Dear WCA Community,
We on the WCA Regulations Committee (WRC) have been very busy in the last quarter! Here are some updates to the committee:
- Carter Kucala was selected as the new WRC Leader in June!
- We are starting to work on getting more up to date translations of the WCA Regulations on the WCA website. If you have knowledge of a language other than English and would like to translate the regulations, please reach out to us!
- We have released a merged version of the WCA Regulations! This merged version includes all of the Regulations and Guidelines in one place.
- We are still accepting proposals for the 2025 Regulations! Please see this forum post for more information.
Additionally, we have been really busy resolving incidents from competitions. In this past quarter we have resolved over 100 incidents! Some of these can be seen below:
-
A competitor had special needs and a difficulty understanding information from others. In some of their attempts, they exceeded 17 seconds of inspection. In a later round, the delegates allowed the competitor’s mother to help in explaining to the competitor when they should start their solves (so as to correctly use inspection time without penalty). The WRC decided that Regulation 2s does not apply in changing the results for the first situation in which the competitor exceeded the inspection time without assistance, so these results remained as DNFs. The WRC agreed that having the competitor’s mother assist in inspection is a reasonable and acceptable accommodation under 2s. As a reminder, competitors who need accommodations should contact their delegate as soon as possible, preferably at least 2 weeks prior to the competition (as indicated in 2s).
-
It was recently noticed from a video that during a solve, a competitor’s timer malfunctioned and the tens-place digit of the timer suddenly changed from 1 to 0, thus causing 10 seconds to be deducted from the total time while the timer was running. The final recorded result of the attempt was consistent with the time shown on the malfunctioned timer. After analyzing the footage and an internal discussion, as well as consulting the WRT, the WRC decided to add 10 seconds to the original result. This was also backed by framecounting, which led the WRC to believe that the original time was about 10 seconds quicker, if not exactly 10 seconds quicker.
-
A competitor corrected a suspected corner twist during a solve and, while reaching the end of the attempt, realized that he had another one and decided to correct both at the end (with a single twist for each). A situation of multiple twists has been encountered in the past, wherein the competitor accidentally twisted a corner, fixed the corner twist, then had another accidental corner twist that they subsequently fixed again (twist – fix – twist – fix). However, in the current case, the competitor dealt with the situation as twist – twist – fix – fix. The WRC outlines that the primary goal of Regulation 5b3c is to ensure that the number of intentional corner twists never exceeds that of the accidental ones. Since this wasn’t violated in any way and the competitor didn’t try to gain an advantage by preserving the twists for a particular stage (say OLL), the attempt was deemed valid and the solve remained. The WRC would like to highlight, however, that this decision does not serve as a precedent to allow multiple intentional corner twists in general, something that will be revisited in the next regulation cycle.
-
In recent times, there has been a more elaborate discussion regarding the legality of wearable electronics such as smart glasses. An example of these would be a pair of glasses that can record video, play audio, and respond to voice commands. While this is already considered to be illegal under Regulation 2i, the WRC would like to clarify that these smart glasses would not be allowed. The camera aspect is covered by Regulation 2i2, and the headphone-like speakers are explicitly forbidden by Regulation 2i1b, even if turned off. However, if the competitor is genuinely using these glasses for a medical reason (i.e. they have prescription lenses) and doesn’t have a non-electronic alternative, it is at the delegate’s discretion to allow them under Regulation 2i1a, as long as none of the other features are being used to get an advantage.
-
A competitor submitted a different cube instead of their main one for a competition. Upon starting their first solve and performing two moves, they realized it was not their cube. They later recognized that it was indeed their cube, as a function of a mistaken cube swap at a previous competition the week before. The confusion was entirely genuine. The delegate provided a provisional extra. While incidents like this are left to delegate discretion, the general recommendation is a DNF. Reasons behind the recommendation include the fact that competitors are usually intimately familiar with their own puzzles and can be expected to recognize them, and that potential for abuse for this incident is higher.
-
A competitor signed a scoresheet with a small mark/dot instead of their initials or signature, as they were unhappy with the solve. The WRC concluded that the solve and result should stand. The mark was not obviously a signature, but the regulations are not overly clear on what constitutes a signature at the current time. The WRC also recognizes the diversity around the world in how scorecards are signed. Competitors should still sign the scoresheet with their initials or other clear, designated signature to clearly indicate their acceptance of a result and to avoid any confusion.
-
A few competitors realized post-competition that they had received incorrect scrambles on numerous occasions across various short events, primarily pyraminx. While the scramblers were found, the delegates found no malicious intent and fairly assessed that it was simple errors that compounded due to carelessness. The WRC concluded that the best plan of action was to remove the affected round of the event. The scale of this incident was much larger than usual, with nearly 70% of all scrambles being misscrambles and extremely limited videographic evidence to prove/disprove their advantage over others. We would like to remind scramblers that it is extremely important to check the scrambles thoroughly before sending them out, ensuring that the scrambled cube matches the scramble image.
-
There was an incident in the first two groups of 7×7 at a competition, where the scramblers had mistakenly sent out cubes to the second group using the set of scrambles for the first group. The delegates realized this, stopped the round, and repeated the attempts for competitors of group 2 who had been helping out as judges, scramblers or runners for group 1. Other competitors in group 2 (who did not staff in group 1) did not have to repeat their attempts. Incidents like this are considered a breach of scramble secrecy, and all competitors in group 2 should have received extras. In this particular instance, the WRC concluded that the solves may stand using the reasoning that 7×7 is not a scramble-dependent event, there is no evidence any advantage was gained, and there was no wrongdoing on the part of the affected competitors. This decision is highly context-dependent and delegates should not use it as a precedent to allow any scramble secrecy breaches at their own competitions – extra attempts should be given instead.
-
A competitor was caught in a frenzy of misplaced scrambles and cubes, receiving a different cube on one occasion and a particular scramble more than once. The competitor DNFed two attempts, which gave them the impression that they would DNF the average. However, it was noticed after the round that one of these was actually a duplicate scramble, which meant that it wasn’t fair to retain the DNF on it. Since they could still get an average on the remaining solves that were originally DNSed by them, the WRC decided under Regulation 11d that it was best to leave this to delegate discretion in the pretext of fair sportsmanship. The solves were re-ordered appropriately and the remaining attempts were granted back to the competitor under such unique circumstances.
-
A delegate was competing at a competition and received another competitor’s cube on a 4×4 solve. While the delegate wasn’t distracted by this, he realized and decided to grant himself an extra after the solve, resetting the timer immediately before it was recorded by the judge. There was a split opinion amongst the other delegates at this competition as to whether this warranted the extra, since another competitor also had a similar issue but didn’t receive an extra on account of not being distracted. While the WRC decided to leave this up to delegate discretion, we strongly advised that the original attempt (in this case, DNF) be kept, as the competitor did not request an extra until the solve was complete (see 11e+++)
-
A competitor was found to be wearing headphones while competing. The headphones were disconnected and were clearly broken (the competitor had cut the headphone cables). The WRC decided to keep the result, indicating that headphones that are clearly broken can be considered non-electronic for the purposes of Regulation 2i. As a kind reminder, disconnected headphones are NOT allowed if they still have electronic parts (see 2i).
If you ever have any questions about the Regulations or how they are applied, please reach out to the WRC at regulations@worldcubeassociation.org.
Source:: worldcubeassociation