Billy Green docked "5" for stopping

[tony27]

On 5/29/2017 at 5:58 AM, 4ourtea said:

What a farce... the alleged "no-stop" world championship rules are NEVER enforced, yet for some freaky reason, an observer suddenly remembers that it is meant to be no-stop... so he docks Billy a "5" and then conveniently returns to normal mode and lets others stop... pathetic!

Just watch Bou... he "stops" as often as any rider yet he is given special treatment and never gets docked a "5" for blatant halts and even reverses!!. Furthermore, in Japan this weekend, his minder was clearly seen pouring water onto a muddy rock to wash it off so "the special one" can gain an advantage though the section. That is called tampering and altering a section... in simple language, it is cheating. WTF is someone as good as Bou doing/sanctioning (and Honda!!)?? Perhaps in Andorra his minder will be equipped with a bucket of tarmac or two so that Toni can have an easy passage there as well if its a bit too loose and dusty for "the special one". Toni has all the ability... lets see it without the use of assistance.

In 1 of the videos I've seen he backed up with a foot down a few bike lengths into the section & got away with it, it was 1 of the sections that towards the end his minder is very blatantly washing the rocks. 

A farce probably isn't a strong enough description of what I think of the whole situation

[2stroke4stroke]

21 hours ago, sirdabalot said:

Here's a quick thought without any depth. A front wheel rotation sensor, similar to ABS, connected to a transponder, signals the observer with flashing lights and sirens.

I'm going to the air raid shelter now. 

I seem to recall that something of the sort was experimented with some years ago.  I daresay the technology would be better now but is it really what we want to see?  

[lineaway]

 Would not work, rear tire drop off a large obstacle and you five a guy as soon as he taps the front brake that is in the air? 

[heffergm]

Why are we inventing horrible automatic scoring systems when there's a very clear way to fix the ambiguity of no-stop rule enforcement? It's called a 90 second section time limit, and then do whatever you want to get through the section. No more ambiguous scoring enforcement.

Edited May 30, 2017 by heffergm

[huski]

The time limit started off ok,but ended up with sections too long for the time limit.The top riders in each class at theBTC were fine,the lesser ones ended up timing out too often.If this method was re introduced with a sensible section length for the time limit it would be a lot better than the present farce

[baldilocks]

As much as I preferred that to watch the top 5s ability to land either wheel consistently in exactly the right place meant the rest just ran out of time or missed the line resulting in a big crash. 

Hence no stop was supposed to fix that by reducing the ability gap

[jonnyc21]

I heard it was both Bou's and Takahisa's minders... was that not correct and it was just Bou's?  

It sounds like the observers in that section ether didn't know they shouldn't let that happen or where turning a blind eye... bad ether way as the minders shouldn't have done it.  

It would be nice to know why it wasn't stopped... I wonder if there is a chance it was permitted to lower the risk for all riders not just Bou and Takahisa?  

I have seen and heard about sections being changed because of safety at club and even national levels before... though very rare... 

[heffergm]

I think we need to remember that observers at Nationals and, yes, even world rounds, are generally local club members (or at least that's the case around here). And even the sections that have one relatively experienced trials rider in them are usually assisted by anyone he managed to get ahold of to help out (i.e. people that don't really know trials). Expecting any of them to stop a pro doing something they're not even sure is illegal is a bit of a stretch. 

Edited May 30, 2017 by heffergm

[jonnyc21]

Finally saw the video of it and it sure doesn't look like a safety change... in the end however it isn't the first or the last time we will see a team or rider doing this and Montesa isn't the first.  We can just hope the next time the observer sees it and knows it isn't ok and calls them out on it.  

[heffergm]

16 hours ago, baldilocks said:

Hence no stop was supposed to fix that by reducing the ability gap

Yeah, and look how well that worked out!

[faussy]

A dab for a stop, observers are just too scared to give a 5, especially to world champions. If its only a 1 the rules will be enforced more strictly

[tricky dicky]

The only trouble with 1 for a stop is it is still down to interpretation. I think the only way is to have a set of rules that you could easily explain to somebody who doesn't know trials. I think the stop allowed rule isn't far off but you shouldn't be able to move the bike about with your feet down as that isn't a skill. Definitely need some rules that reduces any risk of dispute for the observer as without them we don't have trials. I remember the stationary dab rule from the 80's and early 90's and that wasn't bad apart from the riders moved a tiny fraction when they dabbed (or not at all and made it look like they moved) but you had to hop round etc feet up. Would a version of this where you don't get fived for a stationary dab work but then you have to be feet up to do any re-positioning? Top level (WTC, BTC etc) would need a 90 second time limit and sensible length sections. I personally think that there is very little atmosphere at a WTC or BTC like there used to be when the minders were lining the riders up and shouting a bit of encouragement. Only a thought

[baldilocks]

I was going to start a separate thread for this entitled "The Way to Dublin", its an old joke where a tourist asks an Irishman if he can direct him to Dublin, the Irishman replies "Well I wouldn't start from here...."

