Remove "combined rounds" in favor of an optional cutoff format. Closes #543 #544
Conversation
| - 9g) A Combined Round consists of two phases of attempts, where competitors advance to the second phase if they meet a designated cutoff during the first phase. | ||
| - 9g2) Whether a competitor proceeds to next phase of a Combined round must be decided by result (all competitors with a better result than x) of the first phase (see [Regulation 9f12](regulations:regulation:9f12)). | ||
| - 9g) If the round format is "Average of 5", a round may have a "Best of 2" cutoff phase where the competitor must meet a given cutoff for either of the first two solves (e.g. a result better than X seconds) in order to be eligible for the remaining three attempts. | ||
| - 9g1) Any cutoff must be announced before the round starts, and should not be changed after it has begun. Changes must be made at the discretion of the WCA Delegate, who must carefully consider the fairness of the change. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@thewca/wrc-team I believe that cutoffs are sometimes changed in practice, so I'm copying the regulation for time limits. Let me know if you think we need to lock down cutoffs (but not time limits) more than trusting the judge's discretion.
lgarron
force-pushed
the
remove-combined-rounds
branch
from
5d6c1a5
to
cbaed93
Compare
| @@ -156,7 +158,7 @@ To be more informative, each Guideline is classified using one of the following | |||
| - A1a2+++) [CLARIFICATION] In case of a cumulative time limit, the result of each remaining attempt in the round is recorded as DNS (Did Not Start) after a competitor reaches the time limit. | |||
| - A1a2++++) [ADDITION] If a cumulative time limit for a single event or a combination of events is enforced, such events don't have a regular time limit per solve. | |||
| - A1a2+++++) [CLARIFICATION] Events where a time limit per attempt is defined by the Regulations (3x3x3 Fewest Moves and 3x3x3 Multi-Blind) must not have a cumulative time limit. | |||
| - A1a3+) [REMINDER] The organization team and the WCA Delegate must be mindful that time limits influence the strategies of the competitors (e.g. rushing the first two attempts in hopes of meeting a cutoff in a combined round), and that changing time limits after the start of the round can disadvantage some competitors unfairly. | |||
| - A1a3+) [REMINDER] The organization team and the WCA Delegate must be mindful that time limits influence the strategies of the competitors (e.g. rushing the first two attempts in hopes of meeting a cutoff), and that changing time limits after the start of the round can disadvantage some competitors unfairly. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I didn't make a copy of this for cutoffs, but I wouldn't be opposed to it either.
(If we added something like this for cutoffs, I think we should make it more concise and point at A1a3+ so that the spirit of the guideline is encapsulated in one place.)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hmm, it's weird to me that A1a3+) starts speaking of "time limits" and the example that lists talks about "cutoffs" :P I never thought about that before, but now that I did, I don't like the wording of this Guideline.
lgarron
force-pushed
the
remove-combined-rounds
branch
from
cbaed93
to
64ac5bc
Compare
|
9b is indeed quite weird, it doesn't mention bo1/mo3 (often seen in big cubes or old feet), and bo2/bo3 (often seen in 3BLD). I think we should add those 2 other format (bo1/mo3 to 9b2, and bo2/mo3 to 9b3), if we're sure these 3 formats are the only ones that happened. |
| @@ -128,7 +128,9 @@ To be more informative, each Guideline is classified using one of the following | |||
| - 9b3b+) [CLARIFICATION] The "Mean of 3" statistic does not affect the competitor's ranking in a "Best of 3" round (which is based on the best result). The WCA recognizes it outside of the competition format. | |||
| - 9f1+) [EXAMPLE] If the timer displays 12.678 for an attempt, the original recorded time is 12.67 (drop any digit after a hundredth of a second). A judge may write the full-precision time on the score sheet (and keep the precision in the calculation of penalties), as long as the score taker truncates it for the official results. | |||
| - 9f4+) [EXPLANATION] The result of an attempt is DNF only if the competitor began the attempt by indicating that they are ready (see [Regulation A3b2](regulations:regulation:A3b2)) but the attempt was disqualified. | |||
| - 9f5+) [CLARIFICATION] The result for an attempt is DNS if the competitor was eligible for the attempt and did not start it (see [Regulation A3b2](regulations:regulation:A3b2)). If the competitor did not qualify for an attempt (e.g. in a combined round), they have no result for the attempt. | |||
| - 9f5+) [CLARIFICATION] The result for an attempt is DNS if the competitor was eligible for the attempt and did not start it (see [Regulation A3b2](regulations:regulation:A3b2)). If the competitor did not qualify for an attempt (e.g. see [Guideline 9g+](guidelines:guideline:9g+)), they have no result for the attempt. | |||
| - 9g+) [CLARIFICATION] A competitor who does not meet the cutoff result during the cutoff phase solves has no results for the remaining solves (rather than a result of DNS for each of the remaining solves). | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think it's strange to use the phrase "cutoff result" here, where in regulation 9g we say "designated cutoff".
