Trials Australia Forums

With 2 Aussie Titles being decided by a tie breaker, and the 3 Open Solo boys clearly not happy about it at presentation night I thought I would throw a cat among the galahs and suggest the following.

I tend to think to current system rewards the person with the most cleans even if he/she has had more 5's than his/her competitors. In other words it is not rewarding the competitor who has got 'through' the most sections, and isn't that what trials is about, getting through and completing the sections?

Maybe the tie break system should be reversed. Instead of most cleans, 1's, 2's etc, maybe it should be least 5's, then least 3's, 2's etc.

If you look at the Title results it would change the results in both classes, Open Solo and Juniors.

Colin Zar finished with 3 5's, 2 more than Mick & Kyle, relegating him to 3rd. Kyle had 2 3's to Mick's none, keeping him in second with Mick Byrne being crowned Aussie Champ with only one section not 'completed' over 2 days of riding.

In other words Mick and Kyle completed 55 out of 56 sections compared to Colin's 53 out of 56, with Mick getting the nod through 2 less 3's than Kyle.

In the Juniors Jason Byrne went all 84 sections without a five, while Lewis Nolan went 82 out of 84, which would have made Jason the Aussie Champ.

If this had been the case the brothers Byrne, Mick & Jason, would have both been Aussie Champs in the same year.

I am aware that the current system is used world wide, so if Australia changed it would be going against the grain, and I am not suggesting we should, but it does make for an interesting argument.

Thoughts anyone?? especially from the riders it concerned in the Titles.

I like it. Your system looks very logical and IS in keeping with the sprit of the sport, I think.

Well done Outfit.


Best of balance.

Neo

Outfit,
I'd suggest your idea's a bit backwards.
Using your system:
First rider takes a point each lap at varying points, and a two in one section, ends the day on five.
Second rider rolls backwards / cuts a marker too close / snaps the tape, loses five but was clean everywhere else.
Surely, the second rider should be the victor? They've ridden better all day. Situations like this happen all too frequently, and you have to give the win to the 'unlucky' rider.
Maybe would be better, for the events that are timed, that the countback be on time taken as the primary countback basis instead? Has worked to good effect elsewhere.

Any tiebreak system is "fair" provided it is agreed upon before the event.

Any tiebreak system you can devise will not always reward the best rider.

Counting cleans is a common but not universal tie break system.

Smiddy,

Fair argument, however, the idea of trials is to 'complete' the course as laid down by the organisers.

In your argument rider 1 'completed' ALL the sections with the loss of 5 points, rider 2 didn't 'complete' ALL the sections, and therefore the course as laid down by the organisers, but with the loss of 5 points also.

Do you still think rider 2 should win?

All riders will, at some stage, roll backwards / cut a marker too close / snap the tape, lose five. All will say it was a silly 5, but it still means you haven't 'completed' as much of the course as some other riders.

Keep the comments coming, this could be a good topic

Outfit

Outfit,
Yes, rider 2 should definitely still win.
Any motor racing series tie-break is decided by the number of wins as the first derivative, and the same goes for Superbike / WTC events that have multiple days / races. Winner of more sub-rounds gets the overall.
Critically, you have suggested the 'idea' of Trials is to complete the course. The idea of all point-location sports is this, but the true test is simply loss of points. Surely someone who has bettered the other's scores on 3-5 sections, and makes an error in another, should be given the advantage???
What would you decide to do if two riders ended on 3 points, one with a two and a one, the other with three ones? Both have "completed" all sections. The hole in your idea is it breaks down if riders have the same number of fives.
If, as almost happened in the Junior WTC, a rider cannot attend an event, but ties for the series, do you not dispute that he actually rode better that the other entrant? Yes this is on a series rather than event level, but is of the same foresight.
Outright, the rider with more cleans has demonstrated a better ability to handle the conditions but has been unlucky, while the sensible rider has used a logical approach but taken the safe path. If the sensible rider gets a point or more less than the other, all power to them and congratulations on the victory. But in a tie-break, it should definitely be given to our cleaner friend.
And congratulations on stirring the pot, but flipping the ruling isn't the way forward, particularly when the entire sporting world relies on rewarding the (to coin the AMA) "Winningest" athlete.

What about SA Titles? Two juniors dropped 1 point each over 2 days. Then who should win? I have seen in the past, the rider who completed the most sections before taking a dab being crowned the winner. Saves waiting all day for a ride off. Most fives, most cleans? Doesnt matter as long as it is clear at start of event I reckon