But , as we have a had a few changes in recent years to the rules, we are now in a position to evaluate each before making any further change so perhaps "here" is a good place to start.

But what problems are we seeking to address this time ?

For me we need some of the intended benefits of stop for a one and no stop, and we need something that can be reliably enforced.

For those that may have forgotten the original rules of stop permitted allowed reversing, hopping and stationary balancing as long as the rider was feet up. Many arguments were had about had the bike started moving when the dab occurred, and at world level the stationary dab became the norm rather than the five as required by the rules. A further problem was the time taken to ride sections, Graham Jarvis may have set a record at over 7 minutes to ride one section at Houghton Tower in the 90s. The section time problem meant that the overall time to complete the event was getting longer and longer, if your competitor is in the section balancing all you can do is wait or ask for a 5. Something had to be done.

So we then had stop for a one, not sure if it was with a time limit initially but you couldn't reverse any more ? Again at world and local level the stop for a 1 wasn't really enforced effectively and some reversing but not a lot was ok, ie just as observers didn't give a 1 for a stop they also didn't penalise a small reverse when balancing. But more flowing sections and less hop, hop hop was supposed to be an outcome and may well have succeeded.

We then had a year when you could manoeuvre or even reverse the bike with a foot down, this wasn't popular but it was easy to observe, it led to even bigger sections which was the wrong direction, I don't think even the riders liked it.

Just before the new no stop period we had stop permitted but with no reversing and a time limit. This was good to watch although riders regularly reversed a little, especially when setting off with the front wheel on a rock, but again this wasn't penalised.

So under all sets of rules some leeway has always been given.

I think for the sake of fairness we have to accept that we either have zero tolerance or we forget about trying to identify exactly the split second a bike has stopped. Look at the observers from local trials up to the WTC, these are often not the youngest of people, they might be struggling to see the whole section. Its not practical to have a zero tolerance for stopping or reversing given the likely observers and style of modern sections. Don't get me wrong I completely understand that without our observers we have no sport. My point is why put the observer in such a difficult position ?

So at all levels the concept of no stop observing is finished as a reliable measurement of performance in my view. But we still , again in my view, do not want sections where you must be able to hop or that are dangerous. I think we need rules for the setting out of sections. Bikes need a specified minimum turning circle and it must be possible to get a bike through the section on full lock. We also need to think perhaps about maximum vertical fall for the rider should they not get up the section. That man made piece of nonsense Michael Brown fell off in Japan a couple of years ago had no place in an outdoor trial. And at national and world level we go back to timed sections. Local trials we can apply a time limit if the clerk of course wants to but most of the time if the sections are correct it wont be necessary. Its still going to be a five if the handlebar touches the ground, or the riders feet are behind the spindle or the same side of the bike.

Finally some education is required of riders, course setters and observers. The video of Section 13 in Japan that @guys posted in the video forum needs to be shown to all as how not to do it. Perfectly good section apart from the start,  why put that turn in at all ?

Instead of riders riding along one side of the fence to ride back again and then complete a stationary hop just start the section so they ride directly over the fence. Alex Ferrer is the only rider to tackle it this way but doesn't get up, the rest all should have been fived for stopping. The riders know how they rode it is the most effective way and they were prepared to take the risk that the observer wouldn't give them a five for stopping, Gelabert (spelling?) does get fived but he balances longer than most.

So next time Mr Clerk of the Course leave the corner out, its supposed to be no stop.

Next time Mr Observer five the first rider who stops

Then the riders wont need to make a decision...

Under what I'm proposing you still have the no stop section ridden over the fence at the start but the riders can stop if they want and Gelabert gets treated the same as everyone else who stopped.

just some ideas....

 

Edited May 31, 2017 by baldilocks

[faussy]

 

Have a look at 17:30, bou gets done for a stop. Some observers just have the balls while others dont

 

[baldilocks]

45 minutes ago, faussy said:

 

Have a look at 17:30, bou gets done for a stop. Some observers just have the balls while others dont

 

 Fair enough yes but what about the second section he rides in that video,  he tries to go over a rock and ends up hopping backwards and sideways off it. After this the observer is still indicating clean, he fives it later on anyway. 

Not consistent really is it ?