Confusion over A6d and A6e
DavidWoner (2011-05-26 20:20:21 +0000)
# A6d) The competitor must fully release the puzzle before stopping the timer. Penalty: 2 seconds.
# A6e) The competitor must not touch or move the puzzle until the judge has inspected the puzzle. Penalty: disqualification of the solve.
It seems to me that if the competitor doesn't release the puzzle, then they are touching it before the judge has a chance to inspect it. Or in that case would a6e only apply if the competitor moves the puzzles or touches it [i:15u2vq2i]again[/i:15u2vq2i] after releasing it? As an example, would this solve be +2 or DNF and why? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCG1tp3dLrc
MadsMohr (2011-06-01 11:41:53 +0000)
I don't think that these two rules collide in this example but it should be a DNF anyway.
There is a clear +2 for stopping the timer the wrong way and a +2 for touching the puzzle while stopping the timer. As penalties do not stack then it's a DNF.
Sebastien (2011-06-01 15:25:18 +0000)
I don't agree with you Mads.
First of all it is possible to stop the timer correctly but still tooching the puzzle while stopping.
Also the rules say
[quote:2mhbrnh0]A6i) Time penalties for Ending the Solve are not cumulative. There is a maximum of 1 time penalty for Ending the Solve.[/quote:2mhbrnh0]
This does [b:2mhbrnh0]not[/b:2mhbrnh0] necessarily mean "+2" + "+2" = "DNF" and could also mean "+2" + "+2" = "+2" (I'd like so have some explanation there please...)
MadsMohr (2011-06-01 16:33:21 +0000)
Sebastien I only said something about the case in the video and nothing about the possibility for the rules to collide. I think it's clear that the competitor stopped it wrong and still touched the puzzle. So it's a DNF but not because of A6e. I do think that it's possible to stop the timer without a penalty and be touching the puzzle, just think about the magic event.
I agree with you on the confusion about penalty stacking. It can never be the intent that a competitor can perform two actions that are cause for a penalty and only get one +2. That was my reasoning behind the DNF argument.
Mike Hughey (2011-06-02 21:43:45 +0000)
I agree with you on the confusion about penalty stacking. It can never be the intent that a competitor can perform two actions that are cause for a penalty and only get one +2. That was my reasoning behind the DNF argument.[/quote:1m6sfo94]
Interesting. I actually thought that was the intent of the rule: that a competitor who performed two actions that are cause for a penalty would only be penalized once in the amount of the maximum penalty. So if a competitor has two +2 penalties while ending the solve, there should be a single +2 penalty. ("+2" + "+2" = "+2") It seems consistent to me with the way the rules are written, and it also makes the most sense to me - I'm actually surprised that someone would interpret it otherwise.
MadsMohr (2011-06-03 06:50:33 +0000)
I read it as it's possible to stack penalties for different actions eg. starting the solve wrong and ending it wrong. But if you make two errors in the same action it should be ruled as a DNF.
Sebastien (2011-06-05 10:41:24 +0000)
yes...from the formulation definetily both is possible.
Clarification from the board please...
r_517 (2011-06-09 22:32:36 +0000)
well i once asked a delegate (can't remember whom) two years ago about this and he said that if the judge believes that the competitor actually does any move (eg: change a 50 degrees misalignments to 40 degrees) after stopping the timer, it's a DNF; otherwise if the competitor doesn't do any actual move it's +2.
anyway i also think that these two rules should be clarified more clearly (especially for the two Magic events)