I expected this, even though I don’t necessarily agree with the ruling. From what I know the judge initially explicitly stated that he did not inspect the puzzle before Yiheng touched/turned it and that was the reason he got a DNF. The question here was never “Was the cube solved?”, it was only about “Did he touch and turn the cube before the judge inspected it?”. That’s why I agree with the last sentence about video evidence of the solved state as it’s irrelevant. But the regulation needs clarification and this is a grey area, so I can live with the ruling. Don’t know how all those feel about this, who got penalties for the exact same violation…
The part about how the judge has to "inspect" the puzzle before the competitor touches it is vague and nebulous. Kind of like when on a driving test, you look at the rear view mirror, but the driving instructor doesn't notice that you did because you didn't turn your head, just your eyes, so he gives you a penalty for not looking at the rear view mirror. Simple solution, just change the rule to you are not allowed to touch the puzzle until it is signed.
9:23 honestly they should just streigth up change it to sign instead of inspect. That's what begginers believe so that wont affect the average person, and would be much clearer. Also no reoactive because it wouldn't make sence to be reoactive.
Really nice video. This style of video is a lot better than some of the others in my opinion, here you straight away give context, sometimes I feel lost as you are the only cubing news channel I watch, today I knew exactly what was going on, It was also nice to not have random chatters comments read out, that interrupts it a bit haha. nice, keep it up.
Hey thanks! I enjoy making these ones off the cuff as things happen :) I can’t stream this week so I have a few more in a similar style planned, I’ll see how they go 🙏
I got an unrelated question: why do they livestream some championships? That doesn't make any sence, I could just go to a championship and memorise what triple x cross yiheng used, and I never saw anyone stop me drom using phones on the waiting area. Like, the scrambles pdf is encrypted but in the biggest competition in the world the scrambles are free to peek?
Unbelievible, i have 0 hatred towards yiheng absolutely 0 and if it was any other cuber i would say the same thing, but he broke the rules and he should have a dnf clear as light
I completely disagree with the decision, a rule was broken and he wasnt penalized for it, which even if you feel bad for him, as the world association you shouldnt let things like this slide Ig i kinda get why theyd want to bring it back, but THIS feels unfair imo A better decision would be to keep the result, but change the rules for them to make sense with the solve, because as of now they reinstated an illegal time, and operate around a rule that i consider nonsensical
That last sentence from the WRC has the same vibe of why the sliding controversy existed in the first place. The WRC previously disallowed frame-by-frame analysis for timer starts and stops, if they had allowed fbf there would not be a controversy at all. Even now, the WRC still does not want to use fbf for timer stops, and this particular incident where video evidence is most useful. As cubing becomes more competitive, some new controversy will eventually arise, and the WCA will have to decide whether to retroactively apply new rules again.
While I like the outcome, I don't love the reasoning used to get there or the implied treatment of similar cases in the future. Imo the reasons this shouldn't have been DNFed are that A) we had video evidence it was solved, so we know for a fact that him doing turns didn't actually change anything about the legitimacy of the solve, and B ) the judge had started writing the time down so there was a reasonable expectation that the puzzle had actually been inspected. I don't much like the idea that *enough time having passed* is alone sufficient justification for A6e to be broken, or that video evidence wouldn't be taken into account. As you point out, it feels unlikely to me that this would actually produce a significant increase in WRC workload - and also ruling on cases like this *is their job* . They shouldn't prioritise *minimizing their workload* over interpreting incidents in a fair way - particularly in the wake of the sliding fiasco, where they explicitly outlined cases where they would use video evidence to penalise competitors. Imo it should swing both ways - if you're gonna use video evidence to penalise in situations where the judge couldnt make a clear ruling in real time, you should also use it to *support* competitors
Analyzing timer starts for sliding also leads to an undesirable increase in workload for Delegates and the WRC from assessing such videos. Weak excuse. Do the right thing.
@ what are you saying? He broke a rule and they’re allowing it. If I turn my cube after a solve I get a DNF. How is this not an obvious double standard.
@@wesleytwiggs7687 Ok then how come WRC allowed it when Matty, Weyer and French NR did it. A6e was even tweaked just so Weyer could keep his record and everyone went along with it. You're saying this instatement is double standards but ironically enough, rallying to penalize Yi Heng in the first place *is* the double standard here.
Ruihang Xu now holds the Asr not Yusheng
Dang it! Thanks for the correction, pinned 🙏❤️
@Speedcubenz yeah no problem, keep up the amazing work!
I remember back then there was a rule saying that the judge should say "OK", "+2", or "DNF" after every solve
Uh... The ok rule still exists... Simply nobody does it.
Still a rule; it's essentially de jure
I expected this, even though I don’t necessarily agree with the ruling. From what I know the judge initially explicitly stated that he did not inspect the puzzle before Yiheng touched/turned it and that was the reason he got a DNF. The question here was never “Was the cube solved?”, it was only about “Did he touch and turn the cube before the judge inspected it?”. That’s why I agree with the last sentence about video evidence of the solved state as it’s irrelevant. But the regulation needs clarification and this is a grey area, so I can live with the ruling. Don’t know how all those feel about this, who got penalties for the exact same violation…
@@curiousNic spot on, completely agree with this
@ 🫶
The part about how the judge has to "inspect" the puzzle before the competitor touches it is vague and nebulous.
