Friday 10 March 2006

Basic penalties

Posted on behalf of Paul Allaway (Red Astra)

 

In March’s edition of Restart both Terry Coventry and Myke Pocock’s reports on the Cotswold Clouds commiserated with Kelly Thomas on her failure to win the event after collecting penalty points on a special test, despite winning the event on the hills.  This to me crystallises a problem, the ACTC has both with the Wheelspin and Crackington Championships a lack of continuity in the basic penalty system.  Now let me make it clear straight away that this is not a dig at Stroud Motor Club who put on an excellent event.  For as long as I’ve been competing it has been necessary to read both the entry form and the route card to find out how the basic penalties are applied.  Now I’m sure there are lots of people reading this who have no problem with this but I feel its about time penalties for hitting markers and special test penalties were brought into line.  When you compete in an MCC event whether it be the Exeter, Lands End or Edinburgh you know that its clean or fail on the hills and mess up on a special test and the same penalty applies.  Now for instance on the Exmoor Clouds there’s no penalty for hitting markers but on the Tamar touching a marker collects a penalty.  The six point penalty on the Stroud special tests is different to the Kyrle’s special test failure.  I think we should have some recognised structure to prevent the ‘Kellygate’ situation arising again and I feel this is a paperwork exercise not a logistical nightmare for the clubs.  Whatever is decided whether it be touching or not touching the markers or slowest time plus 10 seconds, six point penalty or just a fail I have no problem with this so long as its applied to every event in the ACTC’s Championships, then everyone knows where they stand.  A further point if this system were adopted it should be printed on the route card before the first section as almost certainly we will have some newcomer to trialing  who will not be aware of this situation.

 

Paul Allaway

 

 

6 comments:

  1.   Do we need or want a one size fits all approch to marking? I hope not.   Part of the fun and challange in our events comes from the differing approch to marking and how hills and tests are set out by the organising teams. It helps give individual events their own special character and appeal and it would be sad if we damaged those intagable assets in the name of convenience and uniformity. In my view its up to the organising teams, who know their territory better than anyone to define a balanced event, and the competetor, experianced or otherwise, to understand the local rules and drive accordingly.   I think it was Freddy Dixon ( of Riley and Brooklands fame) who commented that " the compertion starts with the issue of the regulations". As true now as then I think. Regards Dudley             

    ReplyDelete
  2. Have to agree, always take legal advice after studying the regs and take a second opinion (well I joke) . Even the three MCC Trials differ . Problem is,do the marshals read the small print? Restarts for the 'Exeter' gave a whole new meaning and very refreshing. I spoke to a marshal as I went up to spectate,I don't think that he had seen the interpretation that I had read.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Posted on behalf of Adrian Booth who is having technology problems at the moment:-   "My personal take on this is it should be won on the hills with a special test as a tie breaker only although i would prefer a toss of a coin , i would question the legal side of a special test due to speed licence requirments and safety ,if i wanted this type of event i would enter a auto test or gymkana type of event . ps had a very enjoyable camel heights last sunday week and looking forward to the presidents trial (with a head gaskit fitted this year )"

    ReplyDelete
  4. It was clearly stated in the rules I suppose.   It has puzzled me that messing up an "easy" hill acquires a bag full of points automatically but the harder sections are sub-divided and don't automatically mean more points.   Sticking with the Clouds. A climb of Crooked Mustard to the step was about 4 or 5  and a clean zero. Which on the face of it meant that a special test failure of  6 points was much more costly than Mustard. I suppose it does depend on where the club starts marking from.   An excellent well run event with clear instructions.   If & buts we had dropped one point to Ian Moss until Bull Banks. Then we were 13 behind...   Next time!!!  

    ReplyDelete
  5. From a relative newcomer to trialling, surely the character of an event comes from a number of aspects including its geographic location dictating the kind of sections, history etc but probably equally from the individual characteristics from the organising team. In that case having a standardised policy on Special Tests would not ruin a trial in any way. I want to know that if I cock up on a Special Test on any trial I know that if it comes down to Special Test times then I have no chance of a Class Award on ST times. My fault. But to penalise twice for a mistake seems harsh. Could I suggest that if member clubs of the ACTC feel strongly about this, we have the mechanics to take it to the next ACTC meeting, discussed and then voted on. That suggestion will, of course, not please some, as they are apparently happy with the present position. Neverthelass it is up to individual members or groups in clubs to take it to meetings, decide on a policy and take it forward if necessary. No discussion, no problem.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Sorry Group. Forgot to sign the last posting .from myself, Myke Pocock.

    ReplyDelete