1d) Each event must have one main judge. 1j) All officials may compete in the competition, but a main judge for an event must not compete in the event. I'd like to suggest this be changed to: 1d) Each round of an event must have one main judge. 1j) All officials may compete in the competition, but a main judge for a round must not compete in the round. Although a small change, this gives the organizers a bit more flexibility, in the case that the main judge of an event would be unavailable for a later round of an event.

I wasn't going to post about the main judge this year, but since someone brought it up Really, the main judge should be able to compete if it's a trusted individual (the WCA delegate). Now, many people point out that there's a conflict of interest if the judge competes. However, if you disagree with the judge, you can always appeal to the WCA delegate. If you don't trust the WCA delegate, then can you trust anyone? But, if the main judge is a friend of one of the competitors, or a parent, spouse, etc, does that decrease the conflict of interest any? Probably not. Let's look at the responsibilities of the main judge: 1d1) Make sure regulations are followed. Well, the WCA delegate needs to ensure the same thing (1c1) as do the regular judges (1e1). 1d2) Decisions on disqualification of competitors. The competitor can dispute with the WCA delegate if they feel they've been unfairly disqualified (2n). 1d3) Decision to start a round earlier. Now, I'm guessing most people are concerned about 1d2. But this can always be appealed. Also, how many incidents of disqualification has there been? It'd be nice if someone didn't have to sit out, and if you could have the person who is most familiar with the regulations fill that role. Right now, you can give that role to a parent or someone else, but is that best for the competitors?

What would speak against having only the WCA Delegate as main judge?

It is often very hard to find a main judge. And most of the time, he does not know anything about the puzzle because he does not compete. I think it would be better to remove this rule. The decisions that are actually taken by the main judge could be by a short discussion between organisation team and WCA deleguate.

Why not allow the main judge to go in a different group, and allow a person from a different group to take over main judge?

[quote="Lucas":1smj4y4f]Why not allow the main judge to go in a different group, and allow a person from a different group to take over main judge?[/quote:1smj4y4f] This will only spread the impact a judge could make. It will not remove the conflict of interest. By selecting the WCA Delegate you remove this conflict by a "contract" of trust.

[quote="Edouard Chambon":2xw2813q]It is often very hard to find a main judge. And most of the time, he does not know anything about the puzzle because he does not compete. I think it would be better to remove this rule. The decisions that are actually taken by the main judge could be by a short discussion between organisation team and WCA deleguate.[/quote:2xw2813q] agreed we really don't "need" a main judge, since, as Bryan pointed out, his functions are mostly covered by the delegate and it is indeed hard to find a main judge for the 3x3 event, since pretty much everybody competes at that one...

I think the only reason this rule still exists is because of Dan Gosbee and WC2003. He was the main judge and he wasn't allowed to compete and that made him upset to the degree he did quit cubing and refused to publish his advanced CF method after the WC as he had promised to do before the events started. I say remove it. It is always some of the organisers who has to be the main judge and we also like to compete. In Sweden it is normally Anders but I have been for 3x3x3 in his place so he could compete in the Swedish champinships at least once. For the Cube Day we have not decided yet but probably it will be me.

I think that there is a point to keep the two roles (Main Judge and WCA Delegate) formally separated, but adding a rule that says if the WCA delegate is the main judge, he is also allowed to compete. /Anders

sorry, to kinda "revive" the thread, but we didn't hear from anyone from the board about this particular one... I support having no main judge, as I said before...

And I support the suggestion by Anders to allow the WCA delegate to act as main judge if it's not possible to find a main judge.

If the WCA delegate cannot be trusted as a main judge, they should not be WCA delegate. Furthermore, if the WCA delegate cannot be impartial on his/her own solves, he/she should not be WCA delegate. I don't really think the main judge position is needed. The WCA delegate can perform the role of the main judge without losing anything. It seems the main judge exists so that they can make the final decision on any solve, in particular if the WCA delegate's solve is in question. Is there a WCA delegate that would make a dishonest call on their own solve?

[quote="Bob":ltkwogij]If the WCA delegate cannot be trusted as a main judge, they should not be WCA delegate. Furthermore, if the WCA delegate cannot be impartial on his/her own solves, he/she should not be WCA delegate. I don't really think the main judge position is needed. The WCA delegate can perform the role of the main judge without losing anything. It seems the main judge exists so that they can make the final decision on any solve, in particular if the WCA delegate's solve is in question. Is there a WCA delegate that would make a dishonest call on their own solve?[/quote:ltkwogij] Agreed (again)

[quote="Pedro_S":1qg8mjtv][quote="Bob":1qg8mjtv]If the WCA delegate cannot be trusted as a main judge, they should not be WCA delegate. Furthermore, if the WCA delegate cannot be impartial on his/her own solves, he/she should not be WCA delegate. I don't really think the main judge position is needed. The WCA delegate can perform the role of the main judge without losing anything. It seems the main judge exists so that they can make the final decision on any solve, in particular if the WCA delegate's solve is in question. Is there a WCA delegate that would make a dishonest call on their own solve?[/quote:1qg8mjtv] Agreed (again)[/quote:1qg8mjtv] Oh, I was agreeing with YOU! :p [quote="Pedro_S":1qg8mjtv]and it is indeed hard to find a main judge for the 3x3 event, since pretty much everybody competes at that one...[/quote:1qg8mjtv] ...well, not quite. If I run a competition, I don't compete in 3x3 (in fact, I barely compete at all)...and how often does Tyson compete in 3x3?

