3 Or A 5

[ianw]

This is a sad situation for trials. The non-stop rules were nonsense when they were tried in the early 2000's, and are nonsense now. They are not addressing the real reasons why trials numbers are down, and are chasing people from the sport in droves for various reasons. The 'stop allowed' rules used universally two years ago gave everyone an enjoyable ride, gave the spectators something to watch, and the young riders an exciting challenge if they wanted it.

The new rules are a well-meant but very misguide attempt to return to the 'glory days', and the problems they are creating are obvious. It is absolutely staggering that UK trials are theoretically run under 'non-stop', but in reality stop is allowed. Talk about 'bury your head in the sand', (but then the WTC rounds are just as variable, and they spend an enormous amount of time and effort on observation consistency).

I can't understand why riders around the world are tolerating non-stop as it now being governed. Except for Toni Bou and possibly Adam Raga, the non-stop rules make good riders look like incompetent idiots legging their way through everything. The current riding would better be called 'stop then panic'.

Thankfully, in Australia our governing trials body is controlled democratically, and the non-stop rules are not being adopted.

[johnnyboxer]

Johnnyboxer. Thanks for clarification.

I have helped set out trials and acted as C of C at centre championship level. Also occasionally other tasks such as trailing round the paddock begging for observers, making flags and section marking tape (try splitting fertilizer bags in a continuous spiral to make long tapes for a fun activity) and copying maps so observers can find sections

I will probably observe twice this month.

At 2 of the last 3 trials I have ridden only about 50 to 70% of the sections have had permanent observers, the other sections being marked by riders taking turns at observing, myself included.

I have a number of friends who will no longer observe (one an ex WTC and BTC observer) because they are fed up with riders expecting and arguing for a 3 when they have clearly had a five.

What prompted me to start this post as not so much the DL issue but the number of riders in SSDT videos struggling with a lot of legging, and the appearance of dangerous sections on clubmans (or even beginners / easy) courses, e.g. being perched on top of large rocks or with dangerous falls to one or both sides.

I get no pleasure from legging or fiveing myself nor from seeing others do the same. What I like and like to see is riding. I think a move to more ridable sections and marking by the book would be better than having sections that are likely to cause stops and then bend the rules to give 3s.

Well said

I agree - more rideable sections would be personally welcomed by me

[t-shock 250]

Agree with what smarty said above, a 1 for a stop would certainly help in my opinion.

[cleanorbust]

So if I have two or three dabs in a section my best plan would be to make sure I stop before the ends cards as that would reduce my score down to one? Or have I misunderstood what is being proposed?

Similarly, when I clanged to a halt at the foot of a series of rock steps because they're way beyond my ability, my score of one would beat that of the rider who floats over the lot with a couple of fleeting dabs. Fair?

Sorry to be Devil's advocate and all that, I actually hate cynicism and don't mean this to sound that way. Just goes to show that there isn't an ideal answer I suppose, which is probably why we are where we're at with it all.

Edited May 14, 2014 by cleanorbust

[guys]

You misunderstood.

[b40rt]

This is a sad situation for trials. The non-stop rules were nonsense when they were tried in the early 2000's, and are nonsense now. They are not addressing the real reasons why trials numbers are down, and are chasing people from the sport in droves for various reasons. The 'stop allowed' rules used universally two years ago gave everyone an enjoyable ride, gave the spectators something to watch, and the young riders an exciting challenge if they wanted it.

The new rules are a well-meant but very misguide attempt to return to the 'glory days', and the problems they are creating are obvious. It is absolutely staggering that UK trials are theoretically run under 'non-stop', but in reality stop is allowed. Talk about 'bury your head in the sand', (but then the WTC rounds are just as variable, and they spend an enormous amount of time and effort on observation consistency).

I can't understand why riders around the world are tolerating non-stop as it now being governed. Except for Toni Bou and possibly Adam Raga, the non-stop rules make good riders look like incompetent idiots legging their way through everything. The current riding would better be called 'stop then panic'.

Thankfully, in Australia our governing trials body is controlled democratically, and the non-stop rules are not being adopted.

"The 'stop allowed' rules used universally two years ago gave everyone an enjoyable ride, gave the spectators something to watch, and the young riders an exciting challenge if they wanted it."

Is this the excitement you refer to ? Apologies to rider in clip, but sums up the majority of stop allowed efforts.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=616447445085461&set=o.161447440559875&type=2&theater

[cleanorbust]

You misunderstood.

So the correct interpretation of the proposal would be........?

[guys]

Why would it reduce your points? Where have you read this?

2 dabs is 2 points + 1 stop is 3 points. Is that so hard to understand?

