Stackmat 0.02 seconds

StefanPochmann (2007-10-01 18:38:26 +0000)
I found a good way to time 0.02 seconds with the stackmat. I did it 30 times in a row. Simply press one thumb on each sensor firmly until the green light appears, then slowly decrease the pressure of one thumb, but keep touching the sensor! At some point the light will blink very very fast and you'll get 0.02 or 0.03 seconds. More importantly, this shows that the one or two times I solved in competition and afterwards saw a 0.02 on the timer, it was indeed the fault of the timer, not mine, because it can happen even though we touch the sensors. And I guess others must've experienced this, too.
edwardb (2008-07-16 18:54:57 +0000)
I started sportstacking recently, and I saw in the rulebook that if that happens, it is called a 'hiccup'. If that happens frequently enough, maybe we could start allowing people to re-do the 'hiccup'. For example, if I start solving with a 'hiccup', the judge could stop me as soon as he/she catches it by saying something like, "Stop", or "Re-do" - You could have the cube reset to the official scramble and give a different amount of examination time. "[size=150:1bx4s6m6]Hiccup[/size:1bx4s6m6] An accidental slight movement of a hand or hands on the touch pads of the StackMat® causing the Timer to start seemingly on its own. Most often when this occurs the Timer will stop shortly after it starts. A Hiccup is not considered a “try”. Simply reset Timer." http://www.worldsportstackingassociatio ... okv4.0.pdf
Tim (2008-07-18 18:47:46 +0000)
The problem with that is then you have then already started the solve, so you have seen what the cube will look like after your first step. As an exercise to show that this is a benefit, do the same scramble twice in a row. You'll find your look-ahead is vastly improved since you already know where to look for things. In Sport Stacking this is of course not an issue, since everyone gets the same "scramble" every time anyway. A rule should be written about this, though, specifying whether a DNF or a new attempt should be given. At some contests, I've been given a new attempt; at others, I've seen DNFs been given. This basically is determined by who the organizer/delegate is. It's a common enough occurrence that it shouldn't be left up to the delegate/organizer to decide, but should be in the rules.
Ron (2008-07-21 21:23:45 +0000)
[quote:ga5afubb]A rule should be written about this, though, specifying whether a DNF or a new attempt should be given. At some contests, I've been given a new attempt; at others, I've seen DNFs been given. This basically is determined by who the organizer/delegate is. It's a common enough occurrence that it shouldn't be left up to the delegate/organizer to decide, but should be in the rules. [/quote:ga5afubb] I think 11a and 11b cover this subject enough. There is another big difference with Sportstacking: you can use this 'feature' to your benefit. You have seen the cross and it is bad, just force the timer malfunctioning and you get another (other) scrambled position. That is the reason why it is not as simple as to award another attempt. It should be a main judge's decision and the judge must be convinced that it was not an intentional mistake. I agree with you that it is not standardised across competitions. I read in the WCA delegate report of a Korean competition that all competitors with 0.02 got a DNF. I will create a new thread ('Wiki for competition officials') because this is a more general question. Thanks, Ron
StefanPochmann (2008-07-23 23:44:46 +0000)
[quote="Ron":cowie8uh]I read in the WCA delegate report of a Korean competition that all competitors with 0.02 got a DNF.[/quote:cowie8uh] That sounds like it happened a lot there. Did it? How often?
Ron (2008-07-24 05:49:11 +0000)
[quote:1ew3fna0]That sounds like it happened a lot there. Did it? How often?[/quote:1ew3fna0] There were quite a few DNFs in that specific competition, but I cannot see what the reason was for each DNF. From the report I concluded at least 5 times. Ron
jbcm627 (2008-07-26 03:11:24 +0000)
I have a suggestion regarding this: Since under the new regulations, the competitor must start before 15 seconds, they should still be able to reset the timer if it hiccups and start again within this time. If it goes over this, it gains the +2 penalty, until 17 seconds, when it becomes a DNF. The judge should be able to announce to the competitor of the timer has not properly started if the competitor does not notice. The only problem with this is that the competitor could apply moves before the judge can announce that the timer has not started or the competitor has noticed. Alternatively, in the future, it might be possible to find timers that start more reliably when the competitor raises their hands; perhaps stackmat will come out with something that has actual "buttons", or that have a mode that will prevent them from starting within a given time. I know this is at least done with the timing systems in swim meets... the pads that swimmers press will not register if hit before a preset time.
Bob (2008-11-26 22:39:18 +0000)
This was never an issue with Gen 1 timers because the timer didn't stop until >= 0.32 seconds. This is a feature I would really like to see return in the next generation of Stackmat.
blade740 (2008-11-27 06:49:27 +0000)
The problem with that is that most competitors don't notice that they've "hiccuped" until after the solve. Once they've done a turn, you can't exactly have them start over, can you?
Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.