MadsMohr (2008-10-02 09:40:09 +0000)
Ron has suggested to create a wiki for officials and i think it's a great idea, but i also think we should clearify the official regulations.
Article 11 deals with incidents and mostly it's up to the judge and the delegate how they should be handled. But i think we could write some stuff about procedure that are to be followed in case of certain incidents. I'm thinking about timer malfunctions and cases of mistaken identity.
I was scrambling at EC08 and heard some of the discussion regarding how to handle a new attempt due to a timer malfunction. I think the rules are clear on how to decide if a competitor are allowed a new attempt, but as i heard it there were some doubt on the procedure. Are the new attempt to be done at once or when the remaining attempts are finished? In my opinion should extra attempts be done after completing the remaining attempts. The scramblers are not disturbed from their rutine by handling a new scramble. The judge are free to judge a second competitor and make the ongoing competition continue it's flow. So i imagine a procedure like this:
The competitor arms the timer and begins his attempt but the timer malfunctions.
The judge writes "TIMER" or "MAL" on the scorecard.
The competitor completes his remaining attempts.
The extra attempt are done as his final attempt.
The regulations mentions details on how the competitor must wait in a designated area during an event. But it doesn't deal with details on calling on competitors. I've been called a few times where the judge only used my firstname and had some trouble pronousing it and a "Mads" was actually a "Mats". (That darn Mats, how dare he have a name that sounds like mine and be younger and faster than me ;-)
So now i allways read the scorecard to check my name, but this could be part of the official regulations. Just as the competitor are instructed to inspect the scorecard after the judge has written the score (A7c)
Then only incidents where the scorecard are correct but the puzzle are someone elses could give the competitor a new attempt with a new scramble if the judge and the delegate allows for it. This way we don't have to juggle scorecards more than we have to. Example:
The judge calls Mats and I get up but i don't check the scorecard (doh)
I call ready and discovers that it's not my puzzle.
The scramble number from the wrong scorecard are marked DNS on my scorecard. Or perhaps just marked EXTRA for an extra attempt?
The wrong puzzle and scorecard are placed back at the scramblers table (rescrambled if altered)
What do you think?
BryanLogan (2008-10-02 14:19:46 +0000)
In dealing with incidents, it's much nicer to have it be open ended to give the organizer control on how to do things. For example, while you may prefer to wait until the end, I would prefer to just get that competitor done with the round, especially if that competitor is going to be judging/scrambling when they're done. Also, your proposal of writing "TIMER" on the scoresheet means that scoresheets will potentially need to have an infinite number of lines.
Normally, if there's some incident and they need a new scramble, I will take the cube back to the scramblers and tell them to do "Extra #1". Or, perhaps I may just do it myself. Now, noting on the scoresheet that they did extra #1 instead of regular scramble #3 might be good, in case it happens again, so that they're not getting "Extra #1" twice.
As for getting your scoresheet and someone elses cube, I think that would just be handled like a timer malfunction. Go find the right cube and give them a new scramble. Is this really all that common that it needs to be in the regulations? If it's happening, it seems like it's mostly an organizational problem. For my competitions, I'll call up a group of competitors and have them put their cube on top of their scoresheets and just keep them together like this. For scrambling, the scambler looks at the scoresheet, sees which scramble is next, and applies that scramble.
MadsMohr (2008-10-02 15:45:49 +0000)
In the smaller tournaments perhaps it's not that big a deal to just do the extra solve at once, but at EC08 this caused some confusion. My main point for this thread is to discuss these issues as they're only covered by "let the judge and delegate decide" at the moment.
When i read the regulations they remind me of the football rules. It's a simple game with some simple rules and even the rare case of what to do if a team get's reduced to 7 or fewer are covered. (It's up to the national organisation but they are advised to follow the boards suggestion of at least 7)
It also has a section containing recommendations and such. Just like the optional regulations in article Z.
I would like some wording that the judge and delegate could lean on when deciding i case of incidents, the form and place to put it really should be debated.