[cleanorbust]

The suggestion was 1 for a stop instead of 5 with no other changes to the scoring system, so a thundering fail would beat a two dab ride. Doesn't seem quite right.

Edited May 14, 2014 by cleanorbust

[dadof2]

Thanks b40rt for finding such a superb clip to illustrate my point, I wonder if the rider was awarded a "spanish 3" for his multiple 5s.

[smarty156]

To clarify, what I meant was stopping (with feet up while balancing) would be a 1. Everything else as it is now I.e. stopping with foot/feet down, going backwards, dismounting etc all 5.

With regard to the point about as long as an observer is consistent that's fine, I disagree. As a rider I want to know how I'll be marked on every section in a trial not have to guess section by section depending on how the observer is feeling that day. Therefore, anything that removes (or at least drastically reduces) the need for an observer to be lenient must be a good thing. How many observers would 5 a rider who had a superb ride on a difficult section just because at one point they momentarily stopped moving forward when someone that has a half hearted attempt and paddles through would get only a 3? However, same scenario but with my suggested revised scoring I'd bet virtually all observers would be quite happy to give a 1 to the rider that briefly stops moving forward.

The observer would be under less pressure, there's less at stake for the rider so less likely to argue - everybody's happy.

Whether or not sections are set out correctly to the rules is largely irrelevant at the trial. The observer has to observe the section and the rider has to rider it as it's laid out. You can moan at the CofC after if it makes you feel better but it won't change the result of the trial.

I know how hard it is to set out sections so I wouldn't criticise a CofC.

I have just returned to trials after about 5 years off. I had to look up what the current rules were. I then rode the sections as I found them within those rules. What's frustrating me now is that other riders aren't and they're getting away with it. That surely can't be a good state of affairs for trials. I know other riders that say they won't ride mark yourself trials as they, like me, will stick to the rules but others don't and consequently get a much better result.

Just to add about lack of observers due to rider arguments, that's down to the club running the event and the Centre. If any observer is verbally abused by a rider then that rider should be excluded from the event. If they do it again the Centre should ban them.

[ianw]

b40rt, not sure I get the point? It shows someone riding a grade either set way too hard, or the rider is in the wrong grade.

There are a lot of riders who could clean that section under either the stop or non-stop rules. Observers will always be lenient on a rider 'out of their depth'. I have always believed that you should be able score 5 points footing, (same as a failure) for both Stop and non-stop. I think it is rubbish when a rider 'paddles' through a section with 20 dabs yet beats someone who made a good attempt at a clean, but scored five. With non-stop it's even more ridiculous, and the current rules encourage riders to foot as often as possible if they think the section is difficult, (because 20 dabs beats a stop 3-5).

[breagh]

The 0.1'2'3'5 system worked fine up to the 80s when bikes stopped they tended to stay stopped.

Now a quick prod or a bounce gets them moving again.

Make it simple clean or a 5,stop if you like as long as it's feet up.

Totally fair system.

Very easy to score,wont be many arguments.,well shouldn't be.

[bulltaco340]

Reading through the two recent "3or 5" threads, and earlier posts in a similar vein, isn't the real and insurmountable problem with trials scoring that final results,even in trials of International or World Championship status depend entirely on subjective judgements made by volunteer officials.

Regardless of the scoring system, these results are usually justified by "what the observer saw at the time". Any subsequent discussion is dismissed by - you weren't there ; the observers view was obscured by bushes/spectators/badly laid out section ; the picture was taken from a different angle ; it was a lenient/hard observer who marked everyone the same,the observer at the next section was hard/lenient and it balances out ; the observer was possibly influenced by the reaction of spectators, blah, blah, blah.

None of which alters the fact that, in very many trials competitions, a competitors actual performance according to a standard set of rules is impossible to record, the point Smarty156 makes in #26 above.

Edited May 15, 2014 by bulltaco340

[cleanorbust]

Good post bultaco340. It's the human element, which can involve leniency, inconsistency etc, that can allow problems to creep in. But as is commonly stated, we can't have trials without it, and we're grateful to the observers we have. Electronic observing which might determine whether a stop is really a stop, isn't with us yet.

I guess similar issues arise at the local tennis club: hey Mr Umpire was that match-deciding shot we just saw in our out? On the line or just beyond it? Electronic hawk eye? Not at this level mate. Video replay? Ha ha, you must be joking. Just make a judgement on what you saw in a split second. Do your best, try to be fair, and ignore any complaints. And remember, whichever way you decide the winner will enjoy the plaudits and the loser, well, they'll make their own arrangements. Then everyone will move on to the next match. Just a game, after all.