USEA Rule (proposal) changes:

[JRey]

RULE CHANGE PROPOSALS SUPPORTED BY THE USEA EVENT STANDARDS TASK FORCE

EV 140.8 – Replace the first two sentences as follows: Obstacles constructed after September 1, 2008, for which Frangible Pin technology is appropriate, shall have Frangible Pins installed. In the interests of safety, Organizers are encouraged to install Frangible Pins in all previously existing obstacles, wherever it is appropriate.

EV 140.5(a) replace wording with: The ratio of jumping efforts to the length of the course shall be no greater than: 1 effort: 100 meters. This ratio may be exceeded only where specifically referenced in Appendix 2 or with the written agreement of the Technical Delegate.

EV 141.2(b)(2) [NEW] Speed fault time is calculated based on a speed equal to 50 meters per minute faster than the speed used to calculate the Optimum Time for a particular division.
Appendix 2. Delete line 6 (Speed Faults).

EV111.2 – Change "25 penalties" to 50 jumping penalties.

Appendix 2 Specifications.

Change the fifth line (Speeds Optimum Time) as follows:

Preliminary – 500 – 520
Intermediate – 530 – 550
Advanced – 550 – 570

EV 139.1 [New - re-number]
Courses and obstacles shall be constructed in accordance with information contained in the USEA Cross Country Design Standards.

EV 105. QUALIFICATIONS – For certain levels of competition, horses and riders must meet qualifying requirements. Those requirements are detailed in Appendix 3.

ESTABLISHMENT OF QUALIFICATION. When a rider obtains a qualifying result (QR) at a level, then he and his horse are "established" (qualified to compete) at this level. This "establishment" lasts for the remainder of the year in which it was achieved and the succeeding calendar year. Note: Re-qualification is required when the time period has expired.
EXTENSION OF ESTABLISHMENT. (maintaining qualification)
The "establishment" may be extended by obtaining QRs at other events of the same level with the time period stated above, each extension remaining effective for the remainder of the year and the succeeding calendar year.
If no such extensions are achieved the establishment at that level expires.
Establishment may be re-established by achieving 2 QRs at the next lowest level of competition.
LOSS OF ESTABLISHMENT.
A horse that falls in competition 2 times in any 12 month period loses its qualification for the level at which the falls occur.
Having lost qualification, a horse may be re-qualified by achieving 2 QRs at the level below within any 12 month period.
A rider who falls from the same horse during competition more than 2 times in any 6 month period will cause the horse to lose its qualification for the level at which the falls occur. The horse may be re-qualified as in b (above).
EV 141.1.b (1) change to read:

First fall of rider: Elimination.

Delete (3)

EV 142.3.b Delete reference to "fall" in the first sentence.

APPENDIX 1.4 PRELIMINARY. Add new first sentence:
National Horse Trials at the Preliminary level and above should provide the experience base to enable those who so wish to compete in CICs at the same level. They should not duplicate CIC design philosophy.

Additionally, the USEA Event Standards Task Force endorses the following rule change proposed by the National Safety Officer for Eventing.

EV 175 COURSE DESIGNER.
(c) [new and renumber] For each course at the Preliminary Level and above, the Course Designer will complete a USEF Fence Description form and provide the Technical Delegate with a copy for inclusion in the TD report.


Did you guys see this?

[bosox]

ok---now someone break it down into a format that a child can understand it:lol::lol:

EV 140.5(a) replace wording with: The ratio of jumping efforts to the length of the course shall be no greater than: 1 effort: 100 meters. This ratio may be exceeded only where specifically referenced in Appendix 2 or with the written agreement of the Technical Delegate.


So there is a way around this standard?

A rider who falls from the same horse during competition more than 2 times in any 6 month period will cause the horse to lose its qualification for the level at which the falls occur. The horse may be re-qualified as in b (above).
EV 141.1.b (1) change to read:

First fall of rider: Elimination.

Ok---is this gray or clear?.. I know we have all discussed scary warm ups---and rider falls in warm up....does this count as well or is it only over the course?

[Hilary]

I don't like the fall of rider = elimination. because sometimes you pop off and are just fine to continue .

(I also don't like that rule in stadium..)

