beatabeta Posted February 20, 2012 Report Share Posted February 20, 2012 As title says really and without wanting to start the whole 'stop allowed' V's 'no stop' thing again. I was at the Wallace yesterday and saw Alexz in the section where he was docked 2 points. He either dropped a 0 or he dropped a 5, he didn't drop 2. The observer in question couldn't even explain where Wiggy had dropped his 2 points and was giving riders who actually stopped a 0.... Ultimately this ridiculous marking cost Wiggy the trial as he actually stayed clean all day. Now taking away 'stop' or 'no stop' the BIGGEST issue here is observer consistency. 'No stop' rules allows for observer interpretation to be almost as bigger factor as rider ability and this is fundamentally wrong. It allows a rider who clumsily and unskilfully foots his/her way through a section to potentially beat a much more skilled opponent who cleans the section but was 'deemed' to have stopped by the observer. If we must run under these pathetic rules (and yes I'm FULLY aware that the S3 champs has been no stop for a while) it is down to the organisers to ensure that each and every observer fully understands the rules and how to implement them. As it stands the S3 champs is not a priority for Wiggy this year, however these boys like to win and a win is still a win, and this could easily replicate itself in a BTC event for Dibs, Brown, Wigg etc. 'Stop' allowed virtually eliminates this inconsistency. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old trials fanatic Posted February 20, 2012 Report Share Posted February 20, 2012 (edited) As title says really and without wanting to start the whole 'stop allowed' V's 'no stop' thing again. I was at the Wallace yesterday and saw Alexz in the section where he was docked 2 points. He either dropped a 0 or he dropped a 5, he didn't drop 2. The observer in question couldn't even explain where Wiggy had dropped his 2 points and was giving riders who actually stopped a 0.... Ultimately this ridiculous marking cost Wiggy the trial as he actually stayed clean all day. Now taking away 'stop' or 'no stop' the BIGGEST issue here is observer consistency. 'No stop' rules allows for observer interpretation to be almost as bigger factor as rider ability and this is fundamentally wrong. It allows a rider who clumsily and unskilfully foots his/her way through a section to potentially beat a much more skilled opponent who cleans the section but was 'deemed' to have stopped by the observer. If we must run under these pathetic rules (and yes I'm FULLY aware that the S3 champs has been no stop for a while) it is down to the organisers to ensure that each and every observer fully understands the rules and how to implement them. As it stands the S3 champs is not a priority for Wiggy this year, however these boys like to win and a win is still a win, and this could easily replicate itself in a BTC event for Dibs, Brown, Wigg etc. 'Stop' allowed virtually eliminates this inconsistency. Sounds like a simple case of observer error. We all have, CoC's that is, to be gratefull of whatever we can get observer wise. Any observer is better than no observer but i totally and utterly agree that we as CoC's should do our utmost to ensure the observer knows his or her stuff. Perhaps wiggy should protest his score? Dont see how stop allowed would have meant Wiggy wouldnt have been given a 2 though. You do state "Stop allowed virtually eliminates this inconsistency" but from your own post you say that the observer was inconsistent and an inconsistent observer will still be inconsistent under stop allowed or not allowed. Edited February 20, 2012 by Old trials fanatic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
telecat Posted February 20, 2012 Report Share Posted February 20, 2012 Sounds like a simple case of observer error. We all have, CoC's that is, to be grateful of whatever we can get observer wise. Any observer is better than no observer but I totally and utterly agree that we as CoC's should do our utmost to ensure the observer knows his or her stuff. Perhaps wiggy should protest his score? Don't see how stop allowed would have meant Wiggy wouldn't have been given a 2 though. You do state "Stop allowed virtually eliminates this inconsistency" but from your own post you say that the observer was inconsistent and an inconsistent observer will still be inconsistent under stop allowed or not allowed. Unfortunately they tend to be more inconsistent in "no-Stop". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beatabeta Posted February 20, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 20, 2012 The reason it would have helped Wiggy is down to the fact the observer obviously decided he was running 'stop = 1' rules and 'deemed' Alexz to have stopped twice. There is no other explanation. Again just highlights how poorly thought out the no stop rules are Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minder Posted February 20, 2012 Report Share Posted February 20, 2012 First of all don't get confused with this being the fault of the no-stop rule. The observer should not have given Alexz a 2. The correct score would have been a 5 because he stopped (more than once) and I honestly think that he would have accepted this score rather than the 2 which he didn't have. The trial was pretty much decided on this 1 section and this is what I saw: The front runners (with the exception of James Fry) completed the section within 5 minutes of each other. Ross Danby 5d the section for stopping. Sam Connor cleaned the section without stopping. As previously mentioned, Alexz stopped but got given a 2. Ricky Wiggins got 5d for stopping. Dan Thorpe cleaned the section without stopping. All riders present were informed