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nit: I'm not sure the word "solves" has any value in the phrase "cutoff phase solves". I'd consider replacing that with simply "cutoff phase".
|
@lgarron I disagree with your interpretation of 9b). What it does in my opinion is to only fix the format of Combined rounds for 9b1) events to Bo2/Ao5 (i.e. preventing Bo1/Ao5 and Bo3/Ao5). There is simply no such limitation for 9b2) and 9b3) events (even though I would personally prefer this). |
| @@ -252,8 +252,8 @@ Note: Because Article and Regulation numbers are not reassigned when Regulations | |||
| - 9f13) For "Mean of 3" and "Average of 5" rounds, rankings are assessed based on the ordering of the averages/means of the competitors, where "better" is the shorter recorded time. | |||
| - 9f14) For "Mean of 3" and "Average of 5" rounds, if two or more competitors achieve identical average/mean results, rankings are assessed based on the best attempt per competitor, where "better" is defined as the shorter time. | |||
| - 9f15) Competitors who achieve the same result in a round receive an identical ranking for the round. | |||
| - 9g) A Combined Round consists of two phases of attempts, where competitors advance to the second phase if they meet a designated cutoff during the first phase. | |||
| - 9g2) Whether a competitor proceeds to next phase of a Combined round must be decided by result (all competitors with a better result than x) of the first phase (see [Regulation 9f12](regulations:regulation:9f12)). | |||
| - 9g) If the round format is "Average of 5", a round may have a "Best of 2" cutoff phase where the competitor must meet a given cutoff with either of the first two solves (e.g. a result better than X seconds) in order to be eligible for the remaining three attempts. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hmm, this wording is a little awkward to me. The term "phase" seems unnecessary.
How about...
9g) A round may have a designated cutoff, where competitors must meet the cutoff time with one of their first solves in order to be eligible for for the remaining attempts.
9g1) If the round format is "Average of 5", the competitor must meet the cutoff time with one of their first two solves.
9g2) For other round formats, the competitor must meet the cutoff time either with their first solve or with one of their first two solves. This must be announced by the organization team in advance.
I don't like the word "this" in 9g2, but thoughts?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We recently did a pass over the regulations to make sure there aren't any oversights with regards to multibld and fmc. Using the phrase "cutoff time" would break this for multibld (something that I believe was used at worlds in France recently).
Otherwise, I definitely like getting rid of the concept of "phases". I know many people like to think of cutoffs in this way, but I personally think it's a confusing concept, and is not the way I explain the idea to newcomers.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Good point. How about "cutoff result" instead?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That sounds better. I'm not sure if we define what it means to "meet" a result anywhere, though. I don't have time to check the regulations, but I think we do define what a "better" result is, so it might be better to use the word "better" here rather than "meet".
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes please! "Better" instead of "meet", "result" instead of "time".
lgarron
force-pushed
the
remove-combined-rounds
branch
from
64ac5bc
to
54b6418
Compare
lgarron
changed the title
lgarron
force-pushed
the
remove-combined-rounds
branch
from
54b6418
to
eb4e39f
Compare
|
https://euro2016.cubing.net/schedule This is an example of bo1/bo2 for multibld. Note that the first attempt has a cutoff time. |
|
It looks like this should be changed to explicitly allow more combined round formats, but I'll hold off on revising until we can come to consensus in #543 whether we should really get rid of the phrase "combined round" and/or if we should replace it with another phrase. |
|
I think that at local side event comp (eg. 67 mega), there is a chance that the cutoff from the first round will apply to the second round if unfinished averages manage to advance. Having both a 'combined first' and a 'combined finals' is weird. |
|
Closing this for now. |
No description provided.