[trotupsound]

You can still biff it unceremoniously between obstacles and get back on with no penalty points and off you go- but they've basically taken the penalty for a second fall at an obstacle (i.e. elimination) and made it the primary. I see this as an OK thing- it's already the rule in stadium jumping, where the fences are less hazardous. Why don't we hold XC to the same bar?

In terms of being clear- it's very clear, it's under the section for faults at obstacles (i.e. you need to be on course). Again, in warm up you can biff it as many times as you like, although if you do, shouldn't you think really hard about your XC round anyway?

[Blugal]

Touch wood, the last time I "fell off" in competition - I would like to call it "thrown" - was when my greenie refused to go into the water crossing (flagged on exit - which shows just how much harder Pre-Training has gotten). I gave him a smart crack with the whip behind my leg, and found myself sitting on the ground holding the reins. I have the video of me literally launching back into the tack in record speed - shoved feet in the stirrups & hit him once more with a Pony Club kick and got his (stupid little) toes wet. :lol:

Then I made the argument to the TD that this fall was not technically at an obstacle, since the only flagged part of the obstacle was the exit, presumably to give leeway to green horses at water crossings (and mine could be considered Neon Green. Every new water jump was some kind of drama). Although I'm sure it wasn't because of me, the next year, there was a new rule to flag water crossings on entry.

[Hilary]

The stadium rule came from the "lets make all the rules in line with FEI rules" and that particularl rule came from show jumping/ hunters who run 4000 horses per day and don't want to wait for people to get back on. At least that's what I was told when it first happened -had to do with not wanting to take up too much time (in other disciplines) and got applied to eventing so things look equal on paper.


Safety was not the reason for the stadium rule, so you can't really use that argument.

[bornfreenowexpensive]

Most seem like good changes. Some tough ones...like the falls and the qualifications for levels but I would rather have a bright line rules like those. It will create a lot of incentive to make sure you stay in your tack (and to be prepared) and hopefully create more incentive to pull up & WD if it really isn't your day.

[Jealoushe]

I like the elimination after fall rule too. It kind of sucks for beginning levels where kids might slide off their ponies, but I also think its great because really, if you fall off you don't stand a great chance in placing, and I think it will encourage riders to ride more carefully, hopefully.

[scubed]

But, it seems a little silly to tie the horse qualification to rider falls. Lets say I'm riding a great Advanced horse (as I got to do recently) and fall off twice in 3 months at Preliminary (which thank goodness only happened in warm-up). As I read it, had those falls occurred in competition, the horse would then no longer be qualified at Preliminary. Is he still qualified at Intermediate and Advanced??:confused:

[bornfreenowexpensive]

But, it seems a little silly to tie the horse qualification to rider falls. Lets say I'm riding a great Advanced horse (as I got to do recently) and fall off twice in 3 months at Preliminary (which thank goodness only happened in warm-up). As I read it, had those falls occurred in competition, the horse would then no longer be qualified at Preliminary. Is he still qualified at Intermediate and Advanced??:confused:


Maybe they need to change it so that just that horses and rider combo are no longer qualified??? Although I think a lot might depend on why the falls occurred....if the falls are as a result of that Advanced horse stopping (and not stopping b/c of a bad ride) perhaps that horse shouldn't still be qualified.

[RiverBendPol]

.....if you fall off you don't stand a great chance in placing.....

That's just stoopit. Some of us don't compete with the 97 cent polyester ribbon as our goal and holy grail. Some of us compete for the sake of it, for the fun of it, for the training, for the experience. Often times on green beans, who think the trickle of water going across the xc trail is something to stop and look at, thereby dumping their unsuspecting rider into said trickle. Namely me. If we have to get eliminated every time we get dumped, a whole lot of horses will be going home lacking the experience they needed to get that day. Cripes, if they had thrown me out the day I got dumped at Groton House, I never would have been able to complete the event, with 4 dislocated fingers, and go on to win the thing.

I very much appreciate the work our governing body is doing to make the game safer for us but I also believe too many rules are going to really limit things.

[RAyers]

The way I read the rule, if the the HORSE falls twice it will have to be bumped down. If the rider falls they will have to bump down. The two instances are not connected so I do not see scubed's scenario happening.

Reed

[bornfreenowexpensive]

The way I read the rule, if the the HORSE falls twice it will have to be bumped down. If the rider falls they will have to bump down. The two instances are not connected so I do not see scubed's scenario happening.

