WCA Regulations 2008 are final

Ron (2008-04-10 17:57:48 +0000)
Fellow members of our community, The WCA Regulations 2008 are now final! See http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/regulations for the new version. See http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/reg ... story.html for all changes. See http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/reg ... 08new.html for the 2008 version with all changes in orange. See http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/reg ... 2008v1.pdf for the 2008 version in PDF. All competitions starting April 11, 2008 must use this new version of the regulations. Most important changes for competitors are: [list:2y5r96ry] [*:2y5r96ry]New starting procedure: puzzle is not covered anymore after inspection, but solve must be started within 15 seconds.[/*:m:2y5r96ry] [*:2y5r96ry]Solved State: misalignment may now be halfway to the next face. DNF if more than one parallel groups of adjacent slices is a move away from solved.[/*:m:2y5r96ry] [*:2y5r96ry]Blindfolded events: a sheet of paper (or similar object) is kept between face of competitor and puzzle. [/*:m:2y5r96ry] [*:2y5r96ry]Blindfolded events: competitor must remove the cover from the puzzle.[/*:m:2y5r96ry] [*:2y5r96ry]Multiple Blindfolded event: order of results has changed to number of solved puzzles minus number of unsolved puzzles. Time per cube is now 10 minutes.[/*:m:2y5r96ry] [*:2y5r96ry]Competitors who are waiting to compete, must stay in a competitors area, and must not communicate about the scrambled positions.[/*:m:2y5r96ry] [*:2y5r96ry]Magic events: a penalty if one or two tiles are elevated too high.[/*:m:2y5r96ry] [*:2y5r96ry]All puzzle and sticker brands are allowed.[/*:m:2y5r96ry][/list:u:2y5r96ry] Most important changes for WCA and competition organisers are: [list:2y5r96ry] [*:2y5r96ry]Procedure for adding and removing events.[/*:m:2y5r96ry] [*:2y5r96ry]Cube Explorer must be used for Rubik's Cube scramble sequences.[/*:m:2y5r96ry] [*:2y5r96ry]New scrambler must be used for Megaminx scramble sequences.[/*:m:2y5r96ry] [*:2y5r96ry]Definition of a competitors area where competitors must wait after being called for.[/*:m:2y5r96ry] [*:2y5r96ry]Definition of qualification rounds.[/*:m:2y5r96ry] [*:2y5r96ry]No B Finals anymore.[/*:m:2y5r96ry] [*:2y5r96ry]More responsibilities to WCA delegate, fewer to organisation team.[/*:m:2y5r96ry] [*:2y5r96ry]Only Generation 2 and higher timers are allowed.[/*:m:2y5r96ry] [*:2y5r96ry]Some optional regulations to manage large competitions.[/*:m:2y5r96ry][/list:u:2y5r96ry] The new starting procedure will be evaluated after a few competitions, to see if it does not lead to many DNFs. Thank you all for your feedback. We did our best to cover all your feedback, but it is never possible to make everyone happy. Feedback is always welcome in this forum. Happy cubing, Ron van Bruchem World Cube Association
Lucas (2008-04-10 21:32:44 +0000)
Well, in general it's progress. It's nice to see random scrambles being used. :) I still have several disagreements. I think that changing OH to 2H inspection was somehow slipped and stayed in due to insufficient complaint. It won't be impossible to revert, but the incompatibility will likely be a strong deterrent to changing back. I don't ever remembering any cuber complaining about using only one hand for inspection. It only comes up when new cubers ask why, and get an acceptable response. Unlike a lot of the other changes, I haven't seen lrguments about this on forums with good reasons for switching to 2H inspection. All I've seen ([url=http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=431:2peyo9ur]here[/url:2peyo9ur]) is that [quote="Ron":2peyo9ur]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.[/quote:2peyo9ur] and then more disagreement about that. I don't think many people, especially people competitive OH solvers, are getting DNFs from this. Though Chris D. actually reached for the cube with his left hand on his 17.90, I don't think this happens too often by accident, and shouldn't happen to a person more than once (they should know the regs, right?). I'm more likely to drop my cube into the other hand (or pop an edge into the other hand - this has happened to me) than do this... If you want them to keep the result, why not give them a moderate penalty? If it's not too difficult, I'd like to ask that we should refrain from introducing this now, until there is some good response to the requests to preserve a consistent "one-handed attempt." Also: "Blindfolded events: competitor must remove the cover from the puzzle." I don't like it, though I can live with it. Really, removing the cover is not part of solving a Rubik's Cube blindfolded. :P (I would also like some assurance that covers will be similar.) Giving a DNF to M' off from solved also still seems unfair, but I suppose I'll just have to more careful on H-perms...
