PDA

View Full Version : Proposed rule change for "completed"



Janet
Nov. 19, 2007, 12:16 AM
http://www.usef.org/documents/ruleChanges/441-07.pdf
is a rule change proposal to change the definition of "completion" in Appendix 3- in particular in terms of what counts as a qualifying competion, either for "moving up", or for "Horse" or "Rider" division.

It SAYS

Completion, except as noted below, means having completed the entire Horse Trial, and itmeans having:
- not more than 50 penalty points in the Dressage Test; and
- not more than 20 penalties at obstacles on the Cross Country Test, and not more than 90 seconds (36 penalty points)
- exceeded the optimum time in the Cross Country Test; and
- not more than 16 penalties at obstacles in the Jumping Test.
But since a requirement to exceed the optimum time doesn't make much sense, I think it is SUPPOSED to say


Completion, except as noted below, means having completed the entire Horse Trial, and it means having:
- not more than 50 penalty points in the Dressage Test; and
- not more than 20 penalties at obstacles on the Cross Country Test, and not more than 90 seconds (36 penalty points) exceeded the optimum time in the Cross Country Test; and
- not more than 16 penalties at obstacles in the Jumping Test.

Beam Me Up
Nov. 19, 2007, 01:18 AM
I know I'm going to be outvoted on this one, but I don't like the dressage qualification for moving up. I don't really see the point (guessing the argument is safety?), assuming that our dangerous riding rules would catch that more directly.

As for the horse/rider divisions, I don't care either way, since it doesn't impact the level at which you can compete, just the divisions within.

c_expresso
Nov. 19, 2007, 07:36 AM
I don't like it. Personally I think completing should be just that - completing the event, not getting a certain score.

gully's pilot
Nov. 19, 2007, 07:52 AM
As someone who moved up in the standings with 23 sj points--and wasn't riding dangerously, either-I agree I don't like it.

scubed
Nov. 19, 2007, 08:48 AM
as an amateur who rode the worlds' safest horse who hated dressage, I don't think dressage scores for completion are appropriate. It was perfectly safe and appropriate for us to move up when we did, but our dressage scores weren't always making it

retreadeventer
Nov. 19, 2007, 09:04 AM
In addition, that is a poorly structured paragraph.
If the present tense is used -- "it means having" -- then the time penalties must be referred to as "exceeding" not having been "exceeded".

The whole thing sucks. Completed means completed the test. I don't like the federation's new definition of "completed". I would much rather they used a different word to describe this. Perhaps QUALIFYING STANDARD. Drop the "completed" for this meaning. When you talk about eventing to others if you did the dressage, the xc, and the stadium they and the rest of the English speaking world understand what "completed" means.

I do not think 50 in dressage is remotely fair. The breed organizations like American Warmblood Society referr to 55 as being a qualifying score for some registration criteria, and I think 55 is a safer number to use with regard to dressage. Our sport is NOT dressage and dressage is only supposed to count for the smallest bit of it. Making the score low makes dressage way more important for QUALIFYING than it should be for competing.
I think 16 is too difficult for stadium as well. You can't quantify stadium courses. Some are difficult, some are easy, some are set on side hills on flat cups, some use 50 lb. rails in coffee cup holders that couldn't come down if Godzilla rapped them with both sets of legs.
As far as time penalties go, again, let's encourage people to ride like hell on cross country, there's a safety point gone out the window. Sheesh. Who makes this stuff up?

saje
Nov. 19, 2007, 09:20 AM
But notice that the penalties are "at obstacles", so as written it doesn't mean time penalties, just looking for clear rounds. They also don't start until Prelim.

All in all I don't think this is such a bad thing, though I admit I'm on the fence a bit about the addition of dressage requirements. But I'm leaning towards being OK with the whole thing, really.

flyingchange
Nov. 19, 2007, 09:54 AM
So those are the requirements for a competition to qualify for an FEI three-day, right?

And now the same are going to apply to moving up the levels in US horse trials?

Wow.

I think the dressage component really sucks. Because that means part of moving up is now going to be based on the subjective opinions of judges. Judges, as we all well know, can WIDELY differe in what they thing is good and bad, and how they reward points. This is just STUPID. Base it on objective criteria - stops, rails, and time if you must, but leave the effing dressage out of it. The DQ judges have more than enough influence in our sport now. What is WRONG with the USEF????

GotSpots
Nov. 19, 2007, 09:57 AM
I do not think 50 in dressage is remotely fair. The breed organizations like American Warmblood Society referr to 55 as being a qualifying score for some registration criteria, and I think 55 is a safer number to use with regard to dressage. Remember that in straight dressage criteria, a 55 is considered 55% good marks, versus in eventing, where the number goes to penalty points accrued (as a conversion of the percentage). A 50 in penalties is equivalent (using the dressage conversion table), to a 50% good marks - or straight 5s on every single movement. Thus, your standard of a 55 in dressage terms is actually harder to achieve than the standard set forth here.

luveventing
Nov. 19, 2007, 10:06 AM
Is this for all qualifications? so does this start with the 4 trainings to move up to prelim? If that is the case- I really don't think its so bad. I mean, if you cant get around with only one stop and that is a LOT of time penalities you can rack up too- you probably SHOULDNT be moving up. really. completing really isn't the same as competant at that level. esp in regards to moving up a level. I do have mixed feelings on the dressage. If you ahve a horse that hates the dressage, that can be a really sucky way to not be able to move up if you have clear rides elsewhere. but it is incentive to work on the dressage a bit. I would say maybe 55 does sound better. you can have a hot tense horse that will easily score around a 50 on a cold windy day and I dont think that makes you unsafe.

But I actually agree with the other requirements. at least for moving up to prelim and beyond. Its really not that much to ask to get around with just one stop and not more than 36 time penalities. and 4 rails in SJ. though again- it would be disappointing to have an unlucky day in the SJ ring and not qualify, but I see where they are coming from. I think the xc requirements are on the right track.

Eventer13
Nov. 19, 2007, 11:36 AM
I was looking at the scores from Rolex, and Master Monarch got a 53.1 in dressage. So, under these rules, he won the competition but still didn't "complete" it. I know this will have no effect on Rolex, just for qualifying, but still makes me wonder if the dressage component is a bit harsh. Especially seeing that there were several horses in the top 10 who had a dressage score greater than 50. Like someone else said: on a windy day with hot, fit Thoroughbred, you may not do so well in dressage, but still be able to get around XC and stadium fine.

Edited to add: this is the 2006 Rolex, of course.

purplnurpl
Nov. 19, 2007, 11:39 AM
I never looked twice at the dressage requirement.
All 5s is not at all out of the question.
I think all the suggested rules are fair.

JDufort
Nov. 19, 2007, 12:00 PM
At Rolex, or any FEI event, 50% good marks would mean a score of 75 or better. So Master Monarch absolutely would have had a "qualifying score".

