One For Clerks Of Courses

[bdmc]

A great debate just what the forum needed. Good to see John Collins hang back but I knew he would have to answer in the end. Thanks John.

If you read the initial post the question was what would you do as Clerk of Course?

Some of you answered scrub the section others ban the observer and a few said 'name and shame'

The situation was a hypothetical situation, but it could happen

Some silly answers, some constructive and well thought answers.

Naming and shaming them to me was not the way I would have sorted it.

Evidence from spectators cannot be taken.

For those who said scrub the section I believe would have been the 'correct' answer if the situation ever happened.

If rider 'B' had spoken to me prior to his protest I would have advised him to hang back whilst I spoke to the observer. If the observer confirmed what he said in the intial question, I would have instructed the rider 'B' to put his protest in. I would then have upheld the protest, scrubbed the section from the results and given his protest money back.

When rider 'A' appealed against my decision plus the protests from the other 30+ riders I would have informed them prior to taking thier money that there was no other solution and that they would be wasting thier money. I would then suggest they withdraw the appeal and protests.

Hopefully common sense will prevail

Remember Clerk of Course is not just

[bikespace]

I'm sure scrubbing the section would probably be the official answer, but I still think changing the score of rider B to zero (the more likely score) would have exactly the same effect on the top two riders as scrubbing the section, but without affecting the whole of the rest of the field.

The scrubbing the section method seems to be cracking a walnut with a sledgehammer. Exactly the same result, plus upheaval of the whole of the rest of the entry, so the question is "Why would you?"

What I want to know is: Was my method against the rules? I've checked through them and I can't even decide myself, although I'd be happy to stand up and fight the battle

I'm pretty certain I wouldn't have scrapped the section, although I'm probably taking in to account that I would probably not come up against an observer as awkward as your hypothetical one, and would expect to be able to negotiate around it.

[trickymicky]

Very convincing,well done..... I ,for one thought it was a real situation- calling on others for urgent advice to resolve a real issue..

[dan williams]

Very nice exercise but I've had to deal with a similar situation so I know where the hammer has to fall. One of our clubs a few years back made the event too hard. Long hard loop, long hard sections and a hundred rider turnout. Halfway through the event they stuck a sign up changing the end time lengthening it by an hour. They were then told to take it down as the time cannot be changed after the event starts. Here's the problem.

Rider sees sign, assumes he has more time and takes his time on loop and in sections. To his surprise and horror receives late points or times out.

Rider doesn't see sign but is told by fellow riders or club official and does same.

Rider doesn't see sign and assumes he is late so hustles through loop and sections dropping more points than usual to finish without time points or time out.

Rider doesn't see signs and blasts last loop taking voluntary fives on harder or longer sections to not time out.

There is only one way to reconcile this mess.

Unfortunately in this case the difference for one of the top riders was a 1st or 3rd place finish. Result MAYHEM. Rider filed a protest (NETA doesn't charge for protests, just seems wrong to us). My ruling based on the rules was that if the rider wished to continue with his protest the only solution was to disqualify the event from year end points. no telling what other classes it may have affected in some subtle way. This was made clear to all the riders and the event promoter. The option was given to the protesting rider to withdraw his protest which he did much to the relief of the other riders and club but it was made known to the rest of the riders that this guy was essentially getting screwed for their benefit and that they owed him.

That's one of the key points to something like this is you shouldn't rush in to fix it unless there is a protest. Riders don't like to be mothered. But if there is a protest you must act and it must be defensible within the rules. When somebody inevitably whines about the rules you invite them to the annual meeting where the rules are made. There they can defend their ideas just like the rest of us have to. (NETA annual meeting is open to all members) The only exception in NETA is safety. The NETA officers are empowered to make or alter rules during the season if it directly affects the safety of riders, spectators or officials but that rarely happens.

Curiously enough at the next event this club had I intercepted the trials master on his way to put up another sign changing the time halfway through the event again. How thick can you be?

