I am a big advocate of returning to full non-stop rules for all. This is mainly due to trying to explain the complicated system which we now use to new observers.

However, the perfectly good points which your anonymous observer makes would stand regardless of the system being used.

It boils down to observing being a subjective matter. No two people see exactly the same thing all the time.

Reading the letter, I think the writer generally backs what you have been saying.

We need and appreciate observers and most of us fully understand the position they are in when faced with making a decision, it's just a shame that there are odd occasions when a rider behaves badly.

All we can do is to try and show a good example to our peers.

Well said scorpa3, I could'nt agree more.

Given the interest that this thread has generated, could we have a poll - full no stop v anthing goes? It might be a bit easier than marking up a whole trial no-stop and seeing how many turn up! If we then had some consensus, maybe a concerted campaign for some consistency (and leadership) from the ACU...

This has to be one of the most important issues in trials today, as it affects how attractive it is to newcomers and (most importantly) to observers. Perhaps they should be given the casting vote?

A poll would be a good idea.

But don't forget there are a lot of very good trials which are already run non-stop now. I would make a bet that the poll would come out almost 50/50 across the board.

Different groups will have different opinions.

Whilst this is an interesting thread - I seem to recall we have had this debate many times before.

RogerRoger - asks for leadership and consistency from ACU.

Easy to say - but not so easy to do as I have said before.

Everyone wants one consistent rule - as long as it

Can I ask a question?  If the decision was tomorrow for ONE consistent system - and Roger Roger was the man to decide. What would it be?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I was arguing for consistency based on consent and the needs of the observers, not for one method or the other. If we don't require consistency, then forget the whole thing.

The problem is nobody really knows what the answer is. You can't expect someone (even the governing body) to make a decision like that when the trials community is so divided.

I can't really say any more, because John Collins seems to have said it all in his post. It's everything I was thinking without being able to put it in to words (Honest )

I think our best course at the moment is to let the clubs choose the rules (strictly between TSR22A and TSR22B - we don't need any more rules) (obviously with the riders opinions taken in to account) and try to point the observers in the direction of actually marking pretty damned close to the rules.

You've got to let observers have their own opinions, but would start to make things better I think if we all actually get a dab for stopping (a definite stop, not a tweak of the break, or compression of the forks).

Whatever way it turns out every club has a responsibility to make sure ******** riders keep their traps shut if an observer doesn't mark things their way.

I'll be giving it a big mention before our next trial for sure.

very good response John

rabie

Just to fill everyone in on where I am coming from, I like John Collins, hail from an era of non stop rules and I can even remember when a 2 was introduced to much shaking of heads !

Now however ani domini has stopped my riding, or should I say passengering - Yes as a sidecar competitor I never had any trouble defining a stop as it usually meant you were stuck and not making any forward progress !

I now observe for my club in the SE - probably 4 times a year and each time before I do, I now have to get someone to talk me through just what I am meant to be doing ( we run 22A and 22B events )

Recently my club ran an open trial under 22A but it was not the stopping decision I had a problem with as a non riding observor. My problem came when some competitors chose to put the front brake on, depress the forks and swing the back around to negogiate a tight turn which, other conpetitors had managed to ride round.

22A(d) " The rider intentionally moves either wheel to the side without forward motion " - so that really should be a 5 but I had riders query this and want a 1.

This sort of skill was introduced several years ago when bunny hopping first came in and reading the rules of both 22A and 22B now, I can't see anywhere where this is allowed - which I think is a shame.

To sign off from a non riding obersorver's point of view I don't have a problem with a stop being a 1 or 5 where I do have a problem is 22A (d) and thats where I think something needs to be clarified.

you lot think you have it alright debating this here, when i go home i have to placated my mother (motoxmarge) about the fundamentals of TSR22A,B, etc!!! (both are qualified CofCs as well as my Dad!)

fun for all the family

rabie