Hi friends, I think everything has been said now about extra attempt for pops. Thank you all for your input. There is still a majority favoring no extra attempts for pops, even for the bigger cubes. In return these cubers get 5 instead of 3 attempts. Let us see what 2006 brings.
Stefan, for WC2003 there were no clear regulations about the cubing itself. Actually there were a few people (even finalists) getting extra attempts for having the last face not correctly aligned. On one occasion there was someone getting two extra attempts for the same cube. And each of the three scrambles was the same! There was also no limit for pops, so there was someone who had 3 pops, and received 3 extra attempts. Another thing was that the regulations were very personal, one judge would react differently than another judge. We should be happy now that we have good regulations. :-) About the twisted center corner of Masayuki Akimoto. It is my mistake that the twisted center corner for Masayuki for his 5x5x5 attempt was not allowed. The judge came to me together with Masayuki, and asked me whether it was allowed or not. Even Masayuki said that he would not have a problem if it were not allowed. I was in doubt at that moment, so I should have checked the regulations. The regulations 2005 say: " All pieces of the puzzle must be ATTACHED to the puzzle for it to be solved. If a piece of the puzzle is EJECTED as the puzzle is placed down but it is otherwise solved, then the puzzle is not considered to be in a solved state. " The piece was attached, but ejected and not in solved position. Reading back now I think it should have been allowed. I am glad in the end it did not make much of a difference. Although I am not sure whether it was Masayuki's fastest time of the competition and thus a Japanese record. My mistake. Sorry. Lesson learnt. About the center corner of 5x5x5 being broken. The regulations 2005 say: "If a non functional part of a puzzle is defect/ejected and the puzzle is still unambiguously in a solved state, then the puzzle is considered solved, under discretion of the judge." In this case you could consider the flat part of the center corner to be a non functional part, because the inner part of the center is still in place. If the puzzle is unambiguously in a solved state, so only one of the center corners with this problem, then the puzzle should be considered solved. Looking forward to more competitions in 2006 in more countries, with even more fun. Have fun, Ron ----- Original Message ----- From: Per Kristen Fredlund To: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2005 6:36 PM Subject: [Speed cubing group] Re: 2006 Regulation Revisions Hi ! That's more evidence to keep the current rule, allowing ONE pop. It really is no problem timewise to allow a few ppl one more solve due to (accidental) pop. And ppl can cube faster more relaxed, not having to worry too much about pops. Anyway, i feel this topic is "out-debated". What happens will happen. Unless the WCA board decides that we gonna have a vote or something over it :-) I have written lots here about popping, but still my main concerns are that twisting centers should be allowed and also a single broken center (or any single cubie) as long as there is no ambiguity the cube/puzzle is solved. There is no way to benefit from those cube defects :-) -Per > --- In [email protected], "Stefan Pochmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], Lars Petrus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > I was imagining some future competition with more attempts, maybe 10 > or > > 20, and every solve counting. > > Ah, ok. Yeah, that would be nice :-). The more solves the better. Uh, > except that more solves require fewer or faster competitors or fewer > rounds... > > > If there were really no pops at all in the latest final, that does > show > > it's not much to worry about, at least for people in that level. > > Yes, there really weren't any. And only 2 (declared) pops in the semi > final, i.e. 2 pops in 182 solves (36 competitors). Don't know about > round 1, there are no pops but dnfs and they could mean anything. > > Looking at the WC 2003 results, I don't see any pops at all. But I > could imagine that the free-replacement-for-pops rule didn't exist > back then, is that correct? > > http://www.speedcubing.com/events/wc2005.html > http://www.speedcubing.com/events/wc2003/wc2003_results.html > > Cheers! > Stefan > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "speedsolvingrubikscube" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/MXMplB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/speedsolvingrubikscube/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