Badger
Nov. 19, 2007, 12:03 PM
I was looking at the scores from Rolex, and Master Monarch got a 53.1 in dressage. So, under these rules, he won the competition but still didn't "complete" it. I know this will have no effect on Rolex, just for qualifying, but still makes me wonder if the dressage component is a bit harsh. Especially seeing that there were several horses in the top 10 who had a dressage score greater than 50. Like someone else said: on a windy day with hot, fit Thoroughbred, you may not do so well in dressage, but still be able to get around XC and stadium fine.

Edited to add: this is the 2006 Rolex, of course.

The rule change refers to a dressage score of 50 in a Horse Trial. The dressage is calculated differently in Horse Trial than it is in an FEI three-day such as Rolex. A 50 at Rolex is more like (aprox) a 35 penalty score at a Horse Trial.

TexasTB
Nov. 19, 2007, 12:04 PM
I was looking at the scores from Rolex, and Master Monarch got a 53.1 in dressage. So, under these rules, he won the competition but still didn't "complete" it. I know this will have no effect on Rolex, just for qualifying, but still makes me wonder if the dressage component is a bit harsh. Especially seeing that there were several horses in the top 10 who had a dressage score greater than 50. Like someone else said: on a windy day with hot, fit Thoroughbred, you may not do so well in dressage, but still be able to get around XC and stadium fine.

Edited to add: this is the 2006 Rolex, of course.

However, in FEI competitions, the penalty score is mulitplied by 1.5 to get the final score. Which means that Andrew Hoy actually got a 35.4.

I do agree with your point though; the dressage requirement for competion is unfair.

Hannahsmom
Nov. 19, 2007, 01:06 PM
Is this for safety or to only move up horses that "do" better? If for safety, I agree with others to dump the dressage test quals and I'd up the amount of rails that can fall in stadium. If it's to move up the horses that "do" better, then whatever, but it leans towards those in areas with more competitions like Area II or III. A person could be having a bad stadium day and miss a qualifier, if they have another event scheduled next week, then it's just money :eek: But if there aren't that many events, then they might have to wait another year.

FrittSkritt
Nov. 19, 2007, 01:49 PM
...horse who hated dressage, I don't think dressage scores for completion are appropriate.

I am not a huge fan of people claiming their horse "hates" dressage - 99% of the time it's the RIDER that can't produce a decent test, not the horse. If a horse truly detested dressage, I imagine it's because there's a pain issue or inappropriate training. Producing a "50" caliber test is more than enough for qualifying criteria.

Eventrgrl
Nov. 19, 2007, 01:58 PM
I dont get why people are getting in such a huff and a puff about this.
you dont need qualifying scores to do bn/n/t so the new "completion" rule will not effect these, correct.
theres always been qualifying scores to get to prelim, 4 trainings with only one allowed to have a refusal XC. i dont think it would be unreasonable to ask that you now be able to get under a 50 dressage, be less then 90 seconds under time XC, and knock 16 or less rails. if you cant do that at 4 trainings, why the heck would you move up to prelim?? :eek:

Janet
Nov. 19, 2007, 02:26 PM
"Completed" comes up in several contexts.

First is in the definiton of the "Rider" divisions:

RIDER (R) - Levels restricted by rider are limited to those competitors who have not completed more than two Horse Trials at the next highest level or higher in the previous 24 months.

So, with the new definition of "completed" if you had done 10 HT at Training, but each of them, for some reason, wasn't "completed", you would still be eligible for "Novice Rider".

In some cases, it would be possible to WIN your division with a score that would not count as completion .

In terms of qualifying to go Prelim, there are additional criteria (in the same rule change proposal).

The competitor must have completed four Horse Trials at the Training Level or higher, two of which must have been completed with no penalties at obstacles on the Cross Country Test

beeblebrox
Nov. 19, 2007, 02:30 PM
For the lowest levels of BN and N yes I have seen a lot of safe jumping rounds on horses teaching the joy of eventing to kids and adults but often some of these saints are not high on the ladder of dressage scores, So I can see how 50 would be tough when you have safe rounds out there.

However I should hope anyone wanting to make the leap from Training to prelim would be able to stay under the 50 mark in dressage before moving up.

I think the XC ruling is fair and hate to say it but more than 16 jumping (not time) in stadium should be saying something at prelim and above.

Jazzy Lady
Nov. 19, 2007, 02:38 PM
For the lowest levels of BN and N yes I have seen a lot of safe jumping rounds on horses teaching the joy of eventing to kids and adults but often some of these saints are not high on the ladder of dressage scores, So I can see how 50 would be tough when you have safe rounds out there.

However I should hope anyone wanting to make the leap from Training to prelim would be able to stay under the 50 mark in dressage before moving up.

I think the XC ruling is fair and hate to say it but more than 16 jumping (not time) in stadium should be saying something at prelim and above.

I agree with you. I don't think that I would be wanting to upgrade on something that is regularily dropping 4 rails a round enough that you cannot get a qualifying score. Sure there's the exception, but if it always happened at that level, I'd be worried.

cyriz's mom
Nov. 19, 2007, 02:44 PM
I don't have any problems with it.

However, where it gets confusing for me is that for "Horse" divisions the requirement is different. If a horse has "competed" (which means enters the dressage arena according to the person I spoke to as USEA) at the next higher level it is not qualified to enter a Horse division at the lower level, even if it never started stadium or xc. But then for HOY standings, the horse is qualified for ranking at the lower level even if it has "competed" and/or "completed" at the higher level.

The completed/competed and different standards is confusing...at least for me.

Janet
Nov. 19, 2007, 03:19 PM
I don't have any problems with it.

However, where it gets confusing for me is that for "Horse" divisions the requirement is different. If a horse has "competed" (which means enters the dressage arena according to the person I spoke to as USEA) at the next higher level it is not qualified to enter a Horse division at the lower level, even if it never started stadium or xc. But then for HOY standings, the horse is qualified for ranking at the lower level even if it has "competed" and/or "completed" at the higher level.

The completed/competed and different standards is confusing...at least for me.

That is ANOTHER rule change proposal about that.

http://www.usef.org/documents/ruleChanges/442-07.pdf


APPENDIX 3 - PARTICIPATION IN HORSE TRIALS [Chapter EV. Eventing Division] Change to read:
2.6 HORSE (H) - Open to competitors of any age, horse may not have competed completed an event above the level, e.g. a Novice Horse may not have competed completed an event at Training level or above, a Training Horse may not have competed completed an event at the Preliminary level or above, etc.
Where the text in this color is deleted ("competed") and the text in bold italics is added ("completed an event").

cyriz's mom
Nov. 19, 2007, 03:23 PM
Well, that makes a bit more sense! Thanks.

3dazey
Nov. 19, 2007, 03:33 PM
As a very long-time competitor and frequent dressage scribe, a score of 50 or above is a very bad test indeed.

