Multiple blindfold time limit enforcement
Tim (2009-02-02 23:04:47 +0000)
This weekend, the rule[quote:utqsgb01]H1b) Total time allowed for memorising and solving is 10 minutes per cube, measured with a stopwatch.[/quote:utqsgb01] was not enforced in multiple scenarios:
Dániel Varga 2/3 30:39
Eszter Szabó 1/2 24:02 1/2 ?:??:??
Antoine Perdereau 1/2 20:14
Looking back to the Hungarian Open I see
Péter Trombitás 1/2 54:19 1/2 31:05
Márton Pelles 1/2 49:05
The WCA can't accept results that violate explicit time limits. I don't care that Antoine only went 14 seconds over--unless we can be sure that the cube he solved was done after 20 minutes, that solve should be a DNF. The same goes for all other solves I listed, including Eszter's 1/2 ?:??:??. Clearly the Galanta open was not enforcing the 10 minute/cube time limit, so it's very possible that that solve exceeded ten minutes per cube.
I am well aware of the fact that the regulations are changing. But the same problem will still exist under the new regulations, and the WCA needs to address it. The WCA should take a firm stance that solves exceeding time limits are not acceptable. Organizers need to make sure judges are enforcing time limits. We can't know what Daniel had finished after 30 minutes, and we can't guess. It is not the competitor's fault for exceeding the time limit, it's the judge's fault for letting him, for recording what he had finished after 30:39.
I'm also well aware that most of these solves aren't really competitive for winning or anything. It doesn't matter though. The WCA has a set of rules which apply to everyone, and should be applied equally to everyone, whether or not they're setting a world record or winning the competition.
TMOY (2009-02-03 09:25:30 +0000)
I was judging Antoine. He succesfully solved his first cube after something like 12 minutes, but went incredibly slow on the second one. I decided to let him finish anyway because we had enough time, IMHO the purpose of time limits is to make the time schedule possible to follow, not to prevent people from having fun. And being picky for only 14 seconds (1% of the total time of the solve) is just stupid.
StefanPochmann (2009-02-03 10:23:02 +0000)
[quote="TMOY":20u90mlz]the purpose of time limits is to make the time schedule possible to follow, not to prevent people from having fun.[/quote:20u90mlz]
Yeah! Just like the 15 seconds inspection limit. Doesn't matter if some people take 20 seconds if they need to. We should let them. Right?
Time limits [u:20u90mlz]of the competition organizers[/u:20u90mlz] are there to make the time schedule possible to follow.
Time limits [u:20u90mlz]of the WCA rules[/u:20u90mlz] are there to make global comparisons meaningful.
[quote="TMOY":20u90mlz]being picky for only 14 seconds (1% of the total time of the solve) is just stupid.[/quote:20u90mlz]
At what point does it stop being stupid? 30 seconds? 1 Minute? 5 Minutes? 30 Minutes? Please tell us your choice and justify it.
Tim is absolutely right. And if you don't like the rule, vote against it. But don't violate it.
TMOY (2009-02-03 10:52:21 +0000)
It's 3 minutes 14.159265354 seconds. Are you happy with that ?
More seriously, it's only a matter of common sense. And it didn't even help Antoine since it was obvious to me that his solve would end up as a DNF; I just didn't want to frustrate him by needlessly stopping him.
And I'm happy with the rules. But I go to competitions to have fun, and needless psychorigidity about them goes against that.
BryanLogan (2009-02-03 12:22:37 +0000)
[quote="TMOY":1yrn5uto]And it didn't even help Antoine since it was obvious to me that his solve would end up as a DNF[/quote:1yrn5uto]
OK, so what would've you done if it was obvious he was going to finish that cube?
I just didn't want to frustrate him by needlessly stopping him.
People get frustrated if they get a +2 or a DNF, is it OK to not give them a penalty?
