It seems to be allowed to align the cube against the table according to C1e). And what is a move? According to HTM or...?

I do not agree with the two hands for inspecting. I don't think it provides that much of an advantage, but are you going to allow foot solve to inspect with both hands? It seems like the logic should apply to both.

@Bryan The point is that if you mistakenly touch the cube with two hands during inspection, it is harsh to give a DNF. You did not have any advantage from touching the cube with two hands. That is why we changed it. @Anders That is why I was not sure this weekend. I added 'or align sides' [version March 19] Thanks, Ron

[quote="Ron":1q83wnnl]@Bryan The point is that if you mistakenly touch the cube with two hands during inspection, it is harsh to give a DNF. You did not have any advantage from touching the cube with two hands. That is why we changed it. [/quote:1q83wnnl] I agree that DNF is harsh, but why not just have a penalty if you use two hands? 1st time warning is a +2, 2nd time warning is a DNF.

Like I said, there is no advantage. So why even give 2 seconds penalty?

Hello ! There is something wrong here: C1b) During the solve no other body part or any other object must touch the puzzle. Penalty: disqualification of the solve. C1b1) If the competitor drops or puts down the puzzle during a solve, then the competitor must not do moves or align sides until the puzzle has no contact with the surface anymore. Penalty: disqualification of the solve. - first, if the competitor drops the puzzle, then the puzzle is most likely to touch an object, and de facto, an object is going to touch the puzzle (table, floor, ...). In this case, both rules are not consistent (one says you are disqualified, the other says that you should not do something more than that). - secondly, if we consider that the table or the floor can touch the puzzle without disqualification, then why not a part of the body ? (imagine that the puzzle drops on a feet, knee or whatsoever). According to me in C1b, we should add something about "intentionally" or "accidentally" and/or "courtesy of judge". Concerning the one-hand/two-hand inspection, I vote for the one-hand inspection to stay consistent (again, solves with feet should be inspected with feet). Ron, you are wrong, when you say there is no advantage. My first inspections with one-hand were really bad, and if you think it is harsh to give a DNF, give a +2. Moreover, we should not make the rules to be kind with people but to be more consistent and it is people who should adapt to the rules (they are supposed to know them and if not, the worse-case scenario is that they got one +2 once in their life for their first one-hand solve in competition). Kiyoshi

I vote for two-handed inspection. I think ideally it's wrong, but it really doesn't help (unless you're a lousy cuber). So it's no advantage, but it's a disadvantage because it's a rule. We have so many rules already, it's always good to remove some, especially those that can cause unnecessary trouble. So that's my reason.

[quote="StefanPochmann":1j4066ct]I vote for two-handed inspection. I think ideally it's wrong, but it really doesn't help (unless you're a lousy cuber). So it's no advantage, but it's a disadvantage because it's a rule. We have so many rules already, it's always good to remove some, especially those that can cause unnecessary trouble. So that's my reason.[/quote:1j4066ct] [quote="StefanPochmann":1j4066ct]Lucas, have you seen my argument for allowing 2H inspection for 1H solving on that page you linked to?[/quote:1j4066ct] We might as well take out the clothing rule, because most country laws already cover it... (Except for "Clothes must not display vulgar language or have inappropriate pictures." By the way, may logos be vulgar?) I'd like to know what type of people these five were. Were they mostly sup-60 cubers who accidentally did it the first time? Was it someone like Rama, but who was a little loopy? Did it cost them a good opportunity to advance in a best-of-2? (In that case, an accidental extra twist on Clock causes DNFs/bad times, too, even preventing a chance at a representative averages for people like Stefan and Matyas.) (And five of how many? Were we taking away several NR averages that broke these people's hearts?) Really, why remove it? Why not just a penalty or a warning? (Taking this out of the finalized regs thread.)

Violating the clothing rule can actually cause problems. And there's no country rule against two-handed inspection. I don't get the analogy. My point is that a rule must never be and end in itself, only a means to an end, and its benefits must outweigh its detriments. I don't see that in our case. Two-handed inspection doesn't really help and doesn't hurt anyone. So a rule against it just unnecessarily complicates things, especially for inexperienced judges.

Hello ! No one answered to the first part of my post so I will try to explicit it again. The rule that should be changed according to me is this one: C1b) During the solve no other body part or any other object must touch the puzzle. Penalty: disqualification of the solve. Some judges will definitively consider the surface (table, floor) as an object and as soon as the puzzle touch the surface, these judges will consider the solve as a DNF. It happens for example to Ron in Paris Open and to Per in Trondheim Open (5x5). To avoid this (I suppose), the rule for the normal 2hand-solve was changed ("other than the surface" was added): A5b) While inspecting or solving the puzzle, the competitor must not have any assistance from anyone or any object (other than the surface). Penalty: disqualification of the solve. But C1b) has not been corrected, the puzzle touching the table will lead to some DNF or at least to some debates... Regards, Kiyoshi

Kiyoshi, You're right, it's not clear.

[quote="adragast":3pk5v7w4] Some judges will definitively consider the surface (table, floor) as an object and as soon as the puzzle touch the surface, these judges will consider the solve as a DNF. It happens for example to Ron in Paris Open and to Per in Trondheim Open (5x5). To avoid this (I suppose), the rule for the normal 2hand-solve was changed ("other than the surface" was added): [/quote:3pk5v7w4] I was the judge in both of these cases. Ron changed grip of the cube using the table and Per aligned his cube against the table; thus using the surface as an aid. Therefore I ruled DNF. If the cube only touches the surface, for instace if dropping it, I would not rule DNF. But this is an issue. Many magic and master magic solvers use the surface. And so do some megaminx solvers. And it is also often used during cube repair after pops.