I have never had a judge fault an inelegant mover or a rider with less than perfectly stellar equitation to the point where they would receive lower than a five or six on an otherwise well-performed movement, especially at the lower levels, but to include the upper levels as well.

Any test I have ever seen that was in the 50's or higher, the horse was generally being evasive, naughty, even downright nasty throughout the entire test. That is not something that needs to be considered a "qualifying ride", and generally the judge will contact the technical delegate to make sure he/she either speaks to the rider and/or keeps a close watch on them in warm-up for the next phase.

I don't know about others here, but I don't consider four rails in stadium to be a good round and if I don't know why it happened or can't fix it, I'll go to a trainer who can help me with that issue before I attempt to compete at that level again, regardless if it's Novice or Intermediate.

It's a three discipline sport, like it or not, they all do count.

JER
Nov. 19, 2007, 03:42 PM
I assume this rule change is meant to ensure that only the best-qualified combinations actually qualify for whatever riders are trying to qualify for.

I personally think the dressage thing is a straw man. The safest jumper I've ever had simply did not do dressage, especially not in competition and frankly, when I have a solid fence in front of me, I only care that my horse listens to me and has his brain working at that moment. If he didn't, I wouldn't be out there.

But what really bothers me in terms of 'qualifications' is that you can go to, say 15 competitions, get eliminated/retire/rack up a cricket score at 11 of them and still get your qualifying/move up scores. I agree that everyone has to start somewhere but it actually scares me when I see teenagers entering CCI*s and CCI**s on horses who've failed to get around safely at most of their competitions.

You can't legislate brains for riders, coaches or parents and the rule change probably just means the scary people will make more failed runs in pursuit of their goals.

hey101
Nov. 19, 2007, 04:39 PM
I assume this rule change is meant to ensure that only the best-qualified combinations actually qualify for whatever riders are trying to qualify for.


See, I saw this rule change as USEA trying to do SOMETHING to address the safety concerns and accidents from the past year. Putting more difficult standards in place might help prevent someone from moving up before ready?

If this isn't the answer to the safety concerns, then what is? Not being rhetorical, I'm actually asking- what do people think that the sport of eventing needs to do?

Jazzy Lady
Nov. 19, 2007, 04:41 PM
Maybe there needs to be more qualifying criteria for FEI events. One CCI* and 2 horse trials isn't nearly enough. I wouldn't want to do a ** with the bare qualifying criteria, but there are plenty that do.

Blugal
Nov. 19, 2007, 04:54 PM
Maybe there needs to be more qualifying criteria for FEI events. One CCI* and 2 horse trials isn't nearly enough. I wouldn't want to do a ** with the bare qualifying criteria, but there are plenty that do.

I don't think more qualifying criteria will do anything (for reasons JER pointed out), except make it more expensive for those of us who were fine with the minimums as they were. The thing about bare qualifying criteria, is that it is supposed to cover entire countries & even the whole world for the FEI requirements.

I entered a ** with minimum criteria, because I was ready, despite a lack of competitions within a reasonable distance. I finished safely & clear... while I saw other combinations, who'd done a spring season at Intermediate, and schooled all summer, who still weren't all that safe.

Jazzy Lady
Nov. 19, 2007, 05:06 PM
I know what you are saying Blugal. I'm sure there are plenty of people who are prepared to run the ** who have done the bare minimums, but there are also those that aren't and will run because they "are qualified". But I guess that is true of anything. There will always be people upgrading before they are ready, because they can.

flutie1
Nov. 19, 2007, 05:15 PM
In our society, we're forced to legislate for the weakest link.

JER
Nov. 19, 2007, 05:24 PM
See, I saw this rule change as USEA trying to do SOMETHING to address the safety concerns and accidents from the past year. Putting more difficult standards in place might help prevent someone from moving up before ready?

Hey101, I understand the rule change proposal the same as you, I was just putting a bit of silliness and irony in my post.

I don't like to legislate intelligence for adults. It doesn't work. If you want to 'qualify', you'll tote your horse all over the place until you get enough 'completions'. Whether you actually learn anything in the process is another question. Usually, the scary people have had well-meaning people try to help them at some point but they chose not to listen. Adults have the right to do this -- heck, they can even refuse medical treatment as long as they can tell you their name, their location and what day it is.

However, I do feel that minors need a bit of protection and should be steeped in reality. As in, it doesn't matter that you got 4 qualifying scores, your other 7 runs were a disaster and you're not entering that CCI**. But it's not so easy to legislate this.

pwynnnorman
Nov. 19, 2007, 05:43 PM
What do folks on this thread think about the idea of requiring a horse or rider to stay at one level (including, maybe, its European equivalent?) for one year? What are the advantages and/or disadvantages to that? Would it do any good? Or maybe something like that could be tweaked to be "a rider not previously qualified (for the next level)," so it would only apply to first-timers?

The reason I kinda like this suggestion someone made is that mileage is valuable, isn't it? Not just placings or scores, but actually time in the saddle on that horse under a variety of circumstances--wouldn't you say? I worry, too, about the younger riders, who can be so very ambitious (which is great: there are certainly too few out there who care enough about anything in this world; it's great the way event riders work hard and don't think ambition is uncool). But that is a fairly enormous difference between this sport and some others: the emphasis on getting up the levels.

Maybe something needs to be done to slow down the process?

pass
Nov. 19, 2007, 06:15 PM
Never posted here but I have read the eventing threads for sometime now.

Everyone is asking to find a way to make the sport safer. Why would anyone be opposed to trying to make it so that only the most qualified are able to move up.

It used to be, back in the day, that you needed to have a clean cross country go in order to do a 1*. I remember that we needed to have 4 scores, and I believe that maybe one of those could have a stop. The fact that now you never need to go clean, is a bit crazy to me. How is it possible that the FEI thought that it would be ok to move up to a CIC** having never run an Intermediate horse trials? Let me tell you that I can not think of anything that would make me want to run a greener horse at a CIC** only having run a CIC* What that breaks down to is this: 3 prelim horse trials and 1 CIC* before moving up to a CIC**. Or that having one qualifying score at Advanced makes it ok to run a CIC***, as long as you also have a CIC**. I do see the point that a qualified rider can move a horse up more efficiently than a greener rider, but the fact that that green rider can get to a CIC** in 8 competitions is frightening to me. After years of experience on several horses at the upper levels, I feel that even now I make mistakes and use poor judgement at times(hindsight is a wonderful thing). How many time have you gotten to the other side of the jump and been like "wow glad that worked out"? We don't set out to make a mistake in the heat of the moment, but it does happen, sometimes it is all the rider and sometimes it is the horse. There is a lack of communication between two people let alone a 1200lbs animal and it's rider. But the more mileage you have under your belt, the better prepared you should be to deal with the situations as they arise at 550 mpm.

