Natc Rules Scoring Question

[sectionone]

My local club uses NATC rules for scoring, much like most clubs in the US, I think. Often I seen riders balanced and in control but their bike stalls and they just sit down and curse and accept a five. Could they have had a clean? Back in the 80's and 90's it would be common for someone to stall, then balance, kickstart and continue without dabbing with no penalty. Now it seems when someone stalls, they just take a 5.

Here is the NATC rule:

The engine stops while footing or while any other part of the machine, except for the tires, is used for

support, without forward motion (The motorcycle must be moving forward while footing with a dead engine

to avoid a five (5).

So with a dead engine do the rules apply like the era when stopped while dabbing is a five? My memory of that era was that much leeway was given as what was considered stopped. You could get as much as 3 seconds stopped with your foot down without getting a five. Similar to what we have today with leeway in going backwards where as much as a half a bike length is allowed to go backwards.

Back in the 80's and 90's a rider could be stopped and balanced, lose balance, dab, but move forward a foot or so while dabbing, stop again feet up and balanced for one point. The way I read the current rules a rider can do the same thing today with a dead engine for one point if he starts up his engine again while balanced.

If you only have a couple of sections left on your last loop, this scenario will get threes? Rider has a busted engine so he takes off his chain and pumps up the tires. Paddles his way through section with dead engine without stopping. Score: 3

[copemech]

My local club uses NATC rules for scoring, much like most clubs in the US, I think. Often I seen riders balanced and in control but their bike stalls and they just sit down and curse and accept a five. Could they have had a clean? Back in the 80's and 90's it would be common for someone to stall, then balance, kickstart and continue without dabbing with no penalty. Now it seems when someone stalls, they just take a 5.

Here is the NATC rule:

The engine stops while footing or while any other part of the machine, except for the tires, is used for

support, without forward motion (The motorcycle must be moving forward while footing with a dead engine

to avoid a five (5).

So with a dead engine do the rules apply like the era when stopped while dabbing is a five? My memory of that era was that much leeway was given as what was considered stopped. You could get as much as 3 seconds stopped with your foot down without getting a five. Similar to what we have today with leeway in going backwards where as much as a half a bike length is allowed to go backwards.

Back in the 80's and 90's a rider could be stopped and balanced, lose balance, dab, but move forward a foot or so while dabbing, stop again feet up and balanced for one point. The way I read the current rules a rider can do the same thing today with a dead engine for one point if he starts up his engine again while balanced.

If you only have a couple of sections left on your last loop, this scenario will get threes? Rider has a busted engine so he takes off his chain and pumps up the tires. Paddles his way through section with dead engine without stopping. Score: 3

I gotta admit that seems an odd rule! Yet for some odd reason it was there last I knew.

Seems as though if a rider kills the motor, yet can still roll through the exit without stopping, he only takes his dab points(if any).

Good luck trying that on most any sections I have seen! Basically a non issue in my mind! Never seen it used.

On the other hand, they can still kill a motor and restart if balanced while touching nothing but tires, even using a rock to support, but nothing other than tires! Skid plates, pegs and toes will get you on this one! You are dead!

Anyway, that is my understanding on it all as best I can tell it. Good luck with your last part, as I do not know anyone that would try it !

[elctb]

These two videos cover the questions you ask and many other scoring rules:

[steveo]

There a couple of really good vids on scoring.

The first vid where one of the riders demonstrating comes to the LHS of the bike with both feet but keeping his left foot planted on the peg and both hands on the bars, then changes gear with his right foot looks very wrong but it does meet the wording of our rules over here too. I tried it a couple of times today and it feels like a five should come into play. Weird!!!

[tryalscody]

Its more seen with higher classes, its not the easiest thing to learn to do. When you stall your weight goes forward, which isnt where you want it to balance. Its a good thing to learn though if you put in the little extra time when you practice. Ive saved a lot of 5s with this over the years, and its completely legal with in the rules.

[b40rt]

Trials - but not as we know it !

Thank god we are still no stop, that looks like an observers nightmare.

[the observer]

My local club uses NATC rules for scoring, much like most clubs in the US, I think. Often I seen riders balanced and in control but their bike stalls and they just sit down and curse and accept a five. Could they have had a clean? Back in the 80's and 90's it would be common for someone to stall, then balance, kickstart and continue without dabbing with no penalty. Now it seems when someone stalls, they just take a 5.

