As of the start of both the Swiss Open and Galanta Open, the [url=http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/regulations/:3hk7agu9]WCA regulations[/url:3hk7agu9] page did not change. I think this disqualifies the new regulations from being in effect. There was no official announcement of the 2009 regulations going into effect, and the only thing I saw was Ron saying "if everything goes well this week, we should be able to pass the regulations." I'd hate to see some people's results be unofficial, now that some events have already taken place (6x6 and clock avg5 at Swiss Open), but I really don't think the regulations were actually made official by Jan 31st.

Unless there was made some non-publical communication between WCA board members and the delegate of the tournament, I don't see any reason why the regulations would be in effect now indeed. (Kudos to the live results btw.) Looks like the results of Swiss open are put immediatly into the personal database? Anyway, it would be a sad thing, but I think Dan is right about the clock and 6x6 results at Swiss.

The Swiss Open results are put in the database, as it is a fast and nice way to display them. They could be removed if necessary. The 6x6x6 could be moved away. For the clock... well... And yes, there was a non-publical communication between WCA board member Ron and the delegate of the tournament Me, but I agree with you that it's rather embarrasing for me, the organiser and the competitors.

Yes, WCA Regulations 2009 are not in place yet. Sorry. I hope they will be finalised for next weekend. Clément used the WCA database to post live results. These results are not official yet. We will decide on the results of the 6x6 and 7x7 events (new events) and of the Clock and Square-1 (average of 5). Thanks, Ron

I'm sorry I need to take this position, but I hope that the clock, Square-1, and 6x6x6 results (from Swiss Open 2009) are not accepted. At SF09, when the regulations were exactly in the same state, Ron informed me that the WCA would not accept any 6x6x6/7x7x7 results or avg5 on Square-1/clock. Hence, I refrained from holding them. I don't think the clock/Square-1 results should be completely invalidated, but they should be submitted to the WCA in mean3 or best5 form. They should either be truncated to 3 solves, or with only the best single counting (no average). (EDIT: I meant 6x6x6 results, not 7x7x7, but the point should still have made sense.)

[quote="Lucas":1q1k6i9r]I don't think the clock/Square-1 results should be completely invalidated, but they should be submitted to the WCA in mean3 or best5 form.[/quote:1q1k6i9r] You couldn't take the last two solves anyways. [quote="Regulations":1q1k6i9r] 9f6) In 'Best of x' rounds competitors get x (<= 3) attempts... [/quote:1q1k6i9r] I agree with Lucas, the new formats were basically agreed to before SF, so at least those should have been accepted. Even if it means releasing an interim version of the regulations (viewtopic.php?p=3308#p3308). In fact, depending on how far along the final 2009 version is, I would say we should release an interim if it's not going to be done by next weekend, since that's going to affect another group of competitions.

[quote="Lucas":2xtguzpw]I don't think the clock/Square-1 results should be completely invalidated, but they should be submitted to the WCA in mean3 or best5 form. They should either be truncated to 3 solves, or with only the best single counting (no average).[/quote:2xtguzpw] I agree with Lucas's stance on this, with Bryan's correction. Another solution: can this be counted as 2 separate rounds of the event, with the first 2 solves counting as (best 2) prelims round, then the last 3 solves as a (mean 3) finals round?

[quote="jbcm627":rz5biew3][quote="Lucas":rz5biew3]I don't think the clock/Square-1 results should be completely invalidated, but they should be submitted to the WCA in mean3 or best5 form. They should either be truncated to 3 solves, or with only the best single counting (no average).[/quote:rz5biew3] I agree with Lucas's stance on this, with Bryan's correction. Another solution: can this be counted as 2 separate rounds of the event, with the first 2 solves counting as (best 2) prelims round, then the last 3 solves as a (mean 3) finals round?[/quote:rz5biew3] At an early competition in Sweden, we accidently had average of five for the Clock event. The WCA board considered the first three solves as the official ones and discarded the two last ones. /Anders

Changing the average of 5 to a mean of 3 (taking the first 3 solves) will invalidate the podium in clock. So I do not know how this should be handled. Although I would not like to see these event results not added to the database (especially single solves that were legitimately done with the WCA regulations), I will leave the WCA board come up with any solution that make sense. I want to apologize for not applying the *current* WCA regulations (simply due to a quiproquo between me, the WCA delegate and the WCA board). In case of a doubt we should have applied the old regulations. Furthermore I think that for later revisions of the regulations an official date is to be picked. For example, every year the new regulations is fixed on the 1st of February and any competitions that starts *after* that date should apply the new rules. Thanks for discussing on solutions to this problem, Sven

[quote="sgowal":1m5c51sp]Changing the average of 5 to a mean of 3 (taking the first 3 solves) will invalidate the podium in clock. So I do not know how this should be handled.[/quote:1m5c51sp] Who cares if the podium is invalidated? Awards can be given on any criteria. You criteria just happened to involve extra solves. [quote="sgowal":1m5c51sp] For example, every year the new regulations is fixed on the 1st of February and any competitions that starts *after* that date should apply the new rules.[/quote:1m5c51sp] But depending on how things go during discussion, it may take longer. Personally, I would like to see the new regulations in place by January 1st. While it may involve having to start early, with adding new events, dropping events, etc it makes sense to have the 2009 regulations cover the full year of 2009.