bikespace Posted February 5, 2006 Report Share Posted February 5, 2006 (edited) For me, this is a problem that keeps coming up. I think a few people fell fowl of it today. The marking in our area is generally very slack with regard to giving a one for stopping. I can count on one hand the number of ones I've had in the past few years for stopping (Before anyone says anything, yes that's about six ). One in South Wales, one in the Midlands (infact every time I dabbed my brake I could hear the bloke counting ), and a couple locally (one of them today). The trouble is when so few people actually observe the rule, it comes as a shock to some people when it's actually used. I think the Welsh Championship is one place it comes up, because the view is, this is the Welsh Championship, it should be marked tightly. I'm not whinging by the way, I have no doubt whatsoever that according to the rules I had a dab, and it made bugger all difference to my useless ride anyway . I have to admit I don't actually agree with it if you're stood up balanced, for a couple of seconds, who cares, that's skillful. It seems to me it was brought in years ago, for the sake of some prima donna riders. Surely we could just give the observer the right to warn the rider for timewasting if people take the mickey. "No timewasting please, there's a 5 on the way". Maybe it should be different if you're stopped with your foot down??? Dunno??? Certainly, in our area, the number of people observing the rule I would guess at about 5%, so if it's not working, why do we still have it? If the rule's there we should be able to use it. If it's not workable, then shouldn't we get rid??? Any views???? Edited February 5, 2006 by bikespace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baldilocks Posted February 5, 2006 Report Share Posted February 5, 2006 Have you tried observing the FIM rules ? its far to complex unless you observe every week and can remember it all. I think the FIM rules are too complex, you should get a five for moving the bike sideways when stationary as well but this happens all the time and depending on the observer can be recorded as a clean, a one or a five. Back to no stop is easier for the observers and makes for better trials in my view if the course plotters take the no stopping rule into account (so that you can ride round the turns rather than hop). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bikespace Posted February 5, 2006 Author Report Share Posted February 5, 2006 Have you tried observing the FIM rules ? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Observed this year at Hawkestone. I know what you mean, but I prefer their rules. I almost daren't suggest that there should be another set of rules. I think that's what's stopping them getting sorted out for normal club trials. Nobody wants to complicate it any more than the FIM do every year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atomant Posted February 5, 2006 Report Share Posted February 5, 2006 I dont penalise anyone who is balancing stationary without putting their feet down. Its skill in my view but as long as they dont take the p*** then its ok. I dont know anyone else who does either.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
desperado Posted February 5, 2006 Report Share Posted February 5, 2006 It is certainly a concern this old marking system. We really need to get rid of all the grey areas. One of the problems of course is that we are all so grateful to get 10 observers or so that there is no uniformaty within those observers, even at championship level. Some will give a one for stopping, others wont.Very few of us brief the observers fully, Ok a few reminders but not a full brief. On the brief stop I would like to see a 3 second time limit tried. Observers and riders alike can count to three. One, Two, Three move on ! That will give riders time to pause before hitting a big step, or get composed after a heavy drop, without the poseurs standing still in a section for 5 minutes. I have said it before we are judging a riders skill on a bike and standing still, hopping sideways and dare I say it going backwards feet up are all skill elements. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bikespace Posted February 5, 2006 Author Report Share Posted February 5, 2006 I've got a worry in my mind about any sort of time limit. Very difficult to police. One observers 3 seconds could be anothers 5. You have the same dilemma over a 4 second stop. Was it 3, or was it 4, or 5. In the riders memory it will be shorter, in the observers maybe longer. Has someone got a good argument against just allowing (at least) feet up stops without penalty. The argument of timewasting can be got round by a swift warning from the observer, followed by a 5, no problem. I'm actually interested to hear what arguments there are against this, not denying that there might be some. It seems to me that it would clear up one major area of concern. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atomant Posted February 5, 2006 Report Share Posted February 5, 2006 Has someone got a good argument against just allowing (at least) feet up stops without penalty. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Thats what I allow anyway.. also, you have the option as a trial organiser to mark the trial as you wish as long as its in the regs ( so Im told ! ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rabie Posted February 6, 2006 Report Share Posted February 6, 2006 its an evil rule to enforce some times the sections aren't set out (esp on the expert route) to allow it to be truly non stop able the rest of the time the observer give the benefit of the doubt or are a)unaware b)not at all confident in the rule i, in light of the recent debate on the subject, enforced it at out centre championship trial. i upset a lot of experts BUT they all knew how to ride "non-stop" (ie stop with penalties) once they realised i was going to give penalties for stopping its observer inconsistency that leads to riders being unsure of how to ride the sections (and thus opting for the easier option of stopping assuming, no penalty). however its observer lack of knowledge/confidence/unwillingness to change /or confront that means this is the case. coupled with the occasional section not laid out to make non-stop a possibility tough cookie! rabie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
