9p) For each round of an event, at least one competitor must not proceed to the next round. I don't see the need for this rule, especially since B-Finals are frowned upon. At some smaller competitions, it would be easy to let all competitors compete again in something like 3x3; why not give them the opportunity?

I can see the rationale of the rule. It's to prevent abuse like the format is: First round - avg of 5 Second round - top 10, average of 5 Third round - top 10, average of 5 Basically, you're giving those 10 people way more solves. Of course, changing round 3 to "Top 9" would technically be allowed, but hopefully discouraged. One thing I would like to see is if for the second round, you could allow anyone with a certain average from the first to compete. The problem with this today is if everyone achieves it, you would have to still remove someone. It seems like a few things could be done 1) To make it to the second round, "Top X" could be selected, or all competitors with a time less than X. It's had to enforce a 50% cutoff here, because you may not know the number of competitors. Maybe you have 18 for 2x2x2 and you're having a second round of top 12. 2) To make it to the third round (if any), Top X. Must cut at least 50% of people from the first round. 3) To make it to the third round (if any), Top X. Must cut at least 50% of people from the first round. Does anyone else think the combined rounds should be limited to when there's just the combined round? If you have enough time to do 2 combined rounds, you should really either let more people get an average, or have a separate "Best of X" round followed by a full average.

Thanks for the feedback. I would like to keep 9p). Letting everyone compete in the next round would make it a time trial not a competition. [quote:1afnpmyj]One thing I would like to see is if for the second round, you could allow anyone with a certain average from the first to compete. The problem with this today is if everyone achieves it, you would have to still remove someone.[/quote:1afnpmyj] Except from 9p) which regulatione is preventing you from doing this? You could announce it like: 'beat 30 seconds, at least one competitor will not proceed'. Ron

I don't think "Must cut at least 50% of people from the first round." is good... suppose you have an event with 16 people (the minimum for 3 rounds) why can't you do it like 16, 12, 8, instead of 16, 8, 4? If people are fast and/or you have time, I see no reason to cut 50% of the people out... [quote:730q75lr]Does anyone else think the combined rounds should be limited to when there's just the combined round? If you have enough time to do 2 combined rounds, you should really either let more people get an average, or have a separate "Best of X" round followed by a full average. [/quote:730q75lr] I don't remember seeing 2 combined rounds in the same event, in the same competition... what can happen is you have a combined 1st/2nd round, then a final. Maybe you don't have time to let everyone do a full average at the first round, so you do a combined round, and you can have a final after that, which will be shorter

[quote="Pedro_S":30icf9f7]I don't think "Must cut at least 50% of people from the first round." is good... suppose you have an event with 16 people (the minimum for 3 rounds) why can't you do it like 16, 12, 8, instead of 16, 8, 4? If people are fast and/or you have time, I see no reason to cut 50% of the people out... [/quote:30icf9f7] In #1, I stated that the 50% wouldn't be enforced from 1st to 2nd round. It would only be forced from 2nd to 3rd and 3rd to 4th. So you could have 16, 12, 6. [quote="Pedro_S":30icf9f7] [quote:30icf9f7]Does anyone else think the combined rounds should be limited to when there's just the combined round? If you have enough time to do 2 combined rounds, you should really either let more people get an average, or have a separate "Best of X" round followed by a full average. [/quote:30icf9f7] I don't remember seeing 2 combined rounds in the same event, in the same competition... what can happen is you have a combined 1st/2nd round, then a final. Maybe you don't have time to let everyone do a full average at the first round, so you do a combined round, and you can have a final after that, which will be shorter[/quote:30icf9f7] I've never seen it either, but it's more of a pro-active suggestion. I'm trying to figure out if there's some way to restrict someone from saying: "3 rounds of 5x5x5. All three are combined rounds, with a cut-off time of 1:30 in the first solve." So basically, they're taking advantage of the rules to let one person (assume the time limit was made to target one person) get three averages, while other competitors will probably get one solve in each round.

[quote="BryanLogan":2sod3uog] In #1, I stated that the 50% wouldn't be enforced from 1st to 2nd round. It would only be forced from 2nd to 3rd and 3rd to 4th. So you could have 16, 12, 6. [/quote:2sod3uog] well...is it that bad having 8 instead of 6? What I meant is that it's not necessary to have just 50% advance, specially with small comps [quote:2sod3uog]I've never seen it either, but it's more of a pro-active suggestion. I'm trying to figure out if there's some way to restrict someone from saying: "3 rounds of 5x5x5. All three are combined rounds, with a cut-off time of 1:30 in the first solve." So basically, they're taking advantage of the rules to let one person (assume the time limit was made to target one person) get three averages, while other competitors will probably get one solve in each round.[/quote:2sod3uog] I think that format wouldn't be approved by the board.

[quote="Ron":2svo3puo] I would like to keep 9p). Letting everyone compete in the next round would make it a time trial not a competition. [/quote:2svo3puo] I can understand this reasoning, and it is in line with competitions from other sports. However I would still like there to be a good way to let all competitors compete again, even if it is a B-final. This often happens at smaller athletic events: if the top 24 are announced to proceed, but only 20 competitors compete in an event, they all may proceed.