StefanPochmann (2009-02-03 12:29:16 +0000)
[quote="TMOY":15gcomwl]it's only a matter of common sense.[/quote:15gcomwl]
That's exactly the problem. There is no "common sense". Yours differs from mine. That's why we have the rules.
TMOY (2009-02-03 17:02:12 +0000)
And the rules can't cover all possible cases. That's why we need some common sense anyway.
I've seen minor stretchings of the WCA rules in every competition I attended, and as long as they didn't affect the fairness of the competition, nobody cared. That 14 extra seconds fall into that category.
Tim (2009-02-03 17:31:20 +0000)
What should have been done was that you should have, at 20 minutes, recorded how many cubes he had solved and a time of 20:00. That would have made his result valid. At your and the organizer's discretion, you could have allowed him to keep solving, but what he did after 20 minutes shouldn't have counted. Basically, his result should have been 1/2 20:00.
And the rules CAN cover all possible cases in this specific discussion, can't they? At (10 min*#cubes), or when the competitor takes the blindfold off if that is sooner, the judge records how many cubes are solved.
How would you feel if the person with the world record went over by 14 seconds? Should they be subject to stricter rules than non-world record holders?
TMOY (2009-02-03 17:49:42 +0000)
What you should have done is attend the competition if you wanted it to be run according to your views.
The 20:14 time was accepted not only by me but also by the WCA delegate, that's enough for me.
GunnarKrig (2009-02-03 19:37:16 +0000)
[quote="TMOY":3qrons06]What you should have done is attend the competition if you wanted it to be run according to your views.
The 20:14 time was accepted not only by me but also by the WCA delegate, that's enough for me.[/quote:3qrons06]
But the WCA-delegate doesn't have the mandate to overrule H1b, does he?
[quote:3qrons06]H1b) Total time allowed for memorising and solving is 10 minutes per cube, measured with a stopwatch.[/quote:3qrons06]
The limit is explicitly set, and should be followed stricly. It's there to ensure all contestants at all competitions get the same conditions.
StefanPochmann (2009-02-03 19:51:17 +0000)
[quote="TMOY":13so1m8v]And the rules can't cover all possible cases. That's why we need some common sense anyway.[/quote:13so1m8v]
They do cover this case, and quite clearly. I suggest you actually read them. Particularly this one:
"H1b1) When the total time is reached, [b:13so1m8v]the attempt is stopped[/b:13so1m8v] and the number of solved and not solved puzzles is counted."
So you allowing more time is not using "common sense" in a case "not covered by the rules". It's you violating the rules in a case clearly covered by them.
TMOY (2009-02-03 20:21:47 +0000)
Yeah, and it's even worse than you think. Look at Brussels Sumer Open results. Same competitor, same judge. I definitely should be sentenced to death for that.
Bob (2009-02-04 02:23:04 +0000)
[quote="TMOY":2f12j4mr]Yeah, and it's even worse than you think. Look at Brussels Sumer Open results. Same competitor, same judge. I definitely should be sentenced to death for that.
Or perhaps not be allowed to judge MultiBLD.
TMOY (2009-02-04 06:57:02 +0000)
That would be fine to me. Sitting and idling time 20 minutes during a multiBLD solve is really boring. And 20 minutes 14 is so much worse
And getting such stupid ands closed-minded remarks as in this thread actually makes me never want to judge multiBLd again. Don't you think it's already difficult enough to find judges ?
StefanPochmann (2009-02-04 09:13:20 +0000)
If you ever judge me in speedsolving, I'll inspect 18 seconds, and when you then disqualify the solve, [b:ebguhrma]I[/b:ebguhrma] will call [b:ebguhrma]you[/b:ebguhrma] "stupid and close-minded". Good?
What if I try three cubes blind and after exactly 30 minutes my judge stops me, despite me only needing 14 more seconds to solve my third cube? Shall I complain "But TMOY allowed it" and insist that I get those extra 14 seconds? If I'm the judge and the competitor demands to get those extra seconds and get his third cube counted, am I supposed to allow it? Is the judge supposed to violate the rules? Is the competitor entitled to request the judge to violate the rules? No. And there will be judges who won't allow it. But if some judges allow it and others don't... how is it fair when my result depends on who my judge is?
