Spectators touching popped pieces

Sebastien (2010-07-27 23:05:49 +0000)
During my last solve of the 4x4x4 event during Düsseldorf Open (which was actually really good until that point) a piece popped out of my cube and a spectator (non-cuber) took it from the ground even though I was shooting to him “nooooo”. I ruled my own solve DNF then but I was thinking a lot about it afterwards and now I’m not really sure if that decision was correct, even though I have always decided this way since I am delegate, because I have seen other delegates deciding that way before. What the regulation say about the solving phase is the following: [quote:2wjkk2ac]A5) During the solve * A5a) While inspecting or solving the puzzle, the competitor must not have any communication with anyone other than the judge. Penalty: disqualification of the solve. * A5b) While inspecting or solving the puzzle, the competitor must not have any assistance from anyone or any object (other than the surface). Penalty: disqualification of the solve. [/quote:2wjkk2ac] If a spectator picks up a popped piece, gives it to you and [b:2wjkk2ac]you take it[/b:2wjkk2ac], then this can clearly be seen as assistance from that spectator. But I can't see why it's illegal if a spectator just touches a piece. If you immediatly "Don't touch the piece" and a spectator touches it for a second because he is reacting too slow to what you are saying, this really cannot be consided as assitance. Same thing if the spectator picks up the piece and you tell him to put it back where he took it from to take it yourself afterwards, then there is no assitance by anyone. Now you can argue that there is communication by someone other than the judge in both settings. Though if you just shoot to a spectator which is about to touch a piece (which is actually also communication) and who does not touch it eventually, a solve isn't considered DNF either. I'm posting this because I'm just very unsure how to handle these cases in the future. Getting a solve disqualified because of having stupid people at a competition, i.e. a fact that you can't influence, just doesn't seem right to me at all.
Erik (2010-07-28 19:43:53 +0000)
It's a weird rule anyway, if someone touches your cube you get DNF. This would mean that other people than myself can DNF me (by touching after a pop or just simply walk up to me and poke the cube with their finger or anything). Although I'm not sure on how to solve this problem I think the situation of: 'pop and someone touches it' should rather be regulated towards 'spectators causing hinder to the solving' than to what we do now 'spectator is helping'. It's not helping at all namely... I'd also like to point out that it's quite pointless that people can't pick up a piece after a POP, it's not like the total sum of your time would be faster because of this. After all you already POPed..... I think we can all agree that a POP is not exactly helping your times ^^
Ron (2010-08-01 07:57:52 +0000)
If someone touches your puzzle or popped pieces, and you have a disadvantage from it, then you could claim a replacement solve. It is not a DNF if you did not ask that someone to touch it. Sébastien, you were too strict for yourself. In general I would just have the solve continue.
Sebastien (2010-08-03 13:44:17 +0000)
Thank you for clarification. It seems like "spectator touches your popped piece --> DNF" is a wrong fact a lot of people believe in Germany and nearby. I'll try to cope with that in future competitions.
BryanLogan (2010-08-04 09:39:36 +0000)
[quote="Ron":2etwjjmi]If someone touches your puzzle or popped pieces, and you have a disadvantage from it, then you could claim a replacement solve. It is not a DNF if you did not ask that someone to touch it. Sébastien, you were too strict for yourself. In general I would just have the solve continue.[/quote:2etwjjmi] But just to clarify, you (as in a regular competitor), can't claim a replacement solve, you can just ask for one and it's at the discretion of the judge if you truly had a disadvantage from it. I don't want people popping and then just assuming they'll get a replacement solve if someone touches the piece.
Dene (2010-08-06 11:41:19 +0000)
I had always thought like this too, as I was trained to think in California. But if Ron says we can continue then that's good.