[TRIALS] Slight modification to current scoring systemThis discussion has an associated proposal. View Proposal Details here.
Comments about this discussion:
Current rules are, each line are worth 1 point, easy line, medium line, expert line, all worth 1 point each.
I have discussed this with some riders already, and I think it would be a better idea if the easy lines were not worth as much as a hard line. For example easy line 1, medium 2, expert 3, or easy 1, medium 3, expert 5.
While the current system allows for a very easy counting of the score cards, it also disadvantages riders what got harder lines, and that's unfair.
What are you thoughts?
YES, this is essential.
In my opinion, completing a hard line should worth equivalent or more than finishing two medium lines.
For example: easy - 1 / medium - 3 / hard - 6 or 7
If the scoring card is designed properly, I think counting can still be fairly quick; e.g.:
Oops, unfortunately the comment doesn't show the pasted image, here is the link to view:
(note: gaps may be larger for the judge signs (so as some other details), I just quickly made it to show the concept)
I agree. 100% riders need to be rewarded for doing harder lines. Additionally harder lines can often take more time, a rider should be rewarded accordingly.
How many points Hard Vs Medium Vs Easy lines is worth should be discussed by a number of good trials riders as they can gauge the level of effort/skill needed for each line.
Personally I think the following guidelines are fair according to the effort and time what completing a section takes:
A Medium line should worth more than two Easy lines (maybe even more than 3?).
A Hard line - as I wrote - should worth equivalent or more than two Medium sections.
Happy to see that!
Totally agree with this system. In france we have "same spirit" : Build differents lines with 5 skill levels : A to F. A=1 ; B=2, C=3 etc...
Harder for build and decided this is "C", this one is "D" but when it's done you can have results more easy with riders which have little skill differences.
For example this is our "bible" for trial (French cup just done, we'll change this document for adapt line/level) :
Actually the way that doing all medium lines provide you also all easy lines was targeting in that direction and also provide more time and space for the beginners on their lines while before the pro riders had to manage all easy lines before and the beginners had to decide to block them or let them past by respect.
I like the idea but I fear of the difficuty of classification. I can only Iagine a system which leep the 3 groups (easy, medium, advanced), keep the rule to skip easy if you do all medium and give for example 2 points per medium and 4 points per advanced.
Anyway a change like that needs some sample calculations to come to a system that provide a fair system in the end. FOr sure a much better option to change points then the other discussions with points for different style.
I am totally with Olaf on this one. I know that we can, for the most part , tell when a line is harder than another. But there isn't really any kind of standard. I felt that the difficulty jump in San Sebastian was significant. The easy lines were (I thought) very easy and the jump to the medium lines was pretty substantial.
In a climbing comp all the routes need to be "forerun" or attempted by the builders to ensure the difficulty. Time obviously makes this a difficult endeavor at Unicon.
Maybe we can create a sheet/rules for line's difficulty, for example :
Easy line : max jump in height 30cm, max jump down height 45cm, line total height 60cm, max lenght jump : 75cm, precision : larger:15cm, length 1,2m
I feel that we will never be able to use that sheet/rules for lines in most comps specifically when lines are designed by helpers and then built. If we use a the sheet and find that we have 45 medium lines 5 easy and 5 hard based on the rules then we are screwed. The problem with time and also material. Trying to differentiate drop heights, skinny lengths etc based on pallets will be difficult as they are a set size and will influence what is built.
I think we would just have to rate all lines based on the percentage of difficutly they are of the hardest and easiest. The 15 hardest are hard lines, the 15 easiest go as easy and the 15 in the middle must be medium.
The problem with trying to determine how many points for hard compared to medium and easy is an issue as there will never be a set standard difficulty for the medium and hard lines, and trying to implement a standard for each difficulty line would be a nightmare and almost certainly never done well. If the mediums are very hard in a particular comp and someone does a set amount but they are worth so little compared to hard lines they may be disadvantaged noticeably.
Hm, an interesting problem.
I am not concerned with finding a "perfect" scoring system, because for a given competition every rider will be facing the same lines with the same points. So, there is no unfair advantage for any particular rider. It is true that, with this system, we would not be able to compare scores from one competition to another, but that doesn't matter. It is still a level playing field for all competitors. (E.g., each rider has the capability of looking at the lines and saying "ah, this one is an easier medium, so I will do it.")
I like Mark's idea that points for a higher difficulty should be worth slightly more than two of the lower difficulty. (So 1-3-7 for easy-medium-hard)
There was a scoring system for trial obstacles done by Kris Holm since the rules exist but I see personaly only ONE competiton where thos was used (and I realy see many trials competitions :) ). Since we invent the "if medium is done, easy can be skipped" rule a builder is forced to do at least this basic classification into Easy, Medium and Pro. This is an improvement already but also we often see that one or two lines are wrong placed and many rider fail then at this one line which has a big influence to the result for them. So I think the only chance is to follow Marks Idea and change points for this 3 Levels.
Counting wont be an issue as long is the card is good as Mark already state. With a bd card also 1 pont system can be painfull :)
Olaf, I also definitely think we have to keep the rule that if you accomplish all Medium lines, you get the points for the Easy ones too. It is essential :)
I like the idea of 1-3-7 for E,M,H. Rewards riders who push their riding skills to try harder lines under time constraints, which leads to more spectacular trials :-).
The rule of "if every medium is done, easy can be skipped" has a couple of great advantages:
- It keeps the beginner lines open for beginners and they can have fun and be a part of the competition,
- Stops more advanced riders getting frustrated at being stuck in a line when they could be trying harder lines.
But, like Olaf said, if there is one "hard" medium line, a lot of riders will have to go back and complete the easy lines. So far, only the top riders benefit from this rule. I think the rule: "if every medium is done, easy can be skipped" shouldn't be so rigid. Realistically, if a rider could succeed a couple of medium lines at San Sebastian, then they should have been more than capable to do every easy line. What if the rule was modified to: if you complete 5 mediums, than skip the easy category. This allows beginner riders to do their thing and advanced riders not getting frustrated or getting stressed they have to get every medium. Advanced riders would use their time to tackle mediums rather than easy lines.
I agree that it can make sense to chage the "all medium = no beginners" rule a bit to something like 90% or 95% must be done. There is the ONE magic line which is wrong valuated and sometimes its also difficult to find them all without wastung time to search the one you miss. This support again the pro riders and keep the good things for beginners. Maybe it could be also a different percentage for male and female!? ANother way is to stop more early with defining a line as medium line but this is always a weak rule depending on the builders :) How ever, this is another rule that should get an proposal. Here we have to decide now if 1 / 3 / 7 is good or 1 / 2 / 5 ...
A minor comment on the proposal: I prefer the old wording for the second sentence. ("The objective is to score points by successfully riding (“cleaning”) as many sections as possible within the specified time period.") It is more formal writing, and therefore more suitable for a rulebook.
It would also be ideal to either define here what we mean by "clearing" a line or reference the section where that is defined. But this is even more minor than the first suggestion.
The definition of cleaning is in chapter 12B.5.4 Definition Of “Cleaning”
I'm not positive about the old writing, I'm not a fan of "riding" a line, it's not very specific.
What about this?
" The objective is to score points by successfully "cleaning" (ref 12B.5.4) as many lines within the specified time period"