And if you are not settled and experienced enough as a rider to get a 50 on the nervous horse that "just does not like dressage", how are you going to deal with said nervous horse running at speed toward solid obstacles? I think the standards need to be changed, and not to be more lenient. Keep Dressage at 50, it is realistic. Make 0 X-C jumping faults a necessity. We can all be forgiven the occasional glance off of a narrow, or a simple stop here and there, but not every time! Maybe go back to at least 2 clean rounds and 2 w/20 penalties. Show jumping is a whole other story. A refusal and 3 rails is still a qualifying round. Would you be overly-joyed with that score? There is no replacement for experience, good or bad. We learn from both, but if we are not made to have many experiences, then we have not learned.
I wish luck to the many people who have to take on the task of making the rules. I just hope that they decide to make it a little more difficult for us to reach our goals.

Janet
Nov. 19, 2007, 06:42 PM
I dunno.

First of all, the qualifications for moving up to Prelim only apply to the RIDER. A qualified rider can bring a horse out at Prelim, without ever doing Training. So it would be quite a big change to put that requirement on the HORSE as well.

Secondly, I don't think we really have problem with people moving up in "less than a year". I do not know of anyone (rider) who has moved up to Prelim for the first time (which is all this covers) after less than a year at Training. Horses - yes. But not riders.

RAyers
Nov. 19, 2007, 06:47 PM
... The fact that now you never need to go clean, is a bit crazy to me. How is it possible that the FEI thought that it would be ok to move up to a CIC** having never run an Intermediate horse trials? Let me tell you that I can not think of anything that would make me want to run a greener horse at a CIC** only having run a CIC* What that breaks down to is this: 3 prelim horse trials and 1 CIC* before moving up to a CIC**. Or that having one qualifying score at Advanced makes it ok to run a CIC***, as long as you also have a CIC**.




With this I disagree, you have to remember a CIC is nothing more than a horse trial with FEI rules. It is NOT a CCI. Thus, the CIC is the stepping stone to the CCI. To run a CCI** you have to basically have 3 CIC** qualifying scores. There is little difference between a HT and CIC so the equivalence works. Like I said earlier, I have ridden OI courses that were no different than the CIC** course and CIC** courses that were easier than the OI. Once I was actually bummed I didn't enter the OI because the course looked more fun.

I agree with the need to get miles and time in the saddle.

Reed

pass
Nov. 19, 2007, 07:10 PM
So basically you are saying it is OK to run an intermediate horse trials after a rider has only run 8 events?
I think that there is a problem with that. Keep doing the math with how many events it takes to get to a certain level, and the fact that you NEVER need to jump clean. It was not my intention to bring about the dismal differences between the CIC and CCI now a days. It was more to make a point that it is too easy to get to the upper levels. But if it seems to you to be ok with a rider moving up to Intermediate after only 8 (not necessarily clean) competitions, then your point was made loud and clear.
Let's also remember that there is a difference between riders that have the experience moving a horse up to prelim and on and a rider that is just moving up.

blackwly
Nov. 19, 2007, 07:10 PM
In general, I think the current FEI and proposed lower level qualification schemes are pretty reasonable. But I would make a few points:

I came along as a YR and did most of my 3days (6) a few years ago in the days of long formats when the FEI qualifications still called for a number of clear rounds on xcountry, but did include the dressage score requirement as well. I had 2 issues with this at the time.

My second 3day horse was a very talented handful. At both prelim and later intermediate he was more than capable of exploding with a fairly hideous dressage test, usually involving a lot of cantering in place. This did NOT score well. While of course the rider is responsible on some level, I had competed very successfully at 4th level in dressage in the past (on my first 3day horse, an OTTB) and generally think I'm as capable as the next event rider in the dressage ring. This horse was tough. There were numerous occasions where we scored a 49 or a 50.5 in dressage, wreaking havoc with my qualification attempts. However, when I took this horse to his first CCI*, he scored a 36 in dressage, and won the event on his dressage score by a margin of 17 points over 2nd place (with 150 horses in the 3day- this was at Midsouth.) As I said- he could be streaky! But we almost didn't qualify for this 3day we eventually won because of a stupid 50.5! And obviously the horse was ready to preform at the level- in the dressage ring and on course.

The second issue I have with all this is the suggestion that only clear rounds should be qualifying. This makes lots of sense at first blush, but here's the problem- when you're trying to qualify for the big 3day and you have limited events in which to do so, you then have to "ride for the clear." This means you may slow down and you may take options rather than try the corner, the skinny, the direct route at the water. You may end up "clear" but you could be less pepared than the person who tries the direct route, has a glance off the skinny, and realizes they need to go home to work on it. I had this issue with said horse who was difficult with turning questions, and so if we DID get a decent dressage test, I'd be very tempted to take the option on some accuracy questions lest we waste our qualifying dressage score! The 20 penalty rule allows you to try the tough stuff, which is what you should be doing while your preparing for a 3day or moveup.

Of course, here's the irony: my current horse just moved up to prelim a few weeks ago. He's a delight to ride, I'm a lot more experienced than I used to be, etc, etc so we've gone prelim 3 times and have 3 good dressage scores and clear xcountry rounds. But is he just about ready for a 3day? No way! He's doing 5 or 6 more prelims before we try that, because he's a little looky and needs all the confidence in the world.

Bottom line- I don't think you can really legislate when horses and riders are ready to move up or hit the FEI levels. Though of course we must try!

RAyers
Nov. 19, 2007, 07:26 PM
So basically you are saying it is OK to run an intermediate horse trials after a rider has only run 8 events?
I think that there is a problem with that. Keep doing the math with how many events it takes to get to a certain level, and the fact that you NEVER need to jump clean. It was not my intention to bring about the dismal differences between the CIC and CCI now a days. It was more to make a point that it is too easy to get to the upper levels. But if it seems to you to be ok with a rider moving up to Intermediate after only 8 (not necessarily clean) competitions, then your point was made loud and clear.
Let's also remember that there is a difference between riders that have the experience moving a horse up to prelim and on and a rider that is just moving up.

Pass,

Please reread my post. What I disagreed with is your idea that the CIC is somehow different than a horse trial. Running a CIC** is NO different than running a intermediate horse trial. There is no separation that you allude to in the CIC. The only difference is dressage and the overall rules. So, is it better to run an OI after 8 prelims or a CIC**? I say it doesn't matter. Look at the course at Galway. Is the CIC** any different than the OI?

Don't put words into my posts. But to play your game, how are the new rules any less stringent or different than the old requirements of simple clean rounds to move up? Before there were no stipulations about stadium or dressage? How did that make better riders? It was easy to get to the upper horse trial levels before too.

Now as for needing miles and experience I agree with you.