Here is the NATC rule:

The engine stops while footing or while any other part of the machine, except for the tires, is used for

support, without forward motion (The motorcycle must be moving forward while footing with a dead engine

to avoid a five (5).

So with a dead engine do the rules apply like the era when stopped while dabbing is a five? My memory of that era was that much leeway was given as what was considered stopped. You could get as much as 3 seconds stopped with your foot down without getting a five. Similar to what we have today with leeway in going backwards where as much as a half a bike length is allowed to go backwards.

Back in the 80's and 90's a rider could be stopped and balanced, lose balance, dab, but move forward a foot or so while dabbing, stop again feet up and balanced for one point. The way I read the current rules a rider can do the same thing today with a dead engine for one point if he starts up his engine again while balanced.

If you only have a couple of sections left on your last loop, this scenario will get threes? Rider has a busted engine so he takes off his chain and pumps up the tires. Paddles his way through section with dead engine without stopping. Score: 3

I think the rule is written to allow a rider to roll out of a section in case his engine stalls and it is downhill to the exit.

Back in the day your club must have had some slack checkers to allow a half bike length (2 feet) rollback before giving a five.

Good Luck trying to push through a section at a National.

Edited December 27, 2009 by the observer

[ishy]

Sadly the rules are now being written to allow riders more mistakes before incurring a failure, once if you had a foot on the ground and both feet on one side of the bike or behind, it was considered you had lost control of the machine and scored a five.

If you stall the motor you are the one hold of the throttle and in charge of keeping it running, again a mistake by the rider, that we think shouldn't be scored.

We push for bigger and more dangerous section that fewer riders can attempt in order to take more points off the best riders, then we make the rules more lenient, it doesn

[zippy]

My opinion:

Stall with both feet up and restart is ok. (basically balanced on tires and nothing else, is very hard to do and very few will be able to do it so many take 5's)

Stall and foot touches ground = 5

Stall with support =5

But I am not so adamant that if the rule was basically stall = 5 I can live with that. Most often I take a 5 if I stall anyways.

Also,

Stop and balance = no penalty

Stop and foot = 5 (you are now just as effective as a kickstand and a kickstand does not require you to be in control)

I agree with Ishy that the rules are being made lenient so that riders can make more mistakes and not incur a 5, because a 5 is really hard on the ego. Well get used to it!!! Trials is about CONTROL not how high you can jump or fast you can go.

Sorry got a little uppity there.

[copemech]

I am not quite sure who came up with that thing about being able to push out of a section with a dead motor? I did not see it in the clips, maybe I missed it somewhere?

I had to do a doubletake on the one where he hops both feet back for a two, yet it does seem his butt was on the fender and the feet were not behind the rear wheel.

One thing that does not seem so obvious about crossing tracks as they use the example of front crossing is OK, just not both!, which also means that a rider can hop the rear to throw it accross the tracks after looping and coming from the opposite direction of entry, then throwing the rear wheel accross the inititial track while gaining an advantage of position. This is ok as well. Seems you can do one or the other, same with hopping over a tape or marker, yet not both.

[dan williams]

One of the funniest things I saw at the Vermont national was the observer briefing where the NATC rep was going over the rules and ended his talk with a comment not to be too strict because the riders were there to have fun. After a bunch of stunned looks between observers, who'd been studying the rulebook and discussing it for weeks, one experianced guy says, "So which rules are we supposed to ignore?

Heh heh, Welcome to New England NATC rep.

Which points out two things,

1. If the rule has to be explained it's not written properly.

2. If a rule is not followed why bother?

[copemech]

In a way it seems ironic! Firstly, in a club setting I want to set a trial for the riders sections that are safe yet offer difficulty in a technical or physical sense. The objective is to take points off the riders without them killing themselves and all while attending to the rules!

Secondly, the observers job is to administer points! Based upon the rules! As an observer that is my job, and I am not leinient because that is the entire objective in the first place and why I am here! I personally enjoy busting some butts! If well deserved. That IS the game!