Reed


It's this part of the rule that scubed was talking about:

A rider who falls from the same horse during competition more than 2 times in any 6 month period will cause the horse to lose its qualification for the level at which the falls occur. The horse may be re-qualified as in b (above).


These should only be at levels that you need a QR...so the lowest you can be bumped is training level since (unless that has changed) you do not need any qualifications to run training.

As for the rule on on fall being an E....I too will probably get the big E popping off a youngster....but luckily there are lots of unrec. events in my area and schooling opportuntites. That is not as fair for those were such opportunities are not available.....but I don't disagree with the rule.

[scubed]

A rider who falls from the same horse during competition more than 2 times in any 6 month period will cause the horse to lose its qualification for the level at which the falls occur. The horse may be re-qualified as in b (above).


Rayers, note that it says if the rider falls from the horse, the horse loses its qualification (my bold)

[blackwly]

Well, we can't have it both ways. If we want the rules to be more stringent to support safety, we have to be prepared to pack up and go home if we have a bad day! I don't really have a problem with the fall off = elimination rule. Sure, there will be a few silly pop-offs that get penalized. That said, most people that get back on after a fall of any sort of significance have a massive adrenaline rush, don't think completely straight, and are prone to further bad events over the rest of the course. Seems like a reasonable idea to protect us from ourselves!

[JER]

A rider who falls from the same horse during competition more than 2 times in any 6 month period will cause the horse to lose its qualification for the level at which the falls occur. The horse may be re-qualified as in b (above).

Bad idea.

We should not adopt rules which encourage a rider to stick with the horse no matter what. If you read Mike E-S's state of the union address on the USEA site, you'll see where he talked about 'stickability' or perhaps modern saddles as a possible cause for the increased number of deaths/injury in rotational falls.

If you are falling or your horse is going down, better to be thrown clear that to be crushed by your horse.

On one of the other threads about rotational falls, Drvmb3ggl3 posted the number of total falls and number of total deaths in UK jump racing, which has far fewer deaths than eventing these days. The rule is steeplechasing is: get the heck out of the way when your horse is going down and get an arm out in front of you when you fall. And despite having a much, much higher fall rate (for horses and riders) than eventing, deaths are very rare (it's been years since the last one) in the sport.

In steeplechasing, you keep your stirrups short and only the front part of your foot in the iron. The reason for this is to increase your chances of being thrown clear in a fall. If your foot is too far home in the iron or your leather too long, you may find yourself trapped under your horse.

Penalizing a rider for falling twice from the same horse might lead to riders taking measures to increase their stickability when they should be doing the opposite. Most falls are innocuous. Rotational falls have a 30% death/serious injury rate. If we are going to change the death rate, we need to confront the issue of rotational falls.

[IFG]

Well, we can't have it both ways. If we want the rules to be more stringent to support safety, we have to be prepared to pack up and go home if we have a bad day! I don't really have a problem with the fall off = elimination rule. Sure, there will be a few silly pop-offs that get penalized. That said, most people that get back on after a fall of any sort of significance have a massive adrenaline rush, don't think completely straight, and are prone to further bad events over the rest of the course. Seems like a reasonable idea to protect us from ourselves!

While I appreciate that the USEA is making an effort, and I agree that something needs to be done, I think that the rule changes should be based on data. I agree that it is fairly easy to pop off at the lower levels (OK, for me, really easy). Are there data saying that a BN rider that falls twice in a season is dangerous? The accidents of concern ARE NOT occurring at the lower levels, yet these rule changes will have a major impact on the large majority of the eventing community that compete at the lower levels.

My two cents:

1. Base the rule changes on data. Start with the Murray and Singer articles that have been published. Look at the data in the USEA database.

2. Don't apply rules to the lower levels that may not be needed there, and that will discourage lower level riders.

[Gnep]

I totaly agree with the disqualification rule, it just protects us from our self and I am a very good example for that rule.
I had 2 crashes last year and got back on, ones with a concusion and the other time with a broken wrist.
If the rule should make realy sense than it should even stop the rider from geting on the next horse, as I did in both cases, before he/she gets cleared by the Vets.

I totaly disagree with the qualifikation rule conected with crashes, it will only result in 2 fast and dirty rides to get requalified, no service to the horse. I would like a suspension for say 4 or 6 weeks after 2 crashes within 6 month

[JER]

If the rule should make realy sense than it should even stop the rider from geting on the next horse, as I did in both cases, before he/she gets cleared by the Vets.