Reed

octavian_jazz
Nov. 19, 2007, 07:36 PM
I think the USEF is trying, but in a lot of ways this doesn't seem entirely fair. I'm sure we've all had those bad days where things just go wrong, right? You have a great warm up in the dressage ring and then you head into the dresage test and it all falls apart? (I'm sure I'm not the only one who has experienced this!) Okay, so you end up with a 51 because of this. Previously you were scoring in the mid 30's, but on this particular day things were just off and you scored a 51. You and your horse are both perfectly comfortable at the level you're competing at, but again, on this day, you both just had an off day. This event is your last chance to qualify, but because you scored a 51, you're one short. But as the someone above said, you may have been able to get to that CCI and be in first after dressage, so is this qualifying system effective? We could always switch the scenario, someone gets very lucky and has only done four events and then heads to cross country at the CCI and comes back in an ambulance, but they had their four qualifying scores, so they were supposed to be set, right?

And I completely agree with blackwly, the 20 penalties gives you some room and not in a bad way either. What good does it do if you are always taking the safe route? Are you always going to have that option? No.

The stadium rule sounds very reasonable. Four rails is plenty, and if you pull more then something is problably off.

I don't think that minors are worse then adults, remember that minors have to get both their parent's and trainer's signatures on the entry form, while adults only have to get their trainer's, but for some reason I have this suspicion that not all of you do...(not in a bad way, but I know that everyone gets in a rush to send in the entry forms sometimes, right?)

And as far as ambition, I'm an incredibly ambitious person who would like to move up the levels as fast as I can... safely . Because I'm ambitious, there is no way I would risk putting my horse in danger, ever. If something happens to me or my horse, I may never make it up the levels anyway. And I also want to prepare myself for the next level, because that's my main focus, but again, there's no way I'm going to move up unless I'm getting good results at the level I'm at, not only that, but my horse needs to feel confident as well. I think maybe the problem is that a lot of YRs (not all) have horses more experienced then they are that take them up through the levels quickly, and therefore they never learn to really ride and deal with problems because they may not be given the chance.

retreadeventer
Nov. 19, 2007, 07:49 PM
Remember that in straight dressage criteria, a 55 is considered 55% good marks, versus in eventing, where the number goes to penalty points accrued (as a conversion of the percentage). A 50 in penalties is equivalent (using the dressage conversion table), to a 50% good marks - or straight 5s on every single movement. Thus, your standard of a 55 in dressage terms is actually harder to achieve than the standard set forth here.

That is a 55 for EVENTING not straight dressage with that organization - I'm looking for the link under the registration rules -- but I am quite familiar with both sets of percentages, I judge....

retreadeventer
Nov. 19, 2007, 08:02 PM
Janet, thanks for posting those links to those rule changes.
Were they discussed at the annual meeting to any extent, and what was the feeling there? Given the politics of the Federation, and the people involved in this, I suspect it's a done deal -- whether we like it or not.

Beam Me Up
Nov. 19, 2007, 08:20 PM
Do we know why the dressage qualification was proposed? Is it supposed to be an indicator of safety?

From a moving-up perspective, safety is the only reason I can think of to limit participation (competitiveness seems up to the participant, as long as they are safe).

For the horse/rider divisions, I guess I can see it (if you've had a certain amount of success at higher levels, you are no longer qualified). And no matter what standard they choose, it applies to all, so no issues with the dressage in there.

Back to moving up, to me the link between safety and dressage score is a bit weak. I understand the theory--the better trained, more responsive, more controlled your horse is, the better it will tackle x-c. But in practice that is often not the case (both with the great dressage horses and the bad ones!), so it seems as though other safety precautions (jumping phase qualifications, dangerous riding rule) would address jumping safety more directly. If the dressage test was really that scary, even the dressage judge could flag that as dangerous riding.

I suppose if we had some concrete evidence that poor dressage scores predict x-c accidents (something like, "competitors who score over 50 in dressage are 2x more likely to fall on x-c") then I'd be in, but right now the link seems to vague, and much vaguer than other checks we have in place, such as the dangerous riding.

Gnep
Nov. 19, 2007, 09:18 PM
I think the rule change proposal is just sand in everybodies eyes, like ' see we have done something '.
I feel there is no need for any qualifying for BN to N and N to T or the old rule is good enough.
But I think 4 is not enough for a rider to go from T to the ever tougher P courses, it takes more experiance than just 4 T, or 4 P to ride I and so on.
Especialy today we see that rider buy themself next or next-next level horse, do the minimum and than go to the next level and than we watch those nail biter rides.

A rule change like this would only make sence if there was a rating system for courses, 1, 2 ,3 , courses, with four qualifications, you can ride a 1, with 2 ones ride a 2 and so on.
Any qualification needs a time limit, no live time qualifications
Will any system prevent dangerous riding, absolutely no way.

But 4 is a joke

yellowbritches
Nov. 19, 2007, 09:26 PM
I agree with Beam Me Up that the link between safety and dressage scores is a bit weak. I can name quite a few horses I have known (and ridden) that could be complete asshats in the dressage ring, but the safest, most talented horses on cross country. And dressage IS very subjective...I recieved a 52 in a prelim test one time on Ralph when I had ridden a consistent, fairly obiedient and respectable test. To that point, it had been our best test at prelim. We were both a little tense, but there was nothing inherently wrong...I think I just got a judge that didn't like little, bay TBs. A few weeks later, I got a 49, I think in the same test. This time Ralph threw several spectacular temper tantrums and barely completed a few moves (note: I did not run him cross country). I can actually think of another test, a few weeks BEFORE the 52, where Ralph let a huge buck or two loose in some of his canter work...I think we got a 46. Our dressage was never stellar at prelim, but the scores ranged widely, purely because judges have different ideas of what is respectable.

Anyway, I don't mind the jumping criteria for move ups, and I think it will force people to be a little more honest about their abilities (If I can't get around a certain level without a couple of stops, should I really be thinking of moving up?? Nope. Just because you finish, doesn't mean you did it sucessfully). I could do without the dressage, but if it is there, no big deal...I'll just work that much harder on my flatwork ;)

AllyCat
Nov. 19, 2007, 09:30 PM
My horse hates dressage and getting a 50 was pretty standard for us until recently when we started to do a bit better. That said, she is a good horse on XC if I ride right and almost ALWAYS goes clean on stadium. We were perfectly safe moving up to Training and then to Prelim. Our dressage was awful.

I can see having this for FEI events, but your basic horse trial? Jeez...It's subjective test too. That hardly seems fair.

octavian_jazz
Nov. 19, 2007, 10:20 PM
I just wanted to give yet another example of why the dressage rule is useless. I'm not proud of this, but my current horse is very tough all around, but especially in the dressage ring. However, he has always, always been one of the most careful, but bold jumpers I've witnessed. I don't think there's any need to tell our life story, but we did one novice (the dressage score was a 50 went clear stadium and cross country and moved up to training where we began to consistantly score from the mid 30's to high 40's (on bad days). We did 5 trainings and then moved up to prelim. At our first recognized prelim, we got a 51 in dressage, had a puny stop at a ditch, otherwise went clear except for the fact that I left out a jump. But my point is, even at events where we've had horrible dressage tests, he has never, not once, been dangerous cross country. There doesn't even seem to be a connection between the dressage score and his way of going during cross country.