There are still limitations, as in most cases the observer cannot see both sides of the bike(or the feet) and disgression must be given to the rider. Not perfect! Yet it all shakes out I think!

Questionable rollback for advantage? NOT MUCH! Still not a Hitler judge, but my job it to give fairly! Enjoy!

Find the balance and be fair and equal to all is the best I can suggest in a subjective situation.

[dan williams]

I agree you have to temper the response based on the class and terrain to some extent. It used to be in the world rounds riders watched the observer as much as the rider when another rider was in the section. Give the observers clear rules and don't tell them to ignore some of them. Riders will figure out who's lenient and who's a hardass. All part of the game.

My decisions are not ironclad. In Vermont Eric Stolz argued that the point I called him for was invalid because his foot was still on the peg. I saw the toe dab but my view wasn't perfect so I couldn't deny the possibility that his heel was still on the peg and my co-observers couldn't confirm either. Point removed. By the same token Cody Webb came over the entrance log and his foot slipped off his peg for a touch. I saw it clearly and despite protest from Cody and Ryan I had clear visual and it was not up for debate. Ryan is such a pro. He has to question a point he feels he could get back but once I said I clearly saw a touch he immediately dropped it and stayed focussed on the rest of the section. He is truly the master of the mental game. A fact that I fear is lost on some young riders who only see his on-bike abilities.

The stop/rollback rules are ridiculous. In a short space of time we've had;

Rollback without dab=0

Rollback without dab (but not too far)=0

Rollback without dab=5

Rollback with dab (but not too far)=1

Rollback with dab (but not too far)=5

Stop without dab=0

Stop without dab=1

Stop without dab=5

Stop with dab=1

Stop with dab=2

Stop with dab=5

This is only in the 20 years I've been riding. Doesn't anyone else find this insanity? It's like the Gallagher routine. "You have flammable, inflammable, imflammable, uninflammable, non-flammable, non-inflammable, unimflammable, and non-uninflammable. Does it burn or not?

Edited January 1, 2010 by Dan Williams

[feetupfun]

I agree you have to temper the response based on the class and terrain to some extent. It used to be in the world rounds riders watched the observer as much as the rider when another rider was in the section. Give the observers clear rules and don't tell them to ignore some of them. Riders will figure out who's lenient and who's a hardass. All part of the game.

My decisions are not ironclad. In Vermont Eric Stolz argued that the point I called him for was invalid because his foot was still on the peg. I saw the toe dab but my view wasn't perfect so I couldn't deny the possibility that his heel was still on the peg and my co-observers couldn't confirm either. Point removed. By the same token Cody Webb came over the entrance log and his foot slipped off his peg for a touch. I saw it clearly and despite protest from Cody and Ryan I had clear visual and it was not up for debate. Ryan is such a pro. He has to question a point he feels he could get back but once I said I clearly saw a touch he immediately dropped it and stayed focussed on the rest of the section. He is truly the master of the mental game. A fact that I fear is lost on some young riders who only see his on-bike abilities.

The stop/rollback rules are ridiculous. In a short space of time we've had;

Rollback without dab=0

Rollback without dab (but not too far)=0

Rollback without dab=5

Rollback with dab (but not too far)=1

Rollback with dab (but not too far)=5

Stop without dab=0

Stop without dab=1

Stop without dab=5

Stop with dab=1

Stop with dab=2

Stop with dab=5

This is only in the 20 years I've been riding. Doesn't anyone else find this insanity? It's like the Gallagher routine. "You have flammable, inflammable, imflammable, uninflammable, non-flammable, non-inflammable, unimflammable, and non-uninflammable. Does it burn or not?

[copemech]

Oh well, overall and regardless of history, I kinda like where we are at in several ways!

I can stop, balance , re-calculate and re-group if needed!

I may not roll-back, yet if I do get stuck and need to rock the bike a bit, or bounce back, none of this is counted against me!

If I need to pivot the bike, I can stop take my dab for a one!

At my age I do not do any of this as dynamically as I might have many years ago! Add the section sevarity has increased!

I manage to take enough points as it is! Let's not even get into Brain Farts!

Add, If I were a new rider coming into this sport, I would not want to be judged too harshly as well, seems it just tend to put people off, thus back to basics, put your foot down is a dab!

Edited January 1, 2010 by copemech