copemech Posted February 6, 2006 Report Share Posted February 6, 2006 That is why the rest of the world stopped it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scorpa3 Posted February 6, 2006 Report Share Posted February 6, 2006 I am a firm believer that we should go back to full non stop. However even this has it's problems. Just as the topic began, when is a stop not a stop? It's still down to the observers point of view which ever set of rules we use. What I do know, is that I've also rarely been docked a one for stopping and in the 40 or more trials I ride every year (plus observing at a national) I have NEVER seen a rider get a 'five' for bouncing sideways when stopped. Despite often seeing it done! Come to think of it, I've never seen a stationary dab score 'two' either. There is no answer to this which will please everyone, but having three sets of rules is daft. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atomant Posted February 6, 2006 Report Share Posted February 6, 2006 What I do know, is that I've also rarely been docked a one for stopping and in the 40 or more trials I ride every year (plus observing at a national) I have NEVER seen a rider get a 'five' for bouncing sideways when stopped. Despite often seeing it done!Come to think of it, I've never seen a stationary dab score 'two' either. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I reckon this is the case most of the time so why have the rule. Next to no one enforces it anyway. Rabie enforced the rule at his club and that’s his prerogative, but at the next trial these guys ride at another club it probably wont be the case. I would also like to hear what the observers had to say about it. Why put critical ambiguous decisions in the hands of an observer who really don’t want the hassle of an argument or be at the centre of a dispute if it’s a close call. P*** them off and they wont do it again.!! I say just scrap the damn rule and don’t tell me that we will have hours waiting in the sections for the poseurs. We don’t have it now when we don’t enforce the rule, so why will we have it if its removed officially. All our trials are marked like this and the ones I ride at other clubs are too. (except the odd observer) Simple - keep it as a dab is a dab up to three then 5 for a failure. Sooooo easy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
speckled hen Posted February 6, 2006 Report Share Posted February 6, 2006 Heres an observers point of view then. Firstly, as I've said in previous threads, observers at most club trials don't get briefed which is particularly bad if there are first-timers manning sections and leads to marking inconsistencies. Secondly, I don't give a one for a brief stop feetup and neither do most other observers I speak to. What the adult riders have to consider is the kids doing the same sections. I observed yesterday at Bikespaces championship trial on a stream section with a tightish turn to a tricky rocky exit. This was difficult enough for most of the adults, 2s and 3s being the norm on the clubman route with a rare clean or dab. Then we have C Class youths on 80s coming along doing the same route-only the very best in the country would likely clean it. Predictably, they all stopped at more or less the same large rocks and had to leg over to the next one until they reached the end cards. Are you really going to dock them a mark for stopping as anything less than a 3 was a great effort from the little guys? You should have seen the smiling faces of those few who managed it-highlight of the day for me. So, if you mark that way for the kids you have to do the same for the adults, right? By the way, had a complaint from an adult expert yesterday who stopped feetup but leant against a bank with his leg with his bike on its side then had a seperate dab and we docked him 2 marks-he wasn't happy but what would you have given him? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
desperado Posted February 6, 2006 Report Share Posted February 6, 2006 Two marks minimum Speckled Hen - 10 marks if he argued ! One of the problems here is that some riders, even Expert lads, DO NOT KNOW THE RULES !!!! Resting against any object (Bank, tree, Rock etc) is deemed as assistance and therefore markable. You show a lot of commonsense my friend and are a real asset to the trials world. Could I ask you to Observe for Breidden Hills MCC at Nantmawr Quarry, Nr Oswestry on Sunday 5th March. Please let me know. Keep the comments flowing ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atomant Posted February 6, 2006 Report Share Posted February 6, 2006 Are you really going to dock them a mark for stopping as anything less than a 3 was a great effort from the little guys? You should have seen the smiling faces of those few who managed it-highlight of the day for me. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Exactly and I feel exactly the same. Theres enough crap in this world to contend with without having to take a smile off a kids face when he/she has tried their best to get out a section and then having a penal system in place to say, "Well I know you done your best , but rules is rules and your getting a 5 for going backwards" If I was in the same situation as Speckled Hen was above and was forced to mark 'to the current rules' then I simply wouldnt do it. And like you Speckled Hen, it too is the highlight of the day for me and its the only reason I help run a club. Could I ask you to Observe for Breidden Hills MCC at Nantmawr Quarry, Nr Oswestry on Sunday 5th March. Please let me know.Elwyn, I dont believe you sometimes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scorpa3 Posted February 6, 2006 Report Share Posted February 6, 2006 By the way, had a complaint from an adult expert yesterday who stopped feetup but leant against a bank with his leg with his bike on its side then had a seperate dab and we docked him 2 marks-he wasn't happy but what would you have given him? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I think he was lucky not to get three, never mind two! 1 for leaning on the bank, 1 for stopping and 1 more for the seperate dab. Under 'non-stop' rules it would have been a simple 5 for stopping. Is there not some merit in going back to full non stop? 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.