[jimmyl]

A similar instance to above example happened a couple of years in a Welsh Champ trial I rode.

It became apparent that time was going to be tight and word got round (nothing official in writing) that sections could be ridden out of sequence (against champ and trials in general rules). I stuck to correct sequence of sections and laps and ended up losing time penalties due to riding further to complete a correct lap and also getting stuck behind the gaggle of riders doing sections more than once per lap. I lost several places in final reckoning and felt I could of legitimately protested but felt that the likely outcome would of been scrubbing the trial from the championship, I opted for the bigger picture and didn't protest but as a C of C myself it shows that the simple solution at the time may not always be the right one in the longer run.

Part of the National C of C seminar I attended at Rugby involved discussing these sort of scenarios which can be very thought provoking. When you think of what could go wrong you wonder why we do it??? Cos we are mad and we love it!

[dan williams]

When you think of what could go wrong you wonder why we do it??? Cos we are mad and we love it!

Amen brother.

[scorpa3]

We also must try to learn from our own (and others) genuine mistakes.

A few years back I was Clerk of the Course for our big National, a couple of our really valuable club helpers were riding in the trial but were at either ends of the entry.

Foolishly and without considering the implications of what I was doing, I agreed that they could both start together (they'd spent the whole day before setting out in the freezing rain- like I had.) Naturally they chose to start together from the earliest position.

Of course, when the other riders saw such a high numbered rider in the very long queue at section one, they became a little irritated.

When at the end of the trial people were loosing marks for late finishing my decision really came back to bite me. The riders who'd lost time were upset, this upset the riders who'd had to rush to stay on time which upset the lady secretary who was collecting in the bibs.

I stuck to my decision explaining that they were part of the course opening team and were checking sections and route marking on the way around, but my word I wish I'd not made that silly mistake.

Needless to say, riders start on their number from that day onwards!

Edited September 4, 2008 by scorpa3

[overthehill]

Individual section mishaps and c*** ups can always be simply sorted out, but time is always one big headache - i have been to numerous events where time has been extended or scrubbed and half the field have been disadvantaged.

Who remembers the great time saga of the 1989 SSDT - on Monday, which was an epic route anyway, it rained non stop - we were carrying bikes across flooded rivers and fighting through sections waist deep in water. - a few riders got back home within the one hour limit so leaving the majority of the field out, or with hefty time penalties - the CofC decided to scrub the time which brought protests from the riders who had fought their way through the atrocious conditions to finish on time. The stewards then reversed the CofC decision on Tuesday which got another sack of protests at the door of the office! - So on Wednesday the Stewards met again and reversed their decision and decided to back the CofC after all -

A CofC has to make decisions based on the information he has at the time; stick to those decisions, and move on, dont dwell, reconsider or worry if you've done the right thing - life's too short.

Last year as CofC I was struggling with a conflict of some sort and one of the lads in the club said to me

"dont worry so much - its just a bunch of guys having fun on bikes" - he's right

Edited September 12, 2008 by overthehill

[nzralphy]

Hi Overthehill. I rode the SSDT in '89, and was one of the lads that got through.....God that was a lot of rain! The river was over wast heigh as i pushed my bike through the river... I never protested cos I was just a guy on a bike having fun.

)

Ralphy

[jimmyl]

I think that was my first Scotish - up mamore (was soaking wet before I got out of Fort Wiliam even with my brand new riding gear on) across to fersit (the old long way) finish off at Witches burn. Was earliish number and my brother was 15 or 20 in front so went like the clappers all day to catch him (more like the Scott than SSDT). Think I got in on time or there abouts.

Remember getting to Witches burn on Yam Mono -not sure what was running the leanest me or the bike.

Recall thinking - B****dy H**L only 5 more days like that to come!!!!!!!!!

Also rode this year with the minor fuel incident.

I think so long as C Of C is fair and possibly errs on the side of the riders then all then men having fun on motor bikes will carry on doing so.