Janet
Nov. 19, 2007, 11:33 PM
I don't think that minors are worse then adults, remember that minors have to get both their parent's and trainer's signatures on the entry form, while adults only have to get their trainer's, but for some reason I have this suspicion that not all of you do...(not in a bad way, but I know that everyone gets in a rush to send in the entry forms sometimes, right?)
You seem to be forgetting that "trainer", in the contex of signing the entry blank, is the person responsible for deciding what feed, supplements and medications the horse gets. It has NOTHING to do with determining whether you are ready to compete at that level.

I am not sure what you mean when you say that you suspect people don't get the trainer's signature. If there is no trainer signature, the entry will not be accepted.

c_expresso
Nov. 20, 2007, 07:36 AM
I think she is saying that at the last minute in an attempt to get the entry in on time, some one may forge their trainer's signature.

asterix
Nov. 20, 2007, 10:13 AM
Um, right, but read what Janet said. The "trainer" is the one who takes responsibility for feed, supplements, etc. (and by extension drugs).

I am my horse's "trainer" by these rules, since he is on self care. My "coach" has no idea what I feed him :D
So I sign the owner and the trainer blanks. As an adult, I don't need my coach to sign. Even at Prelim, adults do not need anyone's "blessing" to move up in terms of the entry forms itself.

c_expresso
Nov. 20, 2007, 10:17 AM
Yes, I have read what Janet said. I was simply clarifying what Octavianjazz meant ;)

I am a junior, and my mom signs as my trainer and I leave the coach empty. Never had any problems.

Lisamarie8
Nov. 20, 2007, 11:04 AM
It seems to me that it's the score of "50" which is sticking in a lot of people's craw. I myself don't know if there is a direct relationship between dressage scores and jumping penalties/safety on course, but it seems (anecdotally, by way of this thread) that a score of 50 may be right at or a little below the mean?

Because I'm a nerd i took the results from ONE horse trials (Fall VHT) and looked at the break out of dressage scores to XC penalties and E/R/MR. While it's hardly a thorough look, it does show some info. It also shows that it would just take a little bit of time for someone to put together a more comprehensive examination to see if there is any correlation.

While I am a nerd, I am also a nerd at work and don't have the time to run the statistical analysis to see if these differences are significant, but here's the data that I did collect.

The formatting wont hold on the board, and so I had to make it a link (http://img518.imageshack.us/img518/5522/dressagevxcps8.jpg)

One thing it does show is that 50 isn't below the mean, at least not at VHT... because of this taking the average of the XC penalties isn't really valid, the sample size is to small... which is where SPSS would come in handy. :p

thumbsontop
Nov. 20, 2007, 11:08 AM
Okay, I'm not understanding something. Eventing is "combined training", right? You and your horse can compete succeed at more than one thing - shows a well-rounded pair. That's the sport - I didn't invent it, and you didn't invent it. You can, however, participate if you choose. I don't remember anyone ever calling it strictly jumping or cross country.

What's wrong with demanding a little quality to a ride? Sure you can have a bad day and it would be unfortunate to not qualify for something based on a series of unfortunate events. I think though, that the purpose of these rule changes may be to add some quality and keep the sport the way it was originally intended to be. If your horse hates dressage, then it shouldn't be doing eventing at a high level. That's the sport - dressage is part of it.

Maybe it would encourage a more solid training base for horse and rider before moving up. Is that a bad thing? Then the horses and riders at the highest levels would truly be the best. Maybe the rules could be tweaked a little, but I generally agree with them.

Going to zip up the flame suit now...

asterix
Nov. 20, 2007, 11:24 AM
Zowie, though, LM8, that is fascinating! Now I want to see much bigger "n"s so we can see if any of that holds true -- would be very interesting to show what happens at different levels (if one wanted to take a flying leap based on this tiny sample, one could say that at the lower/lowest levels, both very high and very LOW scoring dressage tend to have more trouble on XC...but that at the higher level the low scoring dressage fall out of that mix)...

cool! we should do some more events and see what we get...(this is the royal "we" since I am not a numbers nerd :winkgrin:)

hey101
Nov. 20, 2007, 01:00 PM
Thumbsontop, I agree with you entirely. This coming from someone who's two best jumpers to date were/ are currently TERRIBLE at dressage. By the proposed rules, maybe 1/3rd of my dressage tests wouldn't have counted.

Fortunately my four-year old is looking like she will be great at all three phases! Maybe I can finally put my dressage demons to rest. 'course, by the time I get her to any level higher than training, the rules of the sport will have changed again! :confused: :eek: :lol:

snoopy
Nov. 20, 2007, 01:06 PM
[QUOTE=yellowbritches;2814570]
Anyway, I don't mind the jumping criteria for move ups, and I think it will force people to be a little more honest about their abilities (If I can't get around a certain level without a couple of stops, should I really be thinking of moving up?? Nope. Just because you finish, doesn't mean you did it sucessfully). QUOTE]



:):):):):):):):):):):):):):)

GotSpots
Nov. 20, 2007, 01:45 PM
LM8 - fascinating. I'm wary of these numbers because the N is so comparatively small - there are fewer riders at both ends of the curve so any one E, R, or other incident has a larger impact on the total. But that being said, I'd love to see what happens when we run those numbers out to a larger population . . . .

Also, I don't think 50 is that hard to obtain at the lower levels. Accuracy is hugely rewarded at these levels. Even a seriously average or fairly poor mover can get a 50 if they are accurate, in control, and reasonably together - even if not actually on the bit - and I've seen plenty of tests where the horse has a major meltdown on one movement but manages to carry on sufficiently to finish up below 50. I don't think that asking someone to get 50% good marks on average is unreasonable.

Camstock
Nov. 20, 2007, 02:10 PM
No problem with the new rule.

I think the answer is that people need to rely more on the feel of the ride than the score. I just had a run at P that scored well as far as xc jump and time penalty points, but felt to me like I and my horse have plenty of work to do. And we'll do it. As a sport, we need to get people to learn to feel and then do something about what they feel. The score can be misleading and the color of the piece of satin irrelevant.

Until we can make people more "feelage" aware, making move up score requirements is the one string we have to play on. Unfortunately, that tack encourages people to look outward at scores rather than inward at feel. I think the best safety feature we have is good instruction; and instructors, when appropriate, saying the hard things that students don't want to hear, as in "Yes, you've done 17 training level events, and no, you aren't ready to move up to the next level". It is so not about number of completions, however that word is defined.

