bingbasher Posted July 23, 2014 Report Share Posted July 23, 2014 Sorry about that. I put the wrong link up. This should be the right one now. http://vimeo.com/101453075 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
naelie Posted July 23, 2014 Report Share Posted July 23, 2014 All the controversy lies with the observing/observers. Yes, the riders/minders can see what score they get throughout the sections as the observers show this with a raised hand, fingers pointed and a whistle for a five. As there were two scores given at the sections I attended, that on the punch card seemed to be overlooked in favor of the written score. On four occasions the observers wrongly penalized three different riders. They, very politely discussed the error/errors made and rightly were re-punched with the correct score. However, when checking through the section scores on the results, all three were awarded the original decision score. Yes, I am aware the present riding rules need carefully looked at by the relevant authorities, but at the end of the day, the observers know what they are observing, and non stop means just that. Observe by the rules you have on the day and you will satisfy the majority. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b40rt Posted July 23, 2014 Report Share Posted July 23, 2014 The idiots running the WTC are driving the remaining nails into the coffin of global trials. Only very stupid people would force this rubbish to continue. The riders don't like it, the observers don't like, the spectators don't like it, and everyone leaves a WTC round frustrated. The change to non-stop for WTC rounds was a mistake, but continuing in the face of the evidence is just stupidity. You sound like a13 year old girl. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NAD1 Posted July 23, 2014 Author Report Share Posted July 23, 2014 Why does he sound like a 13 year old girl??? Everything he said was 100% correct. As for the 'what lap' question the 5 that wasn't was lap 1. The 5 that he got given was lap 3, full on, laid down, off the bike 5. That's where people started shouting out 'that's a 5 this time yea' etc etc 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baldilocks Posted July 23, 2014 Report Share Posted July 23, 2014 I asked what lap as speaking to someone else who attended they were convinced the stall was on lap 3. This made me think crikey it happened twice ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baldilocks Posted July 23, 2014 Report Share Posted July 23, 2014 Until sections are marked out for no stop and observers actually apply the rules then yes this will not work. At present we have almost the same sections just with longer run ups. This wasnt what I expected. Take section 4 at penrith. The first two man made jumps and ride round on the flat didnt take any marks that I saw. There was a no stop part to the section ie a continuous set of obstacles to be ridden, but it was only about 25% of the section. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pro sport Posted July 23, 2014 Report Share Posted July 23, 2014 (edited) Sorry about that. I put the wrong link up. This should be the right one now. http://vimeo.com/101453075 I also do not know the rules concerning a stalled bike in the section, but from the above clip what concerns me more is that on the later part of the section where you see the minder kicking the loose earth when Bou crests the ridge #1:30 in, you can definitely see him roll backwards to get inside the marker before he tackles the last rise and before he even has the dab at the end of the section.The rules have got to be the same for everybody, and everybody observed consistently . Edited July 23, 2014 by pro sport 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnyboxer Posted July 24, 2014 Report Share Posted July 24, 2014 (edited) Is this it? Blimey - how blatant was that ? If I did that & stalled in a Club trial (left dabbed whilst kicking the bike successfully - cos I couldn't do it feet up ) then continued through the section with just a dab at the end, I'm very sure my score would be a big fat 5 & not a 1+1 for a 2 Stall, fall off, miss a marker, leave the course, fail to move forwards under 'No Stop' rules was a big fat 5 as to my understanding Am I incorrect ? Edited July 24, 2014 by johnnyboxer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cabby Posted July 24, 2014 Report Share Posted July 24, 2014 Blimey - how blatant was that ? If I did that & stalled in a Club trial (left dabbed whilst kicking the bike successfully - cos I couldn't do it feet up ) then continued through the section with just a dab at the end, I'm very sure my score would be a big fat 5 & not a 1+1 for a 2 Stall, fall off, miss a marker, leave the course, fail to move forwards under 'No Stop' rules was a big fat 5 as to my understanding Am I incorrect ? lampkin got away with worse at the Scottish this year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
naelie Posted July 24, 2014 Report Share Posted July 24, 2014 All the controversy lies with the observing/observers. Seems we may be losing track a wee bit bringing Dougie into the topics. What can be done to operate a system of observing that will take away the controversy of undermarking the top riders at World level. The riders are in no way to blame for what marks they are given and they will accept all when a lower score is produced for them. I have failed to come up with a logical answer at this moment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnyboxer Posted July 24, 2014 Report Share Posted July 24, 2014 (edited) lampkin got away with worse at the Scottish this year. So you keep reminding me.... However this is the pinnacle of Trials, the WTC and should be marked accordingly Oh by the way, in the SSDT, Doug got away with a 3 on Grey Mare's Tail, instead of a probable 5, but was still 8 in front of the 2nd place man at the end............or are you saying his overall finishing SSDT score should have been more than Dabill's final score for the week?? Anyway this discussion is about the Penrith WTC round and not the 2014 SSDT, so why do you keep referring to Dougie Lampkin in the SSDT Edited July 24, 2014 by johnnyboxer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guys Posted July 24, 2014 Report Share Posted July 24, 2014 Stall, fall off, miss a marker, leave the course, fail to move forwards under 'No Stop' rules was a big fat 5 as to my understanding Am I incorrect ? Yes, you are incorrect. A stall alone, if you keep moving is not a 5, not even a 1. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnyboxer Posted July 24, 2014 Report Share Posted July 24, 2014 Yes, you are incorrect. A stall alone, if you keep moving is not a 5, not even a 1. Ok............ thanks for the clarification 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pschrauber Posted July 24, 2014 Report Share Posted July 24, 2014 All in all it was a very well ridden section by the rider. The observer was pleased ( even clapping his hands for all the effort the rider has done getting further in the section ), in doubt the observer has the right to score the section to the benefit of the rider. He (the observer) did that in this particular ride through the section, so everything is OK, in my personal opinion. Only if there has been in the same section and the same observer a likewise ride and the observer would have given a five that would be a problem in my personal view. In any other sport event were there is a referee it's the same, the referee or observer counts the points, as there are some sections there are likewise much referees / observers and there might be slightly differences in what they see and how they value We have to give the observer more respect and so more confidence in what they do, a observer has to have confidence then he will "evaluate" fair and consistently and that is what any sport needs, little differences between section may occur but were is the biff in this matter, as after the ridden section there is another, (Sepp Herberher: "... nach dem Spiel ist vor dem Spiel."). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveo Posted July 25, 2014 Report Share Posted July 25, 2014 how you can say that was well ridden shows your total lack of comprehension of what the final scores of any trial should reflect. Tony may be given some lenience in a world round in UK but to expect him to come over and enter the SSDT and compete against Dougie in an event observed by Brits is never going to happen. 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.