I agree here, although I think riders should be cleared by human medical people, not vets!

There should also be an innocuous designation for rides that are subject to this disqualification -- i.e., if the horse doesn't run because of problems on a rider's previous horse, there should be nothing that looks funny on the horse's competition record.

I totaly disagree with the qualifikation rule conected with crashes, it will only result in 2 fast and dirty rides to get requalified, no service to the horse. I would like a suspension for say 4 or 6 weeks after 2 crashes within 6 month

I think the time-based suspension is a good idea rather than encouraging quick re-qualification.

[TB or not TB?]

While I don't think the rider fall = elimination is a bad rule, I DO agree with JER that it might encourage more people to stick it out at all costs... and get crushed. That is not what we're looking for.

And IFG makes perfect sense - why can't we make changes based on actual data rather than assumed problems?

:sigh: This seems like a knee jerk reaction that hasn't been thought through.

[bornfreenowexpensive]

[quote=IFG;3165263]While I appreciate that the USEA is making an effort, and I agree that something needs to be done, I think that the rule changes should be based on data. I agree that it is fairly easy to pop off at the lower levels (OK, for me, really easy). Are there data saying that a BN rider that falls twice in a season is dangerous? The accidents of concern ARE NOT occurring at the lower levels, yet these rule changes will have a major impact on the large majority of the eventing community that compete at the lower levels.

[quote]


The fall=elimination is the rule affecting all levels (lower levels included). The 2 falls in a season rule will only affect people at Prelim and up. You do not need qualifications at Training level or below so I don't see how the 2 falls rules will affect Training level and below. Under these rules...you could fall off every ride at Training level or below and keep entering that same level (or even move up from BN to Novice to Training). The two falls in a season rule is only for the levels that require qualifications (Prelim and up). At least that is how I am reading it....please someone correct me if I am wrong.


I wonder how it affects how you get qualified for Prelim though....If I'm reading it right...you could have multiple falls in a season at training level, yet if you still get your 4 completed training HTs you could run Prelim. Only if you fell off twice at Prelim would you lose that qualification and have to move back down to training.

Am I understanding this right?

[RunForIt]

I totaly agree with the disqualification rule, it just protects us from our self and I am a very good example for that rule.
I had 2 crashes last year and got back on, ones with a concusion and the other time with a broken wrist.
If the rule should make realy sense than it should even stop the rider from geting on the next horse, as I did in both cases, before he/she gets cleared by the Vets.

I totaly disagree with the qualifikation rule conected with crashes, it will only result in 2 fast and dirty rides to get requalified, no service to the horse. I would like a suspension for say 4 or 6 weeks after 2 crashes within 6 month

and its going to take quality riders with guts (intestinal fortitude) to make statements like this to "support" other eventers in aquiring understanding. Part of the eventer "mentality" has always been "suck it up" get back on and ride, damn you! That mentality has morphed into many a dire consequence - I've done it myself. Thanks for the insight. Gnep,

My horses and I thank you.

[JER]

While I don't think the rider fall = elimination is a bad rule, I DO agree with JER that it might encourage more people to stick it out at all costs... and get crushed. That is not what we're looking for.

And IFG makes perfect sense - why can't we make changes based on actual data rather than assumed problems?

:sigh: This seems like a knee jerk reaction that hasn't been thought through.

I don't think the fall = elimination is a bad rule either. I'd prefer a rule that said you had to get medical clearance after a fall but that could be unwieldy given the logistics of a competition. Most falls are harmless. I think we all agree that a rider sliding off and landing on his/her feet is hardly a cause for any commotion at all. But if we're going to regulate falls, we can't have medical direction waiting at each obstacle, we have to have some kind of rule that covers everything.

I think the danger comes in linking the falls to disqualification. Two falls -- no matter how innocuous -- could become a big setback. Even more so if you have to drive 6 hours or more to the nearest HT. This might encourage a rider to stay with a falling horse which could lead to very serious consequences.

IFG is 300% right. Rule changes should be based on evidence and rule changes should be made to address the real dangers of the sport.