Lisa Cook
Nov. 20, 2007, 02:20 PM
From reading the proposed rule change, I'm a little unclear on one aspect. Will the proposed "completed" definition apply towards lower-levels qualifying for championships? (area or AECs)

I know of at least one rider who qualified for the AECs this year at BN with dressage scores in the 50s, because they happened to be in junior divisions that were wiped out on the xc phase at 2 events. I'm wondering if the proposed completion definition will be applied towards qualifying scores for championships for lower levels?

Karma
Nov. 20, 2007, 02:38 PM
Just a short comment- eventing is a three phase competition, like two others have said. All three phases apply and all should have qualification criteria. That criteria should fall in the middle of typical scores. Everyone has a bad day, but your competition should be consistent enough to protect you from a "bad day". And for the person who flubs that last competition to qualify for the year, I bet they will spend a lot of time working on that so it doesn't happen again next year. Since I don't ever expect to ride at Prelim or above take my comments with a grain of salt...

purplnurpl
Nov. 20, 2007, 03:37 PM
A 50 is defiantly not the average anywhere I have been.

Area V scores range from 25-39. I would say mid 30s are the average.
If you score in the 40s you are dead last.
We use the same dressage judges as all other areas.
I competed in 3 areas this year. My scores almost identical in every area.

I never would have put 3 pages of posts thought into this matter. I find the discussion very interesting.

Long Shadow Farm
Nov. 20, 2007, 03:59 PM
Raises hand as one who scores in the 40s on a regular basis.

My opinion goes that if you cannot score below a 50 enough times in dressage to qualify to move up, you really need to figure out what the problem is. I have had the horses that melt down, don't move well or all the above and I can get in the 40s at least with them. Remember that the dressage is the basis for all the jumping phases and if you cannot prove enough control and obediance on the flat, you are probably going to have problems showing it when jumping. Not spoken as a DQ... just someone being a realist. People need to start taking in account how important the dressage is for the rest of the phases and addressing it.


The dressage tests at each level are designed to start showing that a horse/rider combo can show they can do certain things asked of them that will show on the jumping tests. At Novice and Beginner Novice, in dressage and in the jumping phases, you should be able to safely rate and control your horse in the 3 basic gaits. At Training level you need to start showing that you can develop a lengthen and shorten stride in dressage and these questions start to come up out on the cross country. Prelim dressage asks the horse and rider to be confirmed on stride adjustment and be able to control the horse enough to make 10 meter circles, etc. Thus, more difficult questions are then asked on cross country and in stadium in regards to how the pair can adjust their strides and steer. So on for Intermediate and Advanced.



Bobbi

Gnep
Nov. 20, 2007, 09:57 PM
Concerning the dressage score, I think a 50, is a very reasonable cut of score.
Does a dressage score have a meaning for stadium and X-C only marginal, there are plenty of examples for lousy dreaages on a regular base and than fantastic, stadiums and X-C, and vise versa, dream dressage and consitent blow out at X-C or lousy stadiums.

But this is a 3 phase sport, considering that 16 in stadium is a qualifikation and 20 plus 90 seconds for X-C is a qualifikation than in comparison to those results a 50 in dressage is pretty much ok.
But to put it into a perspectif

A 50 dressage is a lousy dressage, back to the drawing board and plenty of schooling, if it happens once ok, but if it is standard, sorry, how are you going to master the dressage questions of the next level, you can't.

If 16 is a problem in stadium, than you got a problem ( like me and the Nutty Woman had and still have at times ), if a 16 is a standard, than you should not move up, its a lousy result for a qualifier.

X-C if you need a 20 and a 90 as a qualifier, than you have no business to even think about the next level. If you can not ride jump penalty free rounds at your current level within a few seconds of optimum, than what do you think will happen at the next level.

In my oppinion it is absolut stupid to allow jump penalties in X-C as a qualifier. Time is a completly differant affair but even there I would like to see strikter criteria, 45 seconds at the most.

Why would I lower the time, each level has more speed and people that can not produce the speed at the lower level will not produce the speed at the next level. Some of the fences need speed, fly fences, or fences that need a setup from high to low speed. Horses have to be able to handle the speeds, too. Horses and riders have to learn and show the ability to jump at the speeds.
All our bad crashes happen in X-C, this is were the busines gets serious, very serious and the criteria for a qualifying result should be according to it.
They can not be tough enough

Janet
Nov. 20, 2007, 10:25 PM
In my oppinion it is absolut stupid to allow jump penalties in X-C as a qualifier. But you WILLhave to hav two WITHOUT CROSS COUNTRY JUMP PENALTIES to move up to Prelim, Intermediate, opr Advanced.

Gnep
Nov. 21, 2007, 12:15 AM
Janet
2 out of how many, if you are only able to produce 2, than you just do not belong, period.
Look at the differances of the levels, T to P, P to I and I to A. It is absolut stupid to allow some body or a horse to get to the next Level at the UL without beeing able to produce at least 4 jump penalty clear rounds.
By doing so we invite desaster. If you want to move up you should be able to punch out jump penalty clear rounds, horse and rider. They should have to prove that they are 100% able to master the questions of their current level on a rgular base in order to advance to the next level.
A horse or a rider who needs a 20 and a 90 as a qualifyer to advance to the next level, at the UL, has not shown the ability of the current level.
That is like failing to get your driver licens, but getting a trucker licens ( CDL).
You do not give somebody a trucker licens who can not get a car driver licens.

To allow riders and horses to advance to the next level, without showing their ability at the current level, without any doubt and a 20, especialy 2 of them, is failure at this level, that is what I call stupidity.
We castrate our sport left and right to make it save, but we shy away to ask that we show the necessary skills to master the ever increasing skills of the next level, especialy in X-C.
Remind you thats were we get killed.
Not in dressage.
Not in stadium.
It is X-C.
2 Twenties out of four is failure, 2 Twenties plus 90 out of 4 is failure, should reconsider to go back a level and than try it again.
Its not bad luck, its missing some thing and THAT is not good enough to move up.
Everybody can have a 20, slight mistake ( especialy at the UL ), we all get caught out, its the shits, but thats the way it is. But a mistake or if it happens often failure, should not be a reason to get qualified.
A 20 is a 20 and it means you screwed up or you don't have it jet.
And if you bring your 20s into the next level than it means, that you have not answered the questions of the previous level.
I got a horse that punches out mid to lower 30 in dressage, never failed in X-C from Novice to Prelim, no 20, 2 X 65 ( they happen ) she could go I, I have no doubt, dressage 30, X-C clear rounds, no problem. Only prob, stadium does not come to gether. She can not go till stadium works. Dressage, Stadium, X-C, they are all pieces of the puzzel called eventing.
We should not allow anybody to go to the next level who can not get the pieces to gether, especialy in X-C.
Again, remember thats were we get killed, X-C.

hey101
Nov. 21, 2007, 12:34 AM
Gnep- I agree with you completely.

