trialsoldtimer Posted February 10, 2009 Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 The definition of 'footing' includes when a rider benefits from any part of his body leaning on an obstacle without stopping the progress of the machine. Q1. What if part of the machine (eg. handlebar) 'leans' on an obstacle - is this ok? Q2. What if the machine stops - ie. can a rider stop and lean against a tree for a breather (engine running & both hands on bars) without suffering a penalty now that the stop & balance rule has been changed or have I missed something. Regarding a previous posting about limits of the section, the rule states the machine must stay within the intended limits of the section. This of course is open to differences of opinion but an experienced observer should be able to sort this out on the day if the flagging is inadequate. Alternatively, a simple rule of thumb would be to allow the front wheel to cross the imaginary straight line between markers but not the rear wheel - this would ensure that at least part of the machine stayed within the intended limits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phb Posted February 10, 2009 Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 The definition of 'footing' includes when a rider benefits from any part of his body leaning on an obstacle without stopping the progress of the machine.Q1. What if part of the machine (eg. handlebar) 'leans' on an obstacle - is this ok? no this is classed as footing and a 1 should be awarded as TSR 22[/color] Q2. What if the machine stops - ie. can a rider stop and lean against a tree for a breather (engine running & both hands on bars) without suffering a penalty now that the stop & balance rule has been changed or have I missed something. SAME AS Q1 Regarding a previous posting about limits of the section, the rule states the machine must stay within the intended limits of the section. This of course is open to differences of opinion but an experienced observer should be able to sort this out on the day if the flagging is inadequate. Alternatively, a simple rule of thumb would be to allow the front wheel to cross the imaginary straight line between markers but not the rear wheel - this would ensure that at least part of the machine stayed within the intended limits. SEE TSR 22 IT CLEARLY STATES THAT if any wheel of the machine crosses the boundary tape or marker whether the wheel be on the ground or airbourne before the front wheel spindle passes the section end sign, which is a failure so a 5 should be awarded, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trialsoldtimer Posted February 10, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 Thanks for your reply PHB but my point was why does the rule not say body &/or machine and also make reference to stopping, then it would be clear. Yet again ACU, another chance has been missed to get rid of ambiguities. The boundary rule you quoted is a different matter and surely refers to a riders front wheel passing a marker on the right hand side, not the LHS as I suggested. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete_scorpa3 Posted February 10, 2009 Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 Lean on a tree is marked just the same as putting your foot down. Under this years rules, even if you are stationary it still counts as a one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john collins Posted February 10, 2009 Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 Not really yet again ACU Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
penno350 Posted February 10, 2009 Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 Are the rules different for indoor then with all the "toe" action! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john collins Posted February 11, 2009 Report Share Posted February 11, 2009 Yes - Indoor rules are completely different. You probably also saw last Saturday how many times a few riders failed on one particular section - and then rolled completely back to start ( without footing) and then started again ! I think however in all cases the result was the same however many times they tried - failure! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trialsoldtimer Posted February 11, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 11, 2009 (edited) John C I might be having a 'senior' moment but I cannot find any reference to "... or any part of the machine (with exception of tyres or sump shield )" under TSR 22 DEFINITIONS - Footing Help please Edited February 11, 2009 by trialsoldtimer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john collins Posted February 11, 2009 Report Share Posted February 11, 2009 (edited) Apologies - trialsolder timer you are quite correct. 2008 TSR22 Definitions - ------- Footing - any part of riders body or machine ( with exception of tyres/sump guard) 2009 TSR 22 Definitions ---------Footing any part of riders body touches the ground or the rider benefits ----- In the 2009 book - the words or any part of machine ( and the bit in brackets re sump/tyres) have vanished! It is what is technically known as a balls up - and unless I have missed something I will now try to establish why. The bit about leaning and gaining benefit or not gaining benefit will of course still apply - but the bit about the machine should be there as far as I can work out. Only good part for me is that people are obviously reading the book ! Edited February 11, 2009 by John Collins Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wri5hty Posted February 11, 2009 Report Share Posted February 11, 2009 (edited) quick question john if i coc a trail and a observer gives a rider a 1 for leaning part of the bike against something and the rider complains. i would agree with the