[thebrit]

I don't normally reply to these...but I just wanted to add my two cents.
I think the 1 fall = elimination rule is good. I was in a clinic this winter, and fell on my head after my horse stopped out at a prelim jump and I opted to jump it without him. Me being my stubborn (and stupid) self decided I was fine to continue, even though I KNEW I probably had a minor concussion (since I have had a few before I know exactly how it makes me feel). Well I finished the clinic, rode a couple more horses, by the 2nd horse my equilibrium was so off that when he dodged one way, I had no balance to stay on and landed on my head AGAIN. So instead of a minor concussion I ended up with a pretty major one as well as a fractured tail bone.
My point is that once we fall, especially with a head injury, it is all too easy to convince others (and yourself) that you are ok to continue when, as I found out the hard way, you may not be.
So if we are all so concerned about safety then it is a GOOD rule; wouldn't you rather go home alive and be able to give it a better go the next time?

[Gnep]

Jer,
I thought that both of my falls were harmless. I did not notice my concusion and it consequences till next day, when I could not remember my stadium courses. I walked my courses and when I left the arena, I had a total blank. I rode !!!! Got completly lost on my prelim horse and barely managed to get through it with my novice. I did not know, till I got home and my head hurt so bad that I could barely open my eyes, 48 hours after the crash.
According to the Vet at home, I made it worse by riding, every landing, turn etc. bruised the brain more. A mild concusion, no big deal, became a severe concusion. The point is you do not know, but any medical person can find out in a real short time, with simple tests.
In Motorracing, every driver has to go to the Vets after an accident, no matter how smal the accident was and can only go back to racing if he/she is cleared.

My wrist hurt, but since I had a nother horse going within 1 hour, I had no time and adrenalin shuts out pain. When I was done with my second horse it hurt, it hurt like a son of a bitch.
Thankfully my second horse was nice to me, but consider me having to realy use the reins, probably could not have done it and than, a nother one ?

Rules have to take human nature into account.

Several years ago I watched the 2 star in Galway, a girl riding, 4th jump horse stoped she sailed over the jump, got back on, horse jumped, the same happend at 2 more jumps, she flew twice over that huge Weldons Wall, hard hits. She finally had to many refusals.
She got back to her next horse and rode. This is only possible in eventing. In any other sport a person that comes of from 5 feet hights goes to the Vets and can only continue when cleared

The rule changes are made in good faith, but they are made without the neccesary professional input. Made by riders without realy understanding what the consequences are. When it comes to crashes we need the input of HVs ( Meds ) and have to follow their recomendations.

[Kementari]

I like most of these. Though it is in a sense against the "eventer mentality," I think elimination after a fall isn't a bad idea. Honestly, if you are going out there expecting to fall...maybe you've had one to many landings on your head already. It's a competition, not a schooling - and though I'll be the first to argue that you have to go to competitions to really learn to compete, you aren't at the point to need that particular level of practice if you don't stand a better than average chance of staying on your horse through the course. Hopefully such a rule will also encourage people not to enter if they don't stand such a chance, as well as getting people off the course who may not have their full faculties about them (as others have discussed).

The falls of rider leading to the horse losing qualification makes sense on one level but not another. On the one hand, generally, if someone is falling off regularly there's something up with how their horse is behaving. But on the other hand, it could easily be a behaviour that someone ELSE could handle without a problem. ANd what would happen if a horse were being shown by two riders, say one and P and one at I, and the P rider fell twice? Would the I rider have to drop back to T, too, or would the horse keep it's I qualification since there weren't falls there? (Of course, such a situation is probably pretty rare once one gets past T, anyway....)

For the dangerous riding faults, I don't really see what 50 penalties will do that 25 won't. We'll see a difference when the penalties are applied consistently (and fairly), not just by increasing them. (Though I don't think we SHOULDN'T raise the penalties to give people who get them a break or something; I just don't think it will make the difference between people riding safely and not.)

The SF times I do think need tweaking. I wonder if they could do, say 70 mpm over, instead of 50? I'm thinking the lower levels, where the spread for OTs is 50 mpm. It seems less than useful to penalize a N competitor for going 401 mpm on a course where OT is based on 350 mpm, when 400 mpm is also a speed N competitors are expected to be able to handle. I don't know; maybe they're gearing it towards teaching people pace rather than it being less safe to go faster than that (which was my first assumption). I guess I'd be interested in the reasoning behind that proposal.

I don't understand the "exceptions" to the jumping efforts rule - Appendix 2 doesn't have anything that looks like an exception to me, but maybe I'm missing something?

