Trouble is it is all subjective. How many fives were given for  bikes going backwards an inch when stop allowed was in?

how many 1's were given for a split second stop in stop for a 1?

When a bike sumps out momentarily and the rider carries in feet up or the rider hits a big step and then balances on the back wheel monetarily at the top feet up is that a five?

if you hop and mess about then it is. 

If the section can't be ridden no stop then c of c is at fault.

We all want to see good rides on challenging section not a series of fives fior a milli second stop on a flat  turn.

life unfortunately  is a compromise .

the answer is there is no easy answer ...

to an extent as timp says returning to "stop for a 1" would to solve part of the problem but it depends upon bold observers who are willing to make a hard decision and possible explain why they've marked accordingly. this is highly unlikely to happen as we are short of observers and will take anyone we can get and they don't want to be confrontational (in the main)

this leads us straight back to our problem with non stop, who is deciding what is a stop, and will they actually enforce it (by giving a 5) when someone does "cease forward motion"

jimmyl then brings us to the next part of the equation, " If the section can't be ridden no stop then c of c is at fault". In my opinion its a 3 part equation, the observer, the course plotter and the rider - all 3 have to play their part to make it work. We've all seen observers not give the right/intend/etc mark because of different interpretations of a stop. We've all seen sections laid out that can't be ridden non stop, and we've all seen riders ride a section "stopping" while other riders have ridden it "non stop".

the big win of going to non-stop is we have speed up how a trial goes because we are not waiting for someone to hop and bop over something, i think we need to realise what we've achieved something valuable with the move to non stop but acknowledge we haven't the got the magic bullet

 

As a recent returner, I think I'm missing something here. What is "stop for a 1"?

I really do think "no stop" should be interpreted literally. It's the only way for consistency, and everyone will soon get used to it. In karting, every class has a minimum weight limit. Every race, several people are selected to be weighed as they come off the track. If you're 0.1kg under, that's exclusion. Everyone accepts it. There are never any arguments. No-one cheats. The few exclusions that there are are down to mistakes.

There's a chasm of difference between putting something on a scale and getting an exact yes or no with regards to it being a rule breaker and a person watching a rider who's almost constantly in motion and deciding on whether or not his forward motion did in fact cease.

Edited October 17, 20178 yr by heffergm

I agree, trying to make sure you think they are moving is more subjective that a scale.  And yes it needs to be as black and white as possible.

so the easy answer as it turns out isn't that easy... 

As I tried to say - let the sections take the marks. A momentary stop should not be the decider . If people take the Micky give them a five.

if the section is cleanable with a proper no stop ride then no advantage is being gained by a pause or stop so is in effect is irrelevant unless we are being pedantic  . It only an an issue when a pause to stop give the rider an advantage or is essential.

 

Of course weight is an easier thing to judge than a momentary stop, but moving/ stopped is easier to discriminate than less/more than some arbitrary allowable pause.

But my main point was that a clear rule, rigorously and universally applied, will be obeyed and respected by competitors. If the rule is woolly and inconsistently applied, competitors will try to take advantage and will argue the toss.

Personal opinion, can't remember where I first saw this but I believe ITSA (USA) runs with these rules.

This makes sense to me for how the sport and riders have progressed.

Stop, balance, feet up, no other support = 0

stay moving, feet up, balance, no other support = 0

Stop, foot down, or other support (ex. leaning on tree) = 5.

 

This allows for stop and hop, or no-stop equally, but penalizes the rider for the "all day dab".

But you better be able to stop and hop without putting your foot down.  If MOTA went to these rules I would have to drop a class in order to not get maximum points.  I would be ok with that.  Section severity would not need to change, in order to make it harder.  Just need to have better control of your bike.

 

56 minutes ago, trapezeartist said:

Of course weight is an easier thing to judge than a momentary stop, but moving/ stopped is easier to discriminate than less/more than some arbitrary allowable pause.

But my main point was that a clear rule, rigorously and universally applied, will be obeyed and respected by competitors. If the rule is woolly and inconsistently applied, competitors will try to take advantage and will argue the toss.

It's the"rigorously and universally applied" bit that's difficult. Some observers will always be lenient, soft, call it what you will, because that's the way they work. Nice people can't become hard and intolerant on demand.

Edited October 18, 20178 yr by cleanorbust

4 hours ago, zippy said:

Personal opinion, can't remember where I first saw this but I believe ITSA (USA) runs with these rules.

This makes sense to me for how the sport and riders have progressed.

Stop, balance, feet up, no other support = 0

stay moving, feet up, balance, no other support = 0

Stop, foot down, or other support (ex. leaning on tree) = 5.

 

This allows for stop and hop, or no-stop equally, but penalizes the rider for the "all day dab".

But you better be able to stop and hop without putting your foot down.  If MOTA went to these rules I would have to drop a class in order to not get maximum points.  I would be ok with that.  Section severity would not need to change, in order to make it harder.  Just need to have better control of your bike.

 

Presume stop is not going backwards.

When stop allowed but no reversing if you watched where somebody started hopping from and then where they finished up they could of gone back a few inches but you could never tell at which point they actually went back but they did  -5's were hardly ever given.

Also I found you had to use more markers and tape to stop riders splitting sections into sevral zones each being attempted at odd angles of attack rather than a straightforward route through the planned section.

As said already the simple answer is that there isn't one!!

 

4 hours ago, cleanorbust said:

It's the"rigorously and universally applied" bit that's difficult. Some observers will always be lenient, soft, call it what you will, because that's the way they work. Nice people can't become hard and intolerant on demand.

"Sorry but that's a 5. "

2 hours ago, trapezeartist said:

"Sorry but that's a 5. "

Or..."I'll let you off cos you rode it well and don't deserve a 5".

5 hours ago, cleanorbust said:

Or..."I'll let you off cos you rode it well and don't deserve a 5".

That's where the "Sorry" comes in.

Only if the observer gives a 5. Which, in many cases, they wouldn't.

19 hours ago, jimmyl said:

Presume stop is not going backwards.

When stop allowed but no reversing if you watched where somebody started hopping from and then where they finished up they could of gone back a few inches but you could never tell at which point they actually went back but they did  -5's were hardly ever given.

Also I found you had to use more markers and tape to stop riders splitting sections into sevral zones each being attempted at odd angles of attack rather than a straightforward route through the planned section.

As said already the simple answer is that there isn't one!!

 

I am ok with hopping causing a rider to move back a couple of inches, but I also believe that attempting an obstacle, keeping both feet on the pegs and failing the obstacle, but backing up and attempting again is a 5.  due to the fact the rider already failed the obstacle the first attempt.

 

Using more markers and tape is half the fun of setting up a section: "How can I force them to ride this the way I want them to?"