observer but if its not in the book even though its a mistake where would i stand. this must be what they mean by the unwritten rule. TSR 21 INSTRUCTIONS TO RIDERS any instructions to rider subsequently issued shal have the same force as these standing regulations and the supplementary regulations providing it is issued by one of the following methods. issued in writing and distributed to each rider issued via a clearly situated notice board via a riders briefing meeting so if i put a notice board at the signing on point stating it will be classed as footing if the machine touches ( and so on ). that should cover it right cheers paul Edited February 11, 2009 by wri5hty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john collins Posted February 11, 2009 Report Share Posted February 11, 2009 OK - will try to clear up. There is no need for you to put any notice anywhere - or worry about a rider " complaining". Somewhere you will see another post I replied to yesterday about some queries about why riders needed a handbook etc - and not just a basic set of rules. This is a very good example of why. When a rider signs on - he signs to say he acknowledges the event will be run under ACU National Sporting Code, Standing Trials Regs & any Final Instructions etc. In NSC ( included in handbook) 6.12 states that an Observer is an assistant to CC and appointed to judge a competitors performance - NO PROTEST OR APPEAL CAN BE ACCEPTED AGAINST A JUDGMENT MADE BY AN OBSERVER So in simple terms if the Observer decides a benefit was gained by leaning on a tree and gives a one - then one it is - no protest ( complaint) or Appeal can be considered - in other words the Observers judgment is final. Same if he judges a baulk has occured etc. It is a very good example of what I was trying to say somewher else about competitors having book - the Trials regs do not deal with Protest & Appeal procedure - it is all in NSC which is part of the ever thickening handbook. Of course riders ( or us for that matter) may not ead it that often - but they have it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bikespace Posted February 11, 2009 Report Share Posted February 11, 2009 (edited) OK - will try to clear up.There is no need for you to put any notice anywhere - or worry about a rider " complaining". When a rider signs on - he signs to say he acknowledges the event will be run under ACU National Sporting Code, Standing Trials Regs & any Final Instructions etc. In NSC ( included in handbook) 6.12 states that an Observer is an assistant to CC and appointed to judge a competitors performance - NO PROTEST OR APPEAL CAN BE ACCEPTED AGAINST A JUDGMENT MADE BY AN OBSERVER So in simple terms if the Observer decides a benefit was gained by leaning on a tree and gives a one - then one it is - no protest ( complaint) or Appeal can be considered - in other words the Observers judgment is final. Same if he judges a baulk has occured etc. I don't entirely agree (which is unusual as you're my Guru :-)). The judgement made by an observer is whether an observer deems that a rider has broken one of the rules, i.e. did he actually go backwards, or did he touch down with his foot, did he have outside assistance. You can't change that - it's what he saw. But...in my view, if the rule book just says his its a dab if his body touches, then the observer can't make a judgement call and say 'they meant body or machine so you're having a dab'. That's the observers interpretation of the rules which shouldn't be ambiguous, and the CoC should be happy to overrule if he believes the observer interpreted the rules incorrectly. I reckon that either needs confirming or correcting, not particularly for club trials, but for Nationals etc - not sure how it would be corrected - issue an errata with next version of ACU magazine? Just my thoughts anyway - open to a damned good slamming down as always :-) Edited February 11, 2009 by bikespace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete_scorpa3 Posted February 11, 2009 Report Share Posted February 11, 2009 (edited) I see what you mean. Previously I used the example of a rider who leant the end of his handle bar against a tree whilst weighing up a rock step, he didn't touch the tree with his body at all but got the one for gaining an advantage by touching the tree with his bike. Under the rules as written in the 2009 book, this situation could be open to debate. Like you say, if the rider appealed to the CotC and he read out the rule book, you could argue that the observer interpreted the rules incorrectly and the decision could be overturned. We all know what the rule is, but does it actually say it in writing? No, not this year. Edited February 11, 2009 by Pete_Scorpa3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john collins Posted February 12, 2009 Report Share Posted February 12, 2009 Yes - I have to agree with you both. No problem with the 2008 words - the Observer is making a judgment - and that judgment is based on the rules or regulations Because some words appear to have gone missing - it is difficult if not impossible for him to make a judgment on something that is not there. First I have to find out why it is not there - then unless there is something I have missed we will have to come up with a method to quickly make it right. I suppose in theory - if say all of page 202 was left out of handbook - we would not just abandon it all - but have to issue some guidelines - and it looks to me as if this is what we will have to do - unless as I have stated I have missed something Watch this space!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bikespace Posted February 12, 2009 Report Share Posted February 12, 2009 Spot on John - you're still my Guru :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.