This is exactly why no-stop will fail at top level.

"Stop for a one" would be far easier to observe.

I think this highlights how potentially damaging "no stop" could be for our sport. For many years tennis had arguements over disputed points so they brought in hawkeye, football is looking at goal line technology and rugby uses the tv referee. It is sad that at the top level, unless each competitor is video recorded from a number of angles in each section the decision will rest with the observer and it will be the observer who incurs the wrath of the the competitor. Who will want to observe with this added responsibility? What happens at lower levels where video is not an option and observers give up their time for a coffee a burger and the love of the sport?

Still, new bike sales must be booming!

I observed at the wallace in 2012 under no stop rules and tbh it was one of the most sressful days of my life!

So everyone agree that it's going to be hell to observe and completely impossibly to understand as a spectator?

Wouldn't that lead to less people starting with trials? (When they don't understand what's going on and what the rider did to get a clean or a five?)

How can that lead to more bike sales? (As that is the reason used by the FIM I believe it's very important to judge how relevant this rule is upon expected and actual bike sales)

Personally I'm in the process of buying a new bike, but as my local series are thinking about going No Stop next year I'm very hesitant. No stop when looking at fujigas looks like a lame version of extreme enduro to me, not exciting at all.

the forward motion part of non stop seems non existant on both the examples and the guidance to observers.

both examples are 5's if you believe non stop means a lack of forward motion. if you stop the forward motion of the front wheel to lift / re position the real whell that is a stop.. however the fim dont seem to read it that way..

I observed at the wallace in 2012 under no stop rules and tbh it was one of the most sressful days of my life!

Did you find your section or did you have to make one of your own?

"Stop for a one" would be far easier to observe.

So stop for a 1 is easy to observe, but stop for a 5 isn't ?

Same call, did they stop or didn't they ?

The No stop rules will always split opinions, after seeing the video clips and also the FIM observing tutorial video it is clear that at this level of competition it clearly doesn't work.

Stop allowed makes it easy to decide who loses marks and who doesn't.

I have also seen the same problems with the new rules at club level, leaving both riders and observers feeling annoyed and confused.

Bikes have moved forward, riders skills have moved forward, so why used rules which have been left behind and cause problems for everyone involved.

Balance is a major part of trials which we should encourage, if its all about getting the riders through the sections quicker, they should just shorten the time limit.

In my opinion the No stop rule shouldn't be discarded, but they should only be only used for pre 65 and twin shock trials.

So stop for a 1 is easy to observe, but stop for a 5 isn't ?

Same call, did they stop or didn't they ?

Yes but rather than have a confrontation for a 5 you gey a moan for a 1, human nature?

shirley a stop is a stop no matter how quick it is they've still stopped the new rule is unworkable in modern trials?

Old rules if they rolled back it was a 5? How many times did the observer mark to the rule then?

All rules are open for discussion and it is the ''VOLUNTEER'' observer on the day to give what he thinks is right?

I think the showmanship of a stop balance hop .... added suspense to the movement through the section of the rider and its great to watch, but its also great to watch some one forcing a bike to keep moving through a section to.

To me it looked like he was trying to keep moving in the first vid

Edited because i wish i was wise enough not to comment

Edited August 13, 201313 yr by bultacorock

Edited because i wish i was wise enough not to comment

HAHAHAHAHA I wish was wise enough not to comment also!

Some excellent posts to read. As I have said in the Penrith Observers thread, the present rule of non stop will never work at this level of competition. I will go even further and say it is a very unfair ruling both to riders/minders and also observers. It is very difficult to get the correct balance in place, weather it be in the construction of the sections or the severity of difficulty. 2013 has seen its fair share of controversy throughout the rounds, which in my mind is not good for the sport, therefore I would suggest, with total respect, that we return to the previous rulings, which would be in the best interest of all concerned.

I think some are looking back at "stop permitted" with rose tinted glasses. Under those rules there were arguments about whether a foot was down or not, particularly when urging a bike stuck on its sump plate, had the rider moved back or not etc. Then there was the time limit which heavily penalised a rider for being slightly over time

The problem that needs addressing is rider / minder abuse of observers. At championship level each rider could be given say 3 or 5 "disagree cards" (a bit like calls in tennis) If they are not satisfied with given score they write the section number on the card and hand it out to the observer. The observer then briefly writes reason for score, signs it and hands it back to rider. No verbal discussion allowed or automatic 5 or 10 mark penalty in addition to section score. Rider then can had card it at end of lap if he still wishes to challenge observers decision.