that the observer was 'strict' before they made their attempt. The riders that were given 5s were all in trouble, and all had the opportunity to put their feet down to get themselves out of trouble, but they simply held on too long and ran the risk of being given a 5. Later on James Fry cleaned the section without stopping. The results came in with a 3-way tie for the win on 1 mark. Fry lost the tie on furthest 0, Connor and Thorpe tied for the win. Alexz was upset at the fact that he had been given a 2, but as mentioned it should have been a 5. To mention that Alexz was denied the win and 'lost' the trial takes away from the fact that Connor and Thorpe genuinely cleaned the section without stopping and therefore deserved their win. I can only presume that Alexz didn't protest because it is an ACU rule that you cant protest against an observers decision unless the CofC deems that a mistake has been made. Just to point out the CofC was present for all these riders' attempts at the section and chose not to over rule his observer. As for beatabeta's unbiased view of the 'pathetic' no-stop rules, this was the second year of running the Wallace Cup no-stop and it is the second year it has been full up. In fact this year the entry was oversubscribed. Previously they used to have around 60 entries. If the sport carries on with these 'pathetic' rules then it will surely be the end of it!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old trials fanatic Posted February 20, 2012 Report Share Posted February 20, 2012 The reason it would have helped Wiggy is down to the fact the observer obviously decided he was running 'stop = 1' rules and 'deemed' Alexz to have stopped twice. There is no other explanation. Again just highlights how poorly thought out the no stop rules are Err surely that means he should have had a five then and he should be happy he got away with a two and saved three marks? Now i'm very confused Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dabtastic Posted February 20, 2012 Report Share Posted February 20, 2012 I dont see how you can lay the blame on no-stop for the observer's error? I have seen errors in observing with stop and no-stop rules and unfortunatly there always will be, some will work in your favour and some won't. After all, observers are only human, so they are inevitably going to make a few mistakes! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody Posted February 20, 2012 Report Share Posted February 20, 2012 The trial was pretty much decided on this 1 section and this is what I saw: The front runners (with the exception of James Fry) completed the section within 5 minutes of each other. Ross Danby 5d the section for stopping. Sam Connor cleaned the section without stopping. As previously mentioned, Alexz stopped but got given a 2. Ricky Wiggins got 5d for stopping. Dan Thorpe cleaned the section without stopping. All riders present were informed that the observer was 'strict' before they made their attempt. The riders that were given 5s were all in trouble, and all had the opportunity to put their feet down to get themselves out of trouble, but they simply held on too long and ran the risk of being given a 5. Later on James Fry cleaned the section without stopping. That excellent summary nicely demonstrates how no-stop rules require a different thought process to stop allowed. Your line has to be thought out before you enter the section in contrast to stop and hop where it is possible to stop and realign for every mistake you make and still clean the section. Make the mistake under no stop and 90% of the time you will need at least a dab to recover. Sometimes it is necessary to recognise where you may find trouble and plan a rescuing dab beforehand if required. Hang on too long for the clean and even footing won't save you, you end up with a 5. Trials isn't about cleaning every section, it's about losing less marks than anyone else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody Posted February 20, 2012 Report Share Posted February 20, 2012 The reason it would have helped Wiggy is down to the fact the observer obviously decided he was running 'stop = 1' rules and 'deemed' Alexz to have stopped twice. There is no other explanation. Again just highlights how poorly thought out the no stop rules are Rubbish. You're just using this to moan about no-stop. It has nothing to do with the rules, it's entirely down to the observer. The observer was giving other riders fives for stopping, only he/she knows why they gave that score to Alex, who has benefitted by 3 marks, not been deprived of a win. If you saw him stop how can you say he went clean all day? You're letting your dislike of no-stop cloud your judgement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rontheyank Posted February 20, 2012 Report Share Posted February 20, 2012 First of all don't get confused with this being the fault of the no-stop rule. The observer should not have given Alexz a 2. The correct score would have been a 5 because he stopped (more than once) and I honestly think that he would have accepted this score rather than the 2 which he didn't have. The trial was pretty much decided on this 1 section and this is what I saw: The front runners (with the exception of James Fry) completed the section within 5 minutes of each other. Ross Danby 5d the section for stopping. Sam Connor cleaned the section without stopping. As previously mentioned, Alexz stopped but got given a 2. Ricky Wiggins got 5d for stopping. Dan Thorpe cleaned the section without stopping. All riders present were informed that the observer was 'strict' before they made their attempt. The riders that were given 5s were all in trouble, and all had the opportunity to put their feet down to get