BUT...
something else is also going on. You can't argue that Kim, and Debbie, and Ralph, weren't qualified for the level at which they were riding. No, none of them were killed, but they all had very serious accidents which could easily have been deaths and should not be forgotten in the statistics.

Eleanor was riding in a **, when she has completed a ****. IIRC, Amanda Bader and Mia ERickson were solid at their level, were they not, as was the Asian rider who was killed? Sadly I can't remember all the details of those who have died this year... but it just doesn't seem that the deaths/ serious accidents are occurring in riders who are just moving up to a new level for the first time, or even in riders who maybe have moved up when they weren't ready and were scraping by and finally got caught out.

I have not ridden at the upper levels, but from what others on here have been consistently saying for the past few years, it is the ever-increasing technicality of XC that seems to be the major factor that has changed.

I really like the suggestions to make SJ more difficult- maybe the heights don't need to be raised as someone else pointed out that SJ heights have already been raised, to no seemingly good effect- but make stadium mandatory before XC, and put tough combinations in, bending lines to skinnies, liverpools, trakeheners with rails that fall down, a ditch to a vertical to simulate a coffin, etc. If you can't complete your stadium round with less than X rails and Y refusals then you won't even be allowed to go XC.

flyingchange
Nov. 21, 2007, 11:34 AM
I do agree that a XC round with a stop should mean the result is non-qualifying. But I hope that most of us are smart and self-aware enough that if we are having stops OC, we aren't even thinking about moving up to the next level.

snoopy
Nov. 21, 2007, 12:07 PM
I do agree that a XC round with a stop should mean the result is non-qualifying. But I hope that most of us are smart and self-aware enough that if we are having stops OC, we aren't even thinking about moving up to the next level.


But many are not!!! The nned to climb the levels or to add value to the (sale) horse sadly over rides common sense.:(

Long Shadow Farm
Nov. 21, 2007, 01:25 PM
We would hope that people would realize that if they are having problems (stops) on cross country that they shouldn't move up. BUTTTTTT.... they don't. One of my boarders is a prime example. Granted she is a college kid and doesn't have tons of time to ride due to school and other commitments but she is bound and determine to go Training. I think her biggest reason was/is that she sees other kids she knows moving up to Training and above and she has been at the Beginner Novice/Novice level for over 6 years. Her last Novice in Sept she had three stops on cross country. She still went Training in Nov and low and behold she got the big E on Stadium. I told her (and her mom) several times that she was not ready (horse has navicular issues and isn't scopey enough to make up for mistakes at Training), but they steamed ahead anyways.

So I think that even at the lower levels, it might be a good idea to qualify for moving up to the next level if you have never competed at it before.

As for why Ralph, Kim, etc are having problems at the upper levels, I think it is a combination of things including trying to ride too many horses in one show (Kim rode 7 at Poplar in Sept.... that is crazy...no matter how much help you have), too high of speeds at the upper level for the difficulty of the technical questions (people are having to run their horses like crazy at the "galloping" fences just to try to make time), and pushing horses up too fast and not letting them get seasoned at the levels (Intermediate horses at age 6 and 7).

Just my thoughts..... I will go back under my rock now.

Bobbi

Jazzy Lady
Nov. 21, 2007, 02:27 PM
I agree. A stop on cross country should not be a qualifying score. Sure, s*** happens, so it means you do another event at that level which will BENIFIT the horse and rider, not deter them. If you have another stop... well isn't that saying something?

Refusals are part of the sport. You are supposed to learn from them, not ignore that they happened and carry on regardless. You analyze what went wrong and go and work on the problem. If they were meant to be ignored they wouldn't be worth 20 points...

Hannahsmom
Nov. 23, 2007, 09:43 AM
A stop is one thing, but in the upper level courses, it is so technical that I can easily see a glance-off or a stumble leading to a bad line where the rider picks up 20 because they couldn't make the line. Again, it all depends if you have a plethora of qualifiers to make up for that one bad day or if you are living in an area where it is tougher to find upper level events.

I am really more scratching my head about the four rails in stadium. Can't quite figure out why that is necessary.

flyingchange
Jan. 16, 2008, 04:58 PM
Sorry for dredging this thread up but did this rule get passed? Does anybody know?

flutie1
Jan. 16, 2008, 05:51 PM
"... My opinion goes that if you cannot score below a 50 enough times in dressage to qualify to move up, you really need to figure out what the problem is."

Well said.

flightinstructor
Jan. 16, 2008, 06:10 PM
As far as the 4 rails in stadium is concerned, it all depends on the horse. I have a prelim/CCI* horse that is fabulous X/C. He sees the flags, reads the question, and just hops through. He's very bold, but rate-able, but he's not careful in stadium. He jumps well and confidently, but has no respect for the poles. He has as many rails at 2'6" as he does at 3'9". It's just the way he is. We're working on it and it's improving, but I've seen a lot of horses get around clean that have no business going x/c. He almost never touches x/c fences. He knows the difference. My last horse was always perfect in stadium, but I'd rather take the new guy x/c any day.

I haven't read through the posts to see if this was mentioned, but the qualification criteria mirror the FEI criteria for CCI and CIC's. They didn't just make them up. The hard part isn't being good enough in any one phase to qualify. It's having qualifying results in all three phases on the same day (at least 4 times.)

frugalannie
Jan. 16, 2008, 06:25 PM
[quote=Janet;2813574
In some cases, it would be possible to WIN your division with a score that would not count as completion .[/quote]


Ah yes, the law of unintended consequences. I agree with the intent, but I believe they need to adjust the criteria.

NeverTime
Jan. 16, 2008, 06:59 PM
Yes, they do mirror the CIC/CCI criteria, and while I firmly agree that only a clean XC round should count as a qualifier, I happy for the the 20-point wiggle room in the FEI standards. CICs and CCIs are much fewer and further between than horse trials; if you have a silly glance-off at a CCI, or even a legit stop in an otherwise solid round, it's not like you can regroup and try again two weeks later at the next one to get your qualification.

Marky!
Jan. 16, 2008, 11:15 PM
i dont think it would be unreasonable to ask that you now be able to get under a 50 dressage, be less then 90 seconds under time XC, and knock 16 or less rails. if you cant do that at 4 trainings, why the heck would you move up to prelim?? :eek:

THANK YOU!! I completely agree with you. The rules are being made to keep people who are insane, dont understand the consequenses, or dont care about themselves or their horse OUT of the UPPER LEVELS!

I think the rules are very reasonable.

Janet
Jan. 16, 2008, 11:28 PM
Sorry for dredging this thread up but did this rule get passed? Does anybody know?
It was amended on Friday Jan 11, and approved by the eventing commitee on Jan 11, but it doesn't say whether the BoD voted on it.
http://www.usef.org/documents/ruleChanges/441-07.pdf

flyingchange
Jan. 17, 2008, 10:33 AM
Janet - Thanks.

I spent a little time searching USEF to see if I could get this info, but no luck. Thanks for finding it.