TMOY (2009-02-04 11:57:49 +0000)
Yes, some results may depend on who the judge is, for various reasons. You can't both ask everybody and his mom to be available for judging and expect all of them to follow the exact same standards. And it's especially true for multi-BLD, where judges are most of the time people who don't compete in the event.
End of the discussion for me too.
Ron (2009-02-04 21:42:59 +0000)
Of course I also saw these times. But we have to wait until the WCA delegate report before results are official.
The number of solved cubes is measured at the end of the time limit.
Officially the attempt must be stopped at the end of the time limit, but I can understand if the organisation team lets competitors finish the solving stage.
Of course in that case the time measured should still be the time limit, not the complete time allowed to the competitor by the organisation team.
So, assuming that none of the cubes was solved after reaching the time limit, we will round down the times after the WCA delegate report.
The time limits for Multiple Blindfolded are different from the time limits for other events.
For other events it is possible to change the time limit to anything that still fits in the time schedule.
For Multiple Blindfolded it is a fixed time limit, see article H1b).
In case of Hungarian Open 2008, it was still on my TO DO list to round down the times to 20 minutes. I did that today.
qqwref (2009-02-05 02:07:12 +0000)
I can't accept this. The time limit is in the regulations and if someone goes over the time limit they should be penalized accordingly. The judge should not be allowed to continue to judge if they deliberately and knowingly break the WCA rules to help a competitor. [i:3nbpyg1l]I consider this cheating.[/i:3nbpyg1l] I do not want to be part of a cubing organization that lets you break a rule if your judge is nice enough to allow it. This is not fair to HONEST competitors and judges. The judge(s) involved should be penalized and the result should be given as whatever the result was when the time limit expired (or DNF if this is not known).
TMOY, I hold you fully accountable for your cheating. Enough about this "you can't ask everyone to judge and then expect them to know the regulations" - this is NONSENSE. You are a competitor and as such you should be familiar with the WCA regulations. If you do not understand the regulations for an event, do not judge it! It is simple. Ask someone to explain the regulations to you or simply refuse to be a judge for that event. You know what the rules are and you know you violated it on purpose, so stop arguing you are in the right when you are clearly not. In addition, the delegate should have determined the result of the solve on the spot - it is his/her responsibility.
And Ron, don't "round down" the times unless you are completely sure all solved cubes were solved when the time limit expired. It is not acceptable to falsify results in order to be nice to competitors. Everyone else had to get their legitimate multi-BLD results by actually doing them, and I see no reason why these people who have failed should get special treatment.
TMOY (2009-02-05 06:42:21 +0000)
I didn't say that. Please don't change my words.
I'll stop answering to this thread before rEALLY stopping veing friendly.
StefanPochmann (2009-02-05 09:38:25 +0000)
[quote="Ron":3c639qrr]In case of Hungarian Open 2008, it was still on my TO DO list to round down the times to 20 minutes. I did that today.[/quote:3c639qrr]
Is that correct? You changed [b:3c639qrr]1/2 in 54:19[/b:3c639qrr] to [b:3c639qrr]1/2 in 20:00[/b:3c639qrr]. Keep in mind that all memorization must happen before all solving. So this couldn't be one "fast" 20 minutes blindsolve followed by one "slow" 34 minutes one, which would be reasonable. No, you're saying that in 20 minutes or less, he memorized two cubes and solved one, and then it took him 34 minutes or more just to try solving the second one. Did that really happen?
Pitzu (2009-02-05 11:53:52 +0000)
I remember to German Open 2008. I exceeded time limit with my last cube. My judge (JLM) let me finish it. I solved that cube correctly. After opening my eyes I realized that I exceeded the time limit. JLM (and me) was sure that cube wasn't solved at the moment of time limit so we didn't count it. I didn't complain at all. I don't see what the problem is with it.
