3 Or A 5

[dadof2]

I would probably have put this in SSDT 3 or 5 post had Andy not locked it.

Watching the SSDT videos, other trials videos and my experience at quite a few trials it seems to be common practice to have sections on the hardish side which cause momentary stops and then mark them leniently as a 3.

On the SSDT videos (thanks they are excellent) there seemed to be a lot of riders legging or stopping rather than riding.

What do riders favour - hard sections with lenient (strictly incorrect) marking, or

Easier sections marked stringently.

I favour the latter

[lineaway]

A correctly set trials should have a mixture of difficulty of sections. All sections should be scored to the rules ridden. All tough decisions should go to the rider. Now just last weekend I witnessed during a stop and hop trials, a rider get hung up on a double ledge. Unbelievable to watch, the scorer let the rider try more than 5 times, rolling back slightly every attempt to finally give a 3. I would of given the rider the second attempt as he tried to stay within the rules during the stop. After the first obvious rollback, it should be a 5.

I favor all the riders being scored the same. A five in a hard section that you fail, should be a five. An easy trials scored very strict is even harder. The scoring as a whole should remain the same. We all know the easy scorers in the clubs, the people who they hurt are the riders who have good rides. Scoring really is not hard. You should not be an ass about strictness, just correct. As most of us are out there having fun, but should be scored well as it is a competition and some riders thrive on that alone.

[greeves]

I edit to erase my comments in this post.

Edited May 12, 2014 by greeves

[johnnyboxer]

Not this again

Edited May 12, 2014 by johnnyboxer

[greeves]

Not this again

Maybe you are right.

Not this again.

Better let our sport leads to where we take it.

[smarty156]

The problem I have with the no stop rule is that it can be very harsh. Someone can ride a section well and clean it but because they stopped briefly at noe point they should get a 5. There's nothing in between.

I think, therefore, observers tend to be more lenient. The trouble is then that the better riders then take advantage of that, knowing the observer can't give them a 5 for a brief stop as they just let a lesser rider off.

I actually like the concept of no stop trials but I think a 5 for stopping is way too harsh. You end up with widely differing scores and not much in between, especially on easier trials.

I for one wouldn't want to go back to the days of riders taking 5 minutes to get through a section balancing and hopping forwards, backwards and sideways. I think they need to stick with no stop but instead of 5 for stopping it should be a 1. No other changes required. Then you can stick rigidly to the rules and people wouldn't get upset.

I observed yesterday for the first time in years (normally ride) and I had a section with a tricky tight bit between trees where people were getting their footrests stuck. If I had applied the rules strictly, virtually everyone would have got a 5 apart from a couple that cleaned it. I ended up telling people that if they stopped momentarily as their footrests got stuck but then heaved the bike out straightaway they'd be fine. If they sat there struggling and spinning they'd get a 5. Seemed to work ok and everyone agreed but I shouldn't have to make up my own rules so everyone can have an enjoyable day.

[slapshot 3]

I think if you have effective Clerks of the Course who pitch the sections just right then it minimises the issues around stop/no-stop, it's that simple, sections have to be rideable. If that is done right the observers should have absolutely no hassle applying the rules honestly and effectively for all riders.

When the contentious three/five issues happen it's more about inconsistency. If what the individual observer does is consistent across the entry then I'm okay with that if not then that's where it becomes an issue. Often favouritism cuts in and that's where arguments start, is one observer being more lenient to one rider than another.

We always brief observers that a stop is a five, riders are briefed the same so that everyone is clear what will happen. At all costs clubs have to protect observers, it's difficult enough to get them.

[paul w]

smarty156, eye opener observing now and again isnt it?

I would say that whoever set that section out failed somewhat. if you had marked that correctly and everybody got a 5 its a "dead" section

[slapshot 3]

smarty156, eye opener observing now and again isnt it?

I would say that whoever set that section out failed somewhat. if you had marked that correctly and everybody got a 5 its a "dead" section

Correct....they have to be rideable!!

[welshman]

in my opion who ever wins the compintion should be dropping around 40 marks that with harder compitions if there is any favortism going on there is a chance the compition can still win,also harder compitions are more spectable to watch which means more publicty,on the long run it raises the level of abilty of the riders,last time i watched a british round was in 1998,mitchell trial-wales.the steps the lads where riding was terrifing.

[welshman]

its a combination of what you know and who you know,so if u dont know any abservers then your f****d !

[dadof2]

Johnnyboxer and Greeves, is there earlier threads on this or is it this years SSDT you have in mind when saying "not this again"?

[johnnyboxer]

Dadof2.....

It's a combination of it all

Stop or No Stop

This year's SSDT (which you intimated you would have posted it there, if you could & good to see Doug win by a greater margin than 2)

Observers

Section plotters

It just goes on ad infinitum, round & round without conclusion

Everybody is wrong except the rider, my advice is ride what you have entered & get on with it

Alternatively if you can do a better job, volunteer to observe or assist the C of C to plot better sections

Edited May 13, 2014 by johnnyboxer

[cleanorbust]

I think we've established that observing strictly to the rules wouldn't be generally seen as doing a better job.

[dadof2]

Johnnyboxer. Thanks for clarification.

I have helped set out trials and acted as C of C at centre championship level. Also occasionally other tasks such as trailing round the paddock begging for observers, making flags and section marking tape (try splitting fertilizer bags in a continuous spiral to make long tapes for a fun activity) and copying maps so observers can find sections

I will probably observe twice this month.

At 2 of the last 3 trials I have ridden only about 50 to 70% of the sections have had permanent observers, the other sections being marked by riders taking turns at observing, myself included.

I have a number of friends who will no longer observe (one an ex WTC and BTC observer) because they are fed up with riders expecting and arguing for a 3 when they have clearly had a five.

What prompted me to start this post as not so much the DL issue but the number of riders in SSDT videos struggling with a lot of legging, and the appearance of dangerous sections on clubmans (or even beginners / easy) courses, e.g. being perched on top of large rocks or with dangerous falls to one or both sides.

I get no pleasure from legging or fiveing myself nor from seeing others do the same. What I like and like to see is riding. I think a move to more ridable sections and marking by the book would be better than having sections that are likely to cause stops and then bend the rules to give 3s.