themselves out of trouble, but they simply held on too long and ran the risk of being given a 5. Later on James Fry cleaned the section without stopping. The results came in with a 3-way tie for the win on 1 mark. Fry lost the tie on furthest 0, Connor and Thorpe tied for the win. Alexz was upset at the fact that he had been given a 2, but as mentioned it should have been a 5. To mention that Alexz was denied the win and 'lost' the trial takes away from the fact that Connor and Thorpe genuinely cleaned the section without stopping and therefore deserved their win. I can only presume that Alexz didn't protest because it is an ACU rule that you cant protest against an observers decision unless the CofC deems that a mistake has been made. Just to point out the CofC was present for all these riders' attempts at the section and chose not to over rule his observer. As for beatabeta's unbiased view of the 'pathetic' no-stop rules, this was the second year of running the Wallace Cup no-stop and it is the second year it has been full up. In fact this year the entry was oversubscribed. Previously they used to have around 60 entries. If the sport carries on with these 'pathetic' rules then it will surely be the end of it!!!!! Well I hate to have to disagree with you but Sam Connor did in fact stop on this section, (no. 37) three times, watching the video in the evening confirmed this. Dan Thorpe made the best and completely non stop ride of the top riders. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody Posted February 20, 2012 Report Share Posted February 20, 2012 Unfortunately they tend to be more inconsistent in "no-Stop". That's also rubbish. Have you never seen what riders get away with under stop and hop rules? - Going backwards - Stopping on the front wheel and letting the bike roll backwards when landing to gain a few more inches - Hopping bikes sideways both left and right one wheel at a time or both wheels but all the time moving the bike backwards against the direction of the section - Rocking backwards and forwards when sumped out on logs rocks etc. when they've failed to get over one - Rocking backwards and forwards on roots up a bank which they've failed to get over first time - Stopped with a foot or feet down whilst moving the back wheel around with the heel of their boot under the swingarm. All the above happen week in week out and riders aren't give the 5 they should have. Is that the fault of the rules or the observers? At least under no-stop you can't stop in a section with both feet down asking the observer which way to go or have a prolonged discussion with your mate about which gear is best to tackle the next part of the section. That is permissible in stop and hop... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ausy300pro Posted February 20, 2012 Report Share Posted February 20, 2012 Had to sign in just to agree with Woody, I like the line about trials being about losing less marks not being disappointed if you don't clean every section, maybe thats why there is resistance to no stop as you have less chance of fiddling about with your line to get the clean, instead you have to drop a dab or two. On the subject of observers being inconsistent I really think this is the big problem with no stop as an inconsistent observer will cost a rider (potentially) a lot more marks due to his or her interpretation, which brings me to a point I have made on sevral previous occasions, I would say that at least half of the inconsistencies with observers are due to three things, intimidation by riders (they should be banned for any aggressive behaviour towards any officials), observers being star struck by one or other rider and not wanting to be the person that costs them the win and finally there are a few instances of mates marks although this is pretty rare as far as I can see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnyboxer Posted February 20, 2012 Report Share Posted February 20, 2012 That excellent summary nicely demonstrates how no-stop rules require a different thought process to stop allowed. Your line has to be thought out before you enter the section in contrast to stop and hop where it is possible to stop and realign for every mistake you make and still clean the section. Make the mistake under no stop and 90% of the time you will need at least a dab to recover. Sometimes it is necessary to recognise where you may find trouble and plan a rescuing dab beforehand if required. Hang on too long for the clean and even footing won't save you, you end up with a 5. Trials isn't about cleaning every section, it's about losing less marks than anyone else. +1 Do the ACU or Clubs run training days for Observers? If they don't then, maybe they should start Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
transit Posted February 20, 2012 Report Share Posted February 20, 2012 i would like to say it was a vary good trial and a lot of work went in to it. just thinking if you put a 100 people in a room to watch a trials vid and asked them to mark it how many would be spot on not many at all i think. and if alex was still on that shedco he would have lost a lot more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jj65 Posted February 20, 2012 Report Share Posted February 20, 2012 No matter what the rule used, stop or no stop, a rider can benefit from a particular observers interpretation of the rules or how strict they are on observing those rules ( there are many reasons this happens) this is a fact of life, each rider has at sometime, got away with a clean etc, etc, they don't mind or complain then. We could have professional observers, fully trained and accountable, if riders are happy to pay about Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.