Fim Observing Rules.

[zippy]

My previous post was an opinion of how I think observed trials should be marked for penalties. I think I misinterpreted the direction of the post.

That being said, I have another opinion.

If the rules state that a stop is penalised with a 5 or with a 1 does not matter for this example.

In the case of a trial with no stop rules I personally would believe that a rider that takes a momentary pause with both feet on the pegs that does not get a penalty for stopping would have an unfair advantage over a rider that has the same length of pause with a foot on the ground. If I understand it correctly, with no stop rules a stop is penalised so.... a stop is a stop is a stop. And the observers should score accordingly and fairly. Also would like to thank all the volunteers that do observe so that this sport is possible.

Or I am completely off my rocker and don't know anything. (this is possible)

[scorpa3]

If the rules state that a stop is penalised with a 5 or with a 1 does not matter for this example.

In the case of a trial with no stop rules I personally would believe that a rider that takes a momentary pause with both feet on the pegs that does not get a penalty for stopping would have an unfair advantage over a rider that has the same length of pause with a foot on the ground. If I understand it correctly, with no stop rules a stop is penalised so.... a stop is a stop is a stop. And the observers should score accordingly and fairly. Also would like to thank all the volunteers that do observe so that this sport is possible.

Exactly, this was the point I was thinking about when I started the topic.

It doesn't matter which rules are being used if the observers use and understand them correctly. I am not criticising observers in any way here, purely stating a fact.

So, is Rappers right? From the 'lesser' riders point of view, is the FIM method better than Non stop?

[neonsurge]

It doesn't matter which rules are being used if the observers use and understand them correctly. I am not criticising observers in any way here, purely stating a fact.

At club level it doesn't really matter what rules the event is "officially" being run under, if an observer is relatively inexperienced they tend to apply a simplified subset of the rules where a clean is a clean, dabs are dabs (whether the bike is stationary or not), a paddle through is a 3 and "technicalities" such as stops, hops and slight roll-backs are ignored unless blatant. This despite the fact that a copy of the relevant ACU observing rules are attached to each observer's board. Which is perfectly OK in my book since observers are always at a premium and as long as the observing is consistent in that section, everyone is happy. When I'm observing I try to apply the letter of the law but in the context of what I just mentioned, that shouldn't cause any rider a problem since if they got away with something at another section that I gave them a mark (or even a 5) for, they've no cause for complaint since they were just lucky in that previous section.

Centre, national and international events are a different matter of course.

Edited September 8, 2006 by neonsurge

[old trials fanatic]

I must be too old for all this. When does a stop become a stop then? How many milliseconds, seconds, minutes, hours, days etc etc?

How the heck does anybody get a five then? Rolling back? By definition if you hop the bike due to the extension of the suspension along with any sideways movement there must have been an ammount of movement in relation to the point at which compared to a point stationary relative to the ground not taking into account the rotation of said Earth and tectonic plate movements or geological expansion or the tilting of the British Isles into the North sea. Therefore by stopping dependant on the direction that the bike and rider had attained relative to the Earts rotation a measureable ammount of rolling back or sideways movement must have occured therby incuring a five mark penalty.

Basically this is a load of B*****ks in the same way that a stop incurs a 1 mark penalty as does a single dab.

Simply put the only fair marking system is :

Loss of forward motion = 5

Foot or any other part of the body touching the ground whilst still maintaining forward motion = 1

The above occuring twice = 2

The above occuring 3 times or more = 3

Progress maintained through the section without any of the above occuring = 0

The rider is deemed to have commenced riding the section once the front wheel spindle has passed the "Section Begins" marker and is deemed to have left the section once the front wheel spindle has passed the "Section Ends" marker. Should any part of the motor cycle cross the boundaries of the section as denoted by the section markers then a 5 mark penalty will be incured.

Simple innit? All this "balancing", asking directions / help from minders, rolling backwards and forwards / sideways, pogoing and other forms of aerobics is deemed as Circus antics and should incur a 100 mark penalty and forceable re education at the OTF accadamy of Real Trials and How to Ride them.

OOOH i do love a good rant.

Dont make much difference to me as i get loads of fives anyway. Still at least it's easy to add up

[scorpa3]

Yep, I agree. I do think Non stop would be the best system to use. If it was the same for everyone, the best riders would still be the best and riders like myself would still make a mess of things but have a good days sport, which is what we all ride trials for.

But is Rappers right? Do the better riders get away with stops that the lesser lights get penalised for and would the FIM rules help to prevent that happening?

