cubers will complain to the judges when he gives them a 2 second penalty because he reached zero? like the timer does have a delay for the green light to come on. MATT

[quote="StefanPochmann":21t4x537] As judge, I've had competitors who only nodded, at least I (apparently rightfully) thought so and uncovered, but I didn't feel safe doing so. Let's require clear communication.[/quote:21t4x537] I recon that, sometimes I'm not really sure about if the competitor is ready or not from bad communication and asking a second time does not feel good either. Sometimes the competitors does not know the rules at all. Should it not be something in the regulations about that the main judge must inform the competitors about the rules before every event to make everything clear?

Sins we always had 15 seconds of INSPECTION time i think we should keep it to that. If you get a penalty for not starting solving before 15 s you will as a matter of fact not have 15 s of inspection. You will have to put the cube down at the latest when the judge comes to 4 or 3 in the countdown to have a chance to get the cube in position and get the green light on the stackmat timer (as everyone knows this takes about one second). I think the rule should be that the competitor should put the cube down at zero (or before if he/she feels like it) and immediately place his or her hands on the timer and start att the green light. I think most cubers will start before the end of the 15s. A two second penalty can be added if the competitor makes further delays after the 15s inspection/putting down the cube and starting the timer procedure.

Hi I basically like the new starting method. In order to make the starting easier for the beginner judges, I would suggest following. #1Do not count down then up. Just count up. There are not many count down then up timers, it is easy just counting up. The judge can easily make mistake during couting down and up. Since cubers already know 15 sec is the limit of inspection, just counting up must be sufficient. #2 I don't like discussion whether with fingers or palms for starting position. With new method, it is difficult for the judge to stop cuber starts solving because of improper starting. I would suggest: 1)put vinyl colored tape on Stackmat parallel to the front edge of mat prior to the competition. (We need to define standarized position of tape. I would suggest 10cm from the front edge of the mat.) 2)Cubers has to replace the puzzle beyond the tape after inspection. 3)Cubers shouldn't touch or over the tape before start. (Automatically, cubers shouldn't touch the puzzle. ) 4)As long as cuber's finger tips doesn't over the tape, he can place his fingers, palms, or even arms can be placed on the timer pad. 5)If the timer doesn't work properly except battery problem, it will be the cubers resposibility. This suggestion still has arguement of whether crossing tape or not. I believe it is much easier for the judge.

Why not go back to the old rules where the cuber inspected as long as he liked but not touching the cube with his hands It can be seen in the old Marc Waterman video: hands on back - leaning over the cube from all angles. Na, nor really, wold only make Geir do his thing but with no blindfold on, two housr of inspection...

I like the ideas...I've never been into a competition, so I can't really tell how it 'feels', but I'm going to Worlds, so... I don't like the idea that "one must start solving within 15 seconds"... that way you don't get 15 seconds of inspection...you get 15 seconds to inspect, put the cube down, place hands, wait for the green light and start... the judge should count (either down or up) from 10 seconds... after 15, you must have your puzzle down in the table and place your hands...wait for the light...and have fun!

So, the judge may not have any time to restart his stopwatch as a backup for the solve, right? I like the idea of not covering the puzzle and asking the competitor "OK?" But I think we might get too many people jumping the gun and not having the timer start if they can't wait for the green light. I think as long as the competitor has the cube down and puts their hands on the timer, the judge should count aloud "1, 2" _after_ the green light turns on.

[quote="BryanLogan":2b63hl8e]So, the judge may not have any time to restart his stopwatch as a backup for the solve, right?[/quote:2b63hl8e] As far as I know the judge is *not* supposed to do that, and even if he did, and the stackmat timer failed, the stopwatch time would *not* count.

I think the judge should say 3,2,1 (13, 14, 15) as opposed to 5,4,3,2,1, because 3 seconds are enough time for people to react and counting down from 5 just adds more pressure and stress on to the solver. The cube shall be on the table when the judges counts to zero. I agree to MWalter's post that the judges should watch an instructional video or be pretty sure of the rules before the competition starts, because from experiences at my first competition (Caltech Fall 2007), the judges weren't too well trained (if trained at all). Examples of such are: - Participants inspecting puzzle with two hands instead of one in the one-handed event. - Participants stopping the timer with their wrists/arm and was not penalized. - Judges not knowing +2 situations. That's all, I think. In addition to having the judges instructed beforehand, the participants should also be instructed so that they won't make a trivial error which they don't know about. A simple demonstration of how the process works would be sufficient. Like this:http://youtube.com/watch?v=K68QqOh8EE8 or a video can be made and linked to competition pages/registration sites. I don't know whether this was done or not at Caltech Fall 2007 because I was a bit late, but I think this might be useful to some people that's never been to a competition before.

I am definitely FOR the changes to the new starting procedures, for 2 reasons : 1) Most of the time, the juge distrubs the competitor : Some judges spoke to me after inspection ("go for WR", in French), others hide the cube during an eternity, others moves the cube while it is hidden to put it at the other side of the table... And even once, the judge turned the cube while putting the "hide-cube" away. 2) If it is more simple to be judge, people would agree to help easier. In some countries it is a real problem to make people help. New competitors does not feel able to judge, simply because it is unbelievabely complicated. I really hope it will change.

Doesn't this new procedure cut down on inspection time? Before, you could have the full 15 seconds for inspection and then solve. Now you have 12 or so because you must put your hands on the timer and then wait the second for the light to turn green and then pick it up. You have a maximum of 14 seconds, which could only be achieved if you kept the cube on the table to examine it. A suggestion for this would be to have 15 seconds inspection. Then the judge will place a paper between the competitor and the cube. Then, the paper will be removed when the competor picks up the cube from the solve. -Edward