BryanLogan (2009-02-05 12:24:46 +0000)
[quote="Pitzu":2n5o4m2m]I remember to German Open 2008. I exceeded time limit with my last cube. My judge (JLM) let me finish it. I solved that cube correctly. After opening my eyes I realized that I exceeded the time limit. JLM (and me) was sure that cube wasn't solved at the moment of time limit so we didn't count it. I didn't complain at all. I don't see what the problem is with it.[/quote:2n5o4m2m]
So how did you guys arrive at recording the number 48:55 instead of 50:00?
Pitzu (2009-02-05 12:53:49 +0000)
[quote="BryanLogan":11ubw3k0][quote="Pitzu":11ubw3k0]I remember to German Open 2008. I exceeded time limit with my last cube. My judge (JLM) let me finish it. I solved that cube correctly. After opening my eyes I realized that I exceeded the time limit. JLM (and me) was sure that cube wasn't solved at the moment of time limit so we didn't count it. I didn't complain at all. I don't see what the problem is with it.[/quote:11ubw3k0]
So how did you guys arrive at recording the number 48:55 instead of 50:00?[/quote:11ubw3k0]
It was the other attempt.
Tim (2009-03-04 00:13:57 +0000)
(this was mentioned on speedsolving.com)
Yet again, at belgian open, the time limit was not enforced.
5 Antoine Perdereau 1/2 22:08
Ron, you delegating Belgian Open, do you know what happened? Who judged Antoine, and why they weren't informed of the rules?
My request is the following:
-Unless the judge can attest to the fact that Antoine solved his single cube in well under 20 minutes, Antoine's result should be marked DNF.
-All previously "rounded down" times should be treated similarly. I know that Multi BLD old style is not an official event anymore. But its results should be correct. Put them back to their original times, and unless the judge of that attempt is positive that some number of cubes were solved by the time limit, mark them as DNFs.
-Issue a statement, and remind each delegate, as well as the organizer of any competition containing multi, that there is a strict time limit of 10 minutes per cube or one hour. Make it clear that, if improper results are recorded, they will be discarded.
Again, I know that Antoine's result has little effect on anything. But that's irrelevant. Yes, I think it's unfair to delete people's results because they were judged improperly, but I also think it's more unfair for there not to be a single standard by which people are judged. Would we accept a time of 10/10 1:02:08? How about 24/24 1:02:08? If these times were accepted, then they would be given a different standard than anyone else's. If these times would be "rounded down", then that would be an incorrect representation of what someone can do in an hour--the person didn't do 10 or 24 cubes in an hour, they did less than that. The fact that Antoine's result wasn't world record-quality doesn't mean the rules shouldn't apply.
TMOY (2009-03-04 06:59:53 +0000)
Sorry, I wasn't antoine's judge this time. You'll have to hang someone else
adragast (2009-03-04 14:30:18 +0000)
In my opinion, you are taking this too personally. Read again the first post. There were 5 examples, your name was not mentioned and the subject was a global requiry to the WCA to address the problem of time limit.
You saw the answers of Michael Gottlieb and Stephan Pochmann to the post of Ron. They criticised him too and really, the aim of this discussion is to address the problem once for all, not to blame this or that judge.
Now you began to debate about the fact that we should not be too picky about some seconds more and Stephan gave you his anwers about it (again it was something general about giving someone more time to finish his/her cube, not about you judging in a particular event).
As for me, I would like to emphasize one point about these 14 seconds too much. My last blindfold attempt at the Norwegian open was an easy scramble. I knew I could manage it in spite of my poor skill in blindfold. The problem was that I took too much time for the first two solves and decided to take some risks during the memorisation step by memorising faster. This lead to a failure and my point is that time management is part of the event. 14 seconds less or more is not a lot but it implies the cuber to be more careful or take more risks beforehand already.
Competitions can be fun, true, they can be also very important in the eyes of other people. So we should have fun while stricly following the rules.