@Kiyoshi OK, updated for textual revision April 14, 2008. I changed C1b) to [quote:33vetwbt]C1b) During the solve no other body part or any other object other than the surface must touch the puzzle. Penalty: disqualification of the solve.[/quote:33vetwbt] @Anders Using the surface is now possible for all events, except as a support during one-handed solving. Thanks for the feedback, Ron

[quote="StefanPochmann":1561836v]Violating the clothing rule can actually cause problems. And there's no country rule against two-handed inspection. I don't get the analogy. My point is that a rule must never be and end in itself, only a means to an end, and its benefits must outweigh its detriments. I don't see that in our case. Two-handed inspection doesn't really help and doesn't hurt anyone. So a rule against it just unnecessarily complicates things, especially for inexperienced judges.[/quote:1561836v] How does violating the clothing rule cause problems? May I choose to be more offended by Dan Dzoan inspecting two-handed than him not wearing a shirt next competition? Anyhow, it's plain that I can't convince the WCA to switch this back. This will only strengthen participation in Club WHI. However, I would like to request the following amendment (Johannes Laire should receive more credit for it) for the next version: [u:1561836v]Footsolvers should be allowed to inspect with their hands.[/u:1561836v] It gives them no speed advantage, and avoids the problem of inexperienced judges not knowing the rules. It will also reduce the amount of DNFs from accidental hand inspections (which are admittedly low, but then again there may be more incidents in OH since there are many more OH attempts).

[quote="Lucas":273hc42f] How does violating the clothing rule cause problems?[/quote:273hc42f] Well, if I cubed naked I might offend some other cubers and I might distract some other of them... [quote="Lucas":273hc42f] However, I would like to request the following amendment (Johannes Laire should receive more credit for it) for the next version: [u:273hc42f]Footsolvers should be allowed to inspect with their hands.[/u:273hc42f] It gives them no speed advantage, and avoids the problem of inexperienced judges not knowing the rules. It will also reduce the amount of DNFs from accidental hand inspections (which are admittedly low, but then again there may be more incidents in OH since there are many more OH attempts).[/quote:273hc42f] I beg to disagree. As being the first feet-solver (in some respect), in the beginning I found it ridiculus to be forced to use the feet and not the hands during the inspection. But today I find it correct, partly because it indeed give you a speed advantage to inspect with your hands since you can plan further ahead with the more efficient hand-inspection. Furthermore, I have never observed any feet-solver trying to inspect the cube with his hands.

[quote="Ron":1ao6be9d] @Anders Using the surface is now possible for all events, except as a support during one-handed solving. [/quote:1ao6be9d] Yes, now it is

Hello ! Sorry to insist but what is "the surface" ? The table ? The floor ? Both ? If the cube falls on the floor, it is not a dnf but if the cube falls on someone's foot (shoe), it is a DNF ? Kiyoshi

Hi Kiyoshi, Maybe we need to define that better in future versions. For now surface can be table, Stackmat or floor. [quote:2bwm9rvp]If the cube falls on the floor, it is not a dnf but if the cube falls on someone's foot (shoe), it is a DNF ?[/quote:2bwm9rvp] The surface does not help, unless used to support movement. The body can help. I think it should be a main judge decision. Thanks, Ron

[quote="Lucas":2x90yy3n] However, I would like to request the following amendment (Johannes Laire should receive more credit for it) for the next version: [u:2x90yy3n]Footsolvers should be allowed to inspect with their hands.[/u:2x90yy3n] It gives them no speed advantage, and avoids the problem of inexperienced judges not knowing the rules. It will also reduce the amount of DNFs from accidental hand inspections (which are admittedly low, but then again there may be more incidents in OH since there are many more OH attempts).[/quote:2x90yy3n] oh, come on... do you really think inspecting with both hands is an advantage over with OH? I think OH may be even better, since your other hand is not in front of the cube, blocking your vision... for feet solving is a completely different story...

OOOppssss! I've just done a one-handed. Dropped down the solved cube and it rolled onto my left fingers which were on the stackmat. Is it a DNF?! I think yes, but could someone confirm it?!

[quote="Pitzu":2e4xpckm]OOOppssss! I've just done a one-handed. Dropped down the solved cube and it rolled onto my left fingers which were on the stackmat. Is it a DNF?! I think yes, but could someone confirm it?![/quote:2e4xpckm] OOOppssss! [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKERnLU6giw:2e4xpckm]I've just done a one-handed[/url:2e4xpckm] (0:30). Dropped down the solved cube and out of reflex to stop it from shattering it bounced off my right fingers. Is it a DNF?! I think yes, but could someone confirm it? (In your case, though, I think the issue is actually about touching the cube after the solve.)

[quote="Pitzu":3q84jwhr]OOOppssss! I've just done a one-handed. Dropped down the solved cube and it rolled onto my left fingers which were on the stackmat. Is it a DNF?! I think yes, but could someone confirm it?![/quote:3q84jwhr] Exactly this happened at a competition in Sweden. I was called in as the main judge to decide. I ruled it to be ok and not dfn. I considered that the puzzle was touching the competitor, and not that the competitor was touching the puzzle. /Anders