Hi all, A final idea I got via Tyson for Regulations 2010: will we do the removal of the cover similar to blindfolded? So competitor removes cover. That will remove yet another interaction with the judge. OK? Ron

The only problem I see with this is making sure we have a cover that works for every puzzle and is "standard". A small square of paper works good for the 3x3, where the majority of cubers removing the cover themselves takes place. However, for Pyraminx, the cover is sometimes held by the judge or else it might slip. Also, the fact that the judge removes the cover in conjunction with starting the inspection timer might be a good thing to keep. If I remove the cover, then I need to wait for the judge to tell me when inspection starts. If I have to listen for the judge, that might be hard to do in crowded competitions. It's much easier today that I know I can inspect once the cover is off.

As of now, the judge asks if the competitor is ready, then removes the cover and starts the inspection timer. If we change it, the competitor has to make sure the judge is ready, then the competitor removes the cover and the judge starts the inspection timer. We don't want the competitor to remove the cover before the judge is ready to start the stopwatch. Seems to me like the way we have it now is more efficient and less likely to cause a problem.

I see no benefit in this. For BLD it is logical since otherwise the judge intervenes with the solve maybe, but on normal cubing this is none of the such. I don't want to wait for the judge to be ready but for me to be ready. Otherwise when competing I ask the judge 'ready?' instead of the other way around

Limiting interaction isn't always a good thing. This would make things harder for the judge and harder for the competitor.

I don't like the idea either. It is not even a perfect solution for BLD as is, but makes more sense given the inspection timing method inherent in that event. However, having covers non-standardized could create an advantage/disadvantage at one competition over another if we move to all events doing this approach. I don't see it being a problem for the judge to perform this task. In fact, for the most part, i think the entire process is pretty straightforward and rarely see issues at the various comps i attend.

[quote="BryanLogan":1om5f9by]The only problem I see with this is making sure we have a cover that works for every puzzle[/quote:1om5f9by] You are right, this is the only problem I see. Otherwise, it would be easy, better, with only benefits.

When inspection starts, the judge should be in charge of the situation to make sure rules are followed and no cheating occurs. I don't like this idea because it takes some of the control away from the judge. When a competitor can remove the cover before the judge is ready to start timing, it potentially increases the number of incidents. It may also make things more complicated for younger or inexperienced competitors who aren't as familiar with the rules.

Good idea, I like it.

I agree with the feedback that someone has to be in control, and that it better has to be the judge. I think blindfolded is the only exception because there we want to minimise the overhead and the risk of incorrect timing / extra memorisation time. Maybe next year.

I like the idea. Then the competitor can start exactly when ready and without the interruption of communication and the judge doing stuff. [quote="Shelley":1zrjwmvc]When a competitor can remove the cover [b:1zrjwmvc]before the judge is ready to start timing[/b:1zrjwmvc][/quote:1zrjwmvc] [quote="Erik":1zrjwmvc]I don't want to wait for the judge to be ready but for me to be ready. Otherwise when competing I ask the judge 'ready?' instead of the other way around [/quote:1zrjwmvc] Erik, you're [b:1zrjwmvc]already[/b:1zrjwmvc] waiting for the judge to be ready. Or do you start before he's ready? No, you have to wait already. I simply see this as an [b:1zrjwmvc]add-on[/b:1zrjwmvc] to the current procedure that helps prevent mistakes and distraction. Alternatively, the judge could simply make it impossible for you to start until he's ready. For example by keeping a hand on the cover until he's ready (resetting the stopwatch with the other hand). Or by putting the puzzle off the mat or on a side end instead of right in front of the competitor/timer while getting ready. Or by using double covers like this, the judge takes off the first and the competitor the second:

I agree with Erik ...I'm not saying it's bad, but I don't see any improvement either. I don't like the idea, because the judge has less responsibilities, as Shelley pointed out. [quote="Shelley":3nhx39kg]I don't like this idea because it takes some of the control away from the judge. When a competitor can remove the cover before the judge is ready to start timing, it potentially increases the number of incidents.[/quote:3nhx39kg] I like the idea, because in some situations (smaller competitions for example), when the judge is not an experienced one he might hurry up and uncover the puzzle when the competitor is not really ready. So, judging from the point of view of the solver (which is the most important), in some cases might be useful. Right now, I'm still for 51%-49% for keeping it as it is. I think this issue should be discussed further and maybe Tyson can bring his arguments why he thinks such a change is necessary.

I can see if the judge is ready to start inspection time or not, a judge can't see if I'm ready or not. Doing a solve should be about the judge helping and judging the competitor, by this I mean that the judge should be as 'invisible' as possible. With this change I will have to focus on the judge more than I am doing now. When the judge asks if I'm ready it is also a statement that HE/SHE is ready. Why try to solve something that is not a problem? There is absolutely not issue, no reason to change, the competitor can already influence when he or she wants to start.

[quote="StefanPochmann":p73a5t6p]Or by using double covers like this, the judge takes off the first and the competitor the second:[/quote:p73a5t6p] As a scrambler/judge, this would not be very fun to deal with. We have enough trouble getting one real cover per puzzle. With current regulations, if the judge does not have a proper cover, they can use the scorecard. Asking the cuber to remove the cover makes it an absolute requirement that for every solve the judge has a proper cover; this is not as easy as it sounds especially since some puzzles are not easy to fully cover. I like the current system because it places the control of the start of inspection in the judge's hands; it is much harder to cheat during the very start of the inspection phase if the judge removes the cover. On non-cubic puzzles such as Pyraminx or Square-1, it is not hard to imagine that in the act of removing the cover a cuber could do a turn on the puzzle, or have it roll off the table, or something similar.