[quote="Bob":1l48wyri]...well, not quite. If I run a competition, I don't compete in 3x3 (in fact, I barely compete at all)...and how often does Tyson compete in 3x3?[/quote:1l48wyri] Correct. But if you were the only person running competitions in your area, then it becomes quite a different story. Finding a main judge usually isn't a problem, it's finding a competent main judge.

[quote="BryanLogan":1ut2dfev][quote="Bob":1ut2dfev]...well, not quite. If I run a competition, I don't compete in 3x3 (in fact, I barely compete at all)...and how often does Tyson compete in 3x3?[/quote:1ut2dfev] Correct. But if you were the only person running competitions in your area, then it becomes quite a different story. Finding a main judge usually isn't a problem, it's finding a competent main judge.[/quote:1ut2dfev] exactly my point for the next competition we have here, [url:1ut2dfev]http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/c.php?i=SaoPauloOpen2009[/url:1ut2dfev], everybody who registered so far is registered for 3x3...I'll have to find someone to be the main judge...unless Tyson is willing to come

i was looking to go to that one, but flights weren't very favorable (I would have had to miss work on Tuesday)...though I wouldn't have been the main judge if I went.

What if we would remove the whole concept of 'main judge' and just rely on the WCA delegate? I have seen many competitions (including the ones that I organised) where the main judge is a 'dummy outsider'. Just for the sake that the real insiders are all able compete. If we cannot trust the WCA delegate then we have a serious problem. Thanks, Ron

[quote="Ron":21s0rxmq]What if we would remove the whole concept of 'main judge' and just rely on the WCA delegate?[/quote:21s0rxmq] As long as the delegate can still compete.

Yes, a WCA delegate can compete.

I completely agree with this. That was my point to begin with.

great

OK, this will be in version 2009 draft 1

I disagree. A main judge is needed in medium/large competitions. Main judge watches over the competition. Judges call him when there's a dispute (solved state, penalties). He takes care competitors go back to competitor's area. And so on (1d1...). A lot of things requiring 100% commitment. The job of the WCA delegate is different. He's not in charge of running the details of the competition. In small competitions, running an event is much easier and the delegate is always around. But that's not a reason to dump the whole concept of main judge! Maybe you can add an article to say: - In small competitions, the WCA delegate can be the main judge in an event too. - Since we trust him, he can still compete. - WCA delegate decides when there's a need for a distinct main judge. Maybe we don't need any new article, since 1k allows for combined roles. Gilles.

Gilles, You make a valid point. Still I think we can solve it without keeping the main judge. Most articles say the WCA Delegate is RESPONSIBLE for things. They do not say how the WCA Delegate actually does it. For example: the WCA Delegate is responsible for sending the results of the competition to the WCA Board. The WCA Delegate could ask someone else to do it and send a cc to the WCA Delegate (this is already common practice). The same could go for the taks of the main judge. The WCA Delegate can appoint anyone to help oversee the competition. In case of issues the appointed person can tell WCA Delegate what happened and still the WCA Delegate could make the decision. Ron

It seems to me this way we are about to change the model. Today: - The organization (with judges appointed) runs the competition. - The delegate is an advisor (before and during the competition) and helps in some decisions, and he's the interface between the organization and WCA Board. Tomorrow: - The organizer pays for the room. - WCA delegate is in charge of the competition. And after tomorrow, the organizer will have to pay WCA for an official WCA Team appointed to run the competition, if he wants the competition to be official. In the case of a small friendly non sponsored competition, that's useless theory I admit, but do you see what I mean? Gilles.

I don't think that's what is going to happen... the delegate won't run the competition, he will just take the main judge functions (which, to my view, don't include running the competition)

Honestly, I don't see that big of a deal with the WCA delegate doing the main judge duties. Having a delegate involved in the competition can only make it run better. No one is forced to be a delegate. You can always decline.

My opinion is that there is a major difference in the duties of the WCA delegate and the Main Judge. The Main Judge must monitor everything that happens during an event. The task of the WCA delegate is to interfer when called upon (and to report to the WCA board). I find the roles are quite separate, and therefore I would like that the roles are separate, also in the regulations. I suggest that we add a rule like 1l) The WCA delegate is always allowed to compete. Together with the current rule 1k) Officials can have several roles combined (organisation team, WCA delegate, main judge, judge, score taker, scrambler), the roles can be combined. Case closed!?? [quote="BryanLogan":yfol2z9p] No one is forced to be a delegate. You can always decline.[/quote:yfol2z9p] But still, the competition requires a WCA delegate, and not everyone is eligible... /Anders

[quote="anders":2zc9f6kg]My opinion is that there is a major difference in the duties of the WCA delegate and the Main Judge. The Main Judge must monitor everything that happens during an event. The task of the WCA delegate is to interfer when called upon (and to report to the WCA board). I find the roles are quite separate, and therefore I would like that the roles are separate, also in the regulations. I suggest that we add a rule like 1l) The WCA delegate is always allowed to compete. Together with the current rule 1k) Officials can have several roles combined (organisation team, WCA delegate, main judge, judge, score taker, scrambler), the roles can be combined.[/quote:2zc9f6kg] I agree with this. This way the responsibility of main judge could be delegated to someone else if necessary.

OK, that is a good solution. Main judge may only compete if he/she is also the WCA delegate. Practically: I will always be main judge if I am the WCA delegate. Makes it much easier for me. Ron

[quote="Ron":32yglboc]OK, that is a good solution. Main judge may only compete if he/she is also the WCA delegate. Practically: I will always be main judge if I am the WCA delegate. Makes it much easier for me. Ron[/quote:32yglboc] indeed