Kind of like when on a driving test, you look at the rear view mirror, but the driving instructor doesn't notice that you did because you didn't turn your head, just your eyes, so he gives you a penalty for not looking at the rear view mirror.
Simple solution, just change the rule to you are not allowed to touch the puzzle until it is signed.
9:23 honestly they should just streigth up change it to sign instead of inspect. That's what begginers believe so that wont affect the average person, and would be much clearer. Also no reoactive because it wouldn't make sence to be reoactive.
Panagiotis Christopoulos here. I still dont understand how they reached the conclusion. Whats the reg that says that a Judge's brief look is enough?
Maybe the competitor needs to wait for verbal confirmation from the judge that they have verified that it's solved.
That’s one possible solution yeah. Whatever it is though it needs to be stated explicitly in the regs I think.
Really nice video.
This style of video is a lot better than some of the others in my opinion, here you straight away give context, sometimes I feel lost as you are the only cubing news channel I watch, today I knew exactly what was going on,
It was also nice to not have random chatters comments read out, that interrupts it a bit haha.
nice, keep it up.
Hey thanks! I enjoy making these ones off the cuff as things happen :)
I can’t stream this week so I have a few more in a similar style planned, I’ll see how they go 🙏
Just don't touch the cube 4Head
Imagine being so fast the rules change cuz of you
I got an unrelated question: why do they livestream some championships? That doesn't make any sence, I could just go to a championship and memorise what triple x cross yiheng used, and I never saw anyone stop me drom using phones on the waiting area. Like, the scrambles pdf is encrypted but in the biggest competition in the world the scrambles are free to peek?
Ruihang still has it
whats the average of the solves now tho
Unbelievible, i have 0 hatred towards yiheng absolutely 0 and if it was any other cuber i would say the same thing, but he broke the rules and he should have a dnf clear as light
I havent watched the full video but I don't have an issue with this ruling
I completely disagree with the decision, a rule was broken and he wasnt penalized for it, which even if you feel bad for him, as the world association you shouldnt let things like this slide
Ig i kinda get why theyd want to bring it back, but THIS feels unfair imo
A better decision would be to keep the result, but change the rules for them to make sense with the solve, because as of now they reinstated an illegal time, and operate around a rule that i consider nonsensical
5:20 it was clearly solved, and video proof is more than enought. + WRC said they WOULD use video proof to remove penalties.
Edit: 5:33 why?
I think this is an example of Chinese delegates in particular being very strict, stricter than any other place I've been.
Is it possible they’re extra strict with yiheng cause they don’t want to get pulled up for favouritism after the fact?
@Speedcubenz nope they are also very strict with me and everyone else too haha
@@Speedcubenzdon't think so. I've never been to china but everyone knows the chinese culture us very strict in general.
That last sentence from the WRC has the same vibe of why the sliding controversy existed in the first place. The WRC previously disallowed frame-by-frame analysis for timer starts and stops, if they had allowed fbf there would not be a controversy at all. Even now, the WRC still does not want to use fbf for timer stops, and this particular incident where video evidence is most useful. As cubing becomes more competitive, some new controversy will eventually arise, and the WCA will have to decide whether to retroactively apply new rules again.
He broke the regs.
why should we treat him any diffrent
While I like the outcome, I don't love the reasoning used to get there or the implied treatment of similar cases in the future. Imo the reasons this shouldn't have been DNFed are that A) we had video evidence it was solved, so we know for a fact that him doing turns didn't actually change anything about the legitimacy of the solve, and B ) the judge had started writing the time down so there was a reasonable expectation that the puzzle had actually been inspected. I don't much like the idea that *enough time having passed* is alone sufficient justification for A6e to be broken, or that video evidence wouldn't be taken into account. As you point out, it feels unlikely to me that this would actually produce a significant increase in WRC workload - and also ruling on cases like this *is their job* . They shouldn't prioritise *minimizing their workload* over interpreting incidents in a fair way - particularly in the wake of the sliding fiasco, where they explicitly outlined cases where they would use video evidence to penalise competitors. Imo it should swing both ways - if you're gonna use video evidence to penalise in situations where the judge couldnt make a clear ruling in real time, you should also use it to *support* competitors
this is so well said👍I have raised similar concerns in my comment
Kinda like Yiheng’s 2 by 2 0.92(0.93? Whatever) former(?) WR
i’m glad they brought this back
Analyzing timer starts for sliding also leads to an undesirable increase in workload for Delegates and the WRC from assessing such videos. Weak excuse. Do the right thing.
The rules don’t apply to you when you’re a kid I guess
This ain't about it. Many top cubers had done the same thing. Just wasn't brought to attention.
@ what are you saying? He broke a rule and they’re allowing it. If I turn my cube after a solve I get a DNF. How is this not an obvious double standard.
@@wesleytwiggs7687 Ok then how come WRC allowed it when Matty, Weyer and French NR did it.
A6e was even tweaked just so Weyer could keep his record and everyone went along with it. You're saying this instatement is double standards but ironically enough, rallying to penalize Yi Heng in the first place *is* the double standard here.
@ sounds like it’s a double standard for pros then. If you’re a pro you don’t have to follow the rules lol.
First
Proud of u