[rabie]

But is Rappers right? Do the better riders get away with stops that the lesser lights get penalised for and would the FIM rules help to prevent that happening?

this is where rappers is asking the right question - IMHO as a complete wobbler (well crap novice anyway) i do tend to go by the simple rules outline above by neonsurge for the "conscript" observer. however when we're dealing with riders on the expert route who should know better then its time to haul out a tougher interpretation of what a "stop" is (when ceasing forward motion is a real cessation)

the whole concept of A or B is so dependant upon the bike (pre 65 or modern) and the route marking - if you've got giant vertical leaps (which riders want to do!) then the riders got to in effect cease forward motion (a one or five) to ascend it. this is trials as a test of skill on one level - on the other if trials is going back to it routes, in a more enduro style, then non stop is more important.

its all IMHO matter of fundamental philosophical choice about what the nature of trials is and one answer (A, B or WTC, etc) will never keep everyone happy

Edited September 8, 2006 by rabie

[the artist formerly known as ish]

I must be too old for all this. When does a stop become a stop then? How many milliseconds, seconds, minutes, hours, days etc etc?

I tried that very same reasoning with the cop who pulled me over for not coming to a complete stop at a stop sign, he defined the stop with a $100 ticket

I have noticed the current FIM rules have been in use in this country for a good while now, and of all the rules they seem to get the least complaints.

Why do they get the least complaints! I think because they are the most leinient, a rider can stop with their foot down, sit on their ass, gather their wind, look where to go next and set off again, great for the old codger over 50, dry your eye's Rappers, should the rules get easier and easier as we get older, or should we just ride event's we are capable of riding ?

Bugger the traffic cop, full no stop and $100 fine if you do.

[hillary]

As I've said before, whilst I prefer FIM rules (stop allowed) I ride plenty of no-stop trials. The point I'm making as some have picked up whilst others have not is that the rules (whatever are used) are not applied with equal favour to all grades of rider

[old trials fanatic]

Nothing changed there mate. Always been the case. Many a time i've seen "names" get away with things that "normal" joe public gets docked marks for. Dave Thorpe used to virtually rebuild sections kicking all and sundry out of the way but nothing was ever said but when someone else did it then outcry. Same with stops in no stop trials, which is back to your point, "The names" always got more benifit of the doubt than the rest.

I know it was not your point but the same thing happens with machine elegibility. It's amazing what gets turned a blind eye to if the bike belongs to a well known named rider but would be droped on if it was Joe Public.

Dont know if anything would change no matter what rules were applied. There will always be some observers, not all i hasten to add, that will be "intimidated" by the reputation of the rider who they are observing. By "intimidated" i do NOT infer any actual communication verbal or physical on the part of the rider just oooh it's ********* what if i give him a ********* better let him have the benifit.

I do agree with your basic premise just dont know if anything can or will ever change. As others have said i dont really care as long as everybody is marked the same by that observer in that section.

Dont happen though does it? Cest la vie.

[the artist formerly known as ish]

I know what your saying Hillary, a feet up stop isn't being called a stop by observers, has often as the feet or foot down stop is.

I don't have an answer for it, because it isn't the rule it's the application, and some observers must see a stop foot down, more worthy of a penalty than stop feet up, as mentioned, providing they are consistant with the call, changing rules will probably only come up with a different problem.

I do agree with marking the trial geared to the ability of the highest % of riders, rather than a few top riders is the way to keep most happy, and some sort of prior notice on the entry form or event info, like this trial will be of X caliber section, gives the punter a choice to go or not.

[bikespace]

As I've said before, whilst I prefer FIM rules (stop allowed) I ride plenty of no-stop trials. The point I'm making as some have picked up whilst others have not is that the rules (whatever are used) are not applied with equal favour to all grades of rider

In your example though it's not the grade of rider that was even considered, it was what the rider did. If Dave Thorpe (or Dan Thrope for that matter) stops and paddles, and Rappers balances then goes on, I'll still mark it the same way. I'm more likely to give the benefit of the doubt to the rider who has actually shown the greater skill, and in my view left the greater doubt as to the loss of control. Rappers may get the clean while Thorpey gets the 5.

I'm not arguing with the fact that there can be some individual treatment for some riders though. If Dave Thorpe wasn't an OAP I would have considered rubbing his head in a puddle for queue jumping at the Manx. I did jokingly offer to do it to Colley two years ago in Dune Quarry, and he gracefully allowed me back in front

[old trials fanatic]

"If Dave Thorpe wasn't an OAP I would have considered rubbing his head in a puddle for queue jumping at the Manx."

As i said earlier "nothing changes" does it. Thing is Daves been doing this for so long he thinks it's his right and people go "Oh yes he always does that". Same with marking.

I must appologise if it appears i'm picking on Dave it's just that his is the first name that comes to mind when i try to think of an example

[scorpa3]

Queue jumping. Now theres another subject for debate :-)

[baldilocks]

I can t say I always enjoy being on the receiving end but the fairest observing from the point rappers is making ( and this is only my experience) is probably richmond. The observers apply the rules by the book and to everyone, they also have the best trials land in the world in my opinion. Problem solved rappers ?

I think elsewhere rappers is right. The NE centre has no stop at all centre trials but we also have a lot of tight turns and when you watch the expert course most people are stopping all the time if only briefly. i dont think the easy course people get away with as much.