StefanPochmann (2008-04-10 21:46:23 +0000)
Congratulations for managing that. With all the feedback for the draft that flooded the forum, I guess this must've been quite some work. I wouldn't have wanted to do that. [quote="Ron":3a8gaid4][*]Solved State: misalignment may now be halfway to the next face, but only one group of adjacent slices.[/quote:3a8gaid4] I don't understand the "only one group of adjacent slices" part, what does that mean?
Ron (2008-04-10 21:51:08 +0000)
@Lucas I have given around 5 DNFs now to people who unintentionally pick up the cube with two hands during one-handed event. The problem with uncovering for blindfolded solving is in the synchronisation between uncovering and starting the timer. We had two options here: have a second delay allowance or have competitor uncover puzzle. We chose the latter. @Stefan Maybe I should change the text. What it is supposed to mean is that formerly M would be a penalty. Now M means two 'groups of adjacent slices', so a DNF. Thanks, Ron
StefanPochmann (2008-04-10 21:54:21 +0000)
Lucas, have you seen my argument for allowing 2H inspection for 1H solving on that page you linked to?
StefanPochmann (2008-04-10 21:57:52 +0000)
Ron, now I'm even more confused, as M does not fall within "misalignment may now be halfway to the next face".
Ron (2008-04-10 22:05:09 +0000)
@Stefan I think I should not connect the change about misalignment and the change about more than one group. I rewrote the sentence. Hope it helps.
Pedro_S (2008-04-10 23:08:29 +0000)
[quote:2vrokflo] 1c3) Sending the competition results to the WCA Board. Results should be available at the end of the last day of the competition. [/quote:2vrokflo] dang, I never noticed that... is that really necessary? I mean...some (or a lot) of delegates have to travel to competitions, so they might not have access to internet the day of the competition, or might have to travel back the same night. What happens if they can't do it the same day?
BryanLogan (2008-04-10 23:29:48 +0000)
[quote="Pedro_S":90u96bvs][quote:90u96bvs] 1c3) Sending the competition results to the WCA Board. Results should be available at the end of the last day of the competition. [/quote:90u96bvs] dang, I never noticed that... is that really necessary? I mean...some (or a lot) of delegates have to travel to competitions, so they might not have access to internet the day of the competition, or might have to travel back the same night. What happens if they can't do it the same day?[/quote:90u96bvs] Notice that it uses the word "should". So it's not a completely strict requirement, but it would be good if you could. From RFC2119: 3. SHOULD This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a particular item, but the full implications must be understood and carefully weighed before choosing a different course.
StefanPochmann (2008-04-10 23:36:40 +0000)
Ron: Yes, that's better. Although "one .. groups .. are" is wrong and I think this would be clearer: "DNF if more than one [b:bwtuh7yw]pair[/b:bwtuh7yw] of adjacent slices [b:bwtuh7yw]is a[/b:bwtuh7yw] move away from solved."
Ron (2008-04-14 20:01:55 +0000)
For the record: I removed 1g2 in the Textual revision of April 14, 2008 because it was redundant (see 1j). Ron