07.10.2013, 02:07 (Dieser Beitrag wurde zuletzt bearbeitet: 07.10.2013, 02:10 von Kko14.)
Es wird noch zu klären sein, ob das ein WR ist.
Beim 2. solve hat der Judge nämlich geschlafen und erst bei ca. 12s "8seconds" gesagt.
Inspection-Zeit war dann letztenlich bei etwas über 16s.
Eigentlich dürfte der 2. solve somit nicht zählen.
Ich hoffe, dass er trotzdem zählt.
Das wäre ja schon traurig, wenn das wegen einem schlafenden Judge keine WR ist.
Die zugehörige Diskussion ist ab Seite 5 oder 6 des Speedsolving-Threads zu finden.
(07.10.2013, 02:07)Kko14 schrieb: Es wird noch zu klären sein, ob das ein WR ist.
Beim 2. solve hat der Judge nämlich geschlafen und erst bei ca. 12s "8seconds" gesagt.
Inspection-Zeit war dann letztenlich bei etwas über 16s.
Eigentlich dürfte der 2. solve somit nicht zählen.
Ich hoffe, dass er trotzdem zählt.
Das wäre ja schon traurig, wenn das wegen einem schlafenden Judge keine WR ist.
Die zugehörige Diskussion ist ab Seite 5 oder 6 des Speedsolving-Threads zu finden.
In Frankfurt meine ich eine ähnliche Situation mitbekommen zu haben, als ein Judge erst nach 15 Sekunden "Go" sagte. Der Solve wurde aber gewertet.
09.10.2013, 08:22 (Dieser Beitrag wurde zuletzt bearbeitet: 09.10.2013, 08:22 von Ben.)
Tim Reynolds schrieb:Dear community,
At Cubetcha 2013, there was an incident in which Christopher Olson likely spent slightly more than 15 seconds of inspection. Based on the Delegate Report by Bryan Logan, who judged the solve, and a video of Christopher's average, the Board has decided that we will accept the times as official and not apply any penalty.
During the attempt, Bryan, who judged the questioned attempt, was distracted while timing the preinspection and as a result did not notify Christopher that 8 and 12 seconds had elapsed, which violated regulations A3d2 and A3d3. According to the video, as well as reports from both Christopher and Bryan, Bryan said "8" at 13 seconds or later. Christopher promptly started the solve right after this call.
While we believe that Christopher likely started his attempt after 15 seconds of inspection had elapsed, this was due to judging error, and therefore this is an incident by regulation 11a1. Following regulations 11b and 11d, Bryan acting as delegate made the decision to allow Christopher to continue his solve without penalty based on fair sportsmanship.
Bryan acknowledged in his Delegate Report that he should have given Christopher an extra solve. The Board agrees with Bryan, and asks all judges who execute the judging procedure incorrectly in future competitions to please notify the Delegate as soon as possible so that an extra attempt may be granted if possible.
But as this option is now no longer available, the Board has decided not to overturn Bryan's decision, and we do not believe that overturning his decision at this time would be the most fair decision. We also do not believe that there was any malicious intent on the part of Bryan or Christopher.
During the incident's discussion, some competitors have compared this incident to the one described viewtopic.php?f=9&t=959, where a solve was retroactively disqualified. We want to emphasize that these incidents are fundamentally different, as in that case, the competitor's error was not the direct result of judging error.
Finally, while we officially blame this incident on an error by Bryan Logan, we understand the fact that those people who take on the most work and responsibility during competitions will inevitably make errors periodically. It is unfortunate that this error came during Christopher's World Record average. We thank Bryan for his years of hard work to spread cubing.
