Spanish Fiasco?

[old trials fanatic]

Did I mention observers? dont remember that!! and where did you get the Riders Deciding what scores they have?, I think you must have been reading some other post?

I loved watching the World Championship Trials, now the pleasure has gone, as I am studying if they stop or not and looking what marks the observer has given, cannot concerntrate on the beauty that it once was, Top rider also get away with a lot more in the new rules as observers are scared of giving them a 5 where a lesser rider would be.

Sport moves on from generation to generation, things progress and so do rules, Riders of "TODAY" should decide, people who rode twin shock can still do twin shock trials today, air cooled, pre65, etc. we are talking about today Modernday Trials, the old format worked, Bike sales decline is nothing to do with what rules are in place, there are different Trials which cater for all as stated! So when it comes to "INDOORS" will it be "none stop" NO! so they have condradicted themselves, Just go back to how it was.

Simple extrapolation. In your post you said let the riders decide with regard to the no stop stop allowed debate. You then go on the pass judgement on observers scoring the riders based on their perception of the riders performance within the rules. Well as you 1) think it appropriate that the riders should decide which rules should apply and 2) the observers cant be relied on. Then by definition you must be in favour of getting rid of the stupid observers the same as you think you should get rid of the FIM who don't know what they are doing either. You think the riders are the only ones who should have an opinion on the rules so surely the riders themselves can be the only ones who can be trusted to score their own performances. Would save a lot on costs I suppose? Then again perhaps they could decide who won before the event and not bother riding which would save even more money Edited July 1, 2013 by old trials fanatic

[ironbelly]

Simple extrapolation. In your post you said let the riders decide with regard to the no stop stop allowed debate. You then go on the pass judgement on observers scoring the riders based on their perception of the riders performance within the rules. Well as you 1) think it appropriate that the riders should decide which rules should apply and 2) the observers cant be relied on. Then by definition you must be in favour of getting rid of the stupid observers the same as you think you should get rid of the FIM who don't know what they are doing either. You think the riders are the only ones who should have an opinion on the rules so surely the riders themselves can be the only ones who can be trusted to score their own performances. Would save a lot on costs I suppose? Then again perhaps they could decide who won before the event and not bother riding which would save even more money

I think we may have had our wires Crossed, what I was saying was let the riders decide what rules "Stop" or "None Stop" and yes the riders should be the only ones having the opinion because they are the ones riding, not John who rode trials back in 1905, regarding observers, its very hard for them under the new rules thats what I am saying, Observers give their time up to do this, Observers are the last people I am dissing my friend!

[nigel dabster]

I think im right in saying under last years rules to clean a section you had to:

a) go from start to end without touching the flags

not use a part of the body to assist balance

c) the machine must not go backward

d) the section must be completed in 1min 30 secs.

Why Andrew does completing only 3 of the above suffice but you deem no stop to be an absolute. Point here is under either rules we need an acceptable standard of consistency. To say stop permitted was easier / better observed is not true in my view.

Simply put it is not as important and fundamental no-stop is essentially that no stop, stop allowed is made up from many things and tbh rolling back which rarely occured any way is not essntial as its a penalty to completing the section in 1 1/2minutes.

Once you allow a hesitation then a half second very quickly we get the "spanish three" and we're back where we started.

BUT the argument is pointless as rules are making no difference to anything at this top level, and if no stop were any kind of answer rather than creating confusion and controversy we would all be shouting from the roftops.

[jj65]

Simply put it is not as important and fundamental no-stop is essentially that no stop, stop allowed is made up from many things and tbh rolling back which rarely occured any way.

Rolling back, hoping back, was one of the most common things done by riders under stop allowed and rarely penalised for. Neither stop allowed or no stop are perfect, because the riders will always ride to how they think they can get away with.

I would rather watch no stop ( but only if it is observed as no stop ), simply because I don't want to see the outdoor WTC end up like the indoor WTC, keep them completely separate. But I do think both the riders and the public should be listened to, when deciding the rules. Because, one, a rider shouldn't have to do something he/she doesn't like and two, the public are paying both directly and indirectly to see the top riders ride.

The WTC has no relevance to club trials, as has been said before, clubs are currently free to choose what rules they like, but the BTC needs to be run under the same rules as the WTC.

[baldilocks]

Simply put it is not as important and fundamental no-stop is essentially that no stop, stop allowed is made up from many things and tbh rolling back which rarely occured any way is not essntial as its a penalty to completing the section in 1 1/2minutes.

Once you allow a hesitation then a half second very quickly we get the "spanish three" and we're back where we started.

BUT the argument is pointless as rules are making no difference to anything at this top level, and if no stop were any kind of answer rather than creating confusion and controversy we would all be shouting from the roftops.

Simply put we as a sport cant observe or are unwilling to observe too our own rules. Perhaps if last year had been called no reversing you could see it from my perspective. If we are going to say momentary stop is ok then put it in the rules, or if we are going to say reversing is ok because the rider has a time limit then again put it in the rules. I know its more and more rules but we do need consistency.

[baldilocks]

Spanish 3 = Milton Keynes roll back ? :-)

[dadof2]

I really don't know what all the fuss is about. I watched Andorra on TV last Thursday and there was plenty of rideable sections and no stop does not to me detract from the spectacle. Is there really that much skill in hopping a bike about - I see plenty of lads doing it in the paddock at club trials. The real skill is finding grip and getting over large obstacles and this is just the same in no stop.

Regarding whether the rider stops or not, there were perhaps some cases of what I think was over lenient marking, but so what so long as the observer gives all riders the benefit of the doubt to the same extent.

The cream always rises to the top as is being shown in the WTC points.

cheers