Other than that, I like it all...

[IFG]

The fall=elimination is the rule affecting all levels (lower levels included). The 2 falls in a season rule will only affect people at Prelim and up. You do not need qualifications at Training level or below so I don't see how the 2 falls rules will affect Training level and below. Under these rules...you could fall off every ride at Training level or below and keep entering that same level (or even move up from BN to Novice to Training). The two falls in a season rule is only for the levels that require qualifications (Prelim and up). At least that is how I am reading it....please someone correct me if I am wrong.


Thanks for the clarification. It was late, I was tired, and I could not find Appendix 3 when I posted.

[Kcisawesome]

My 2cents:

especially at Training level and above, if you fall off of your horse in Stadium, it can be very much a saftey issue to let you continue or not. If you and your horse are not having a good day, then finishing the course is just not worth it. Think of it this way, if you fall off at a jump, the next couple of jumps are going to be schooling fences. Schooling you back into a rythmm, fixing whatever mistake you or the horse made. Shouldn't those next couple of fences be in a schooling envirement and not in the show ring? When I fell off at spring bay, both my horse and I were just fine, in fact I went over the crossrail in the warmup a couple times afterwards. But there is that unavoidable fact that my horse and I just plain were not together that day. Sure, we probobly could have finished the course fine, but for what? I think it shows more respect for the judge and the spectators and the volunteers to say "Hey, I'm sorry, it's not my day, Thank you and I will be back next time!" than to try to gun it around.

[IFG]

One really interesting point from the Murray et al. article on eventing falls in the UK is that the risk of a fall was increased when the pair had had no prior stops on course and when the pair was in the lead and knew it. Those riders may have been "going for broke" to finish in first. That attitude had consequences. I really cannot think what rule change might mitigate against those falls, but it provides evidence that perhaps eliminating for multiple stops is not the way to prevent falls.

Instead, you need to alter factors associated with mutable characteristics of the course that have also been associated with falls. To quote from Murray et al.'s 2006 article abstract, "The risk of horse and rider injury at eventing competitions should be reduced by 3 simple measures; maintaining good to firm take-off surfaces at fences, reducing the base spread of fences to <2 m and reducing the use of fences at which horses are required to jump into or out of water."

[IFG]

My 2cents:

especially at Training level and above, if you fall off of your horse in Stadium, it can be very much a saftey issue to let you continue or not. If you and your horse are not having a good day, then finishing the course is just not worth it. Think of it this way, if you fall off at a jump, the next couple of jumps are going to be schooling fences. Schooling you back into a rythmm, fixing whatever mistake you or the horse made. Shouldn't those next couple of fences be in a schooling envirement and not in the show ring? When I fell off at spring bay, both my horse and I were just fine, in fact I went over the crossrail in the warmup a couple times afterwards. But there is that unavoidable fact that my horse and I just plain were not together that day. Sure, we probobly could have finished the course fine, but for what? I think it shows more respect for the judge and the spectators and the volunteers to say "Hey, I'm sorry, it's not my day, Thank you and I will be back next time!" than to try to gun it around.

Yes, but when my kid popped off at BN because the horse spooked at the judge's booth, what would sending her home have accomplished? This was before the elimination rule. She got back on, finished cleanly, then went XC clean. She had saved her money for the entry. She had practiced all summer and planned for that event. She landed on her feet, and except for humiliation, suffered no injury. IMHO, letting her continue furthered her education without putting her at risk. And this is not me speaking after I hit my head, this is me talking about my kid. Almost anyone will tell you that I am very protective as a parent.

For kids and others who are learning the ropes, pop-offs happen. In the hunter world, you have another class. In eventing, you lose the chance to place, but is it necessary to send them home for a pop-off?

[retreadeventer]

Falls - bad idea.
We have now mandated that a rider stay in the tack at all costs to avoid losing qualification. We are no longer asking that good riding occur, only prevent falling off. That's not oriented toward safety.

We want riders to fall, if the circumstances occur, in the safest and less hazardous way possible. A rider cannot have running thru his head as he starts to lose his seat, "uh oh, losing qualification, elimination, have to stay on horse," and grabbing and holding with all his might hanging off the side of a galloping, out of control horse. There is no more effective way to make a simple fall turn into a Life Flight!!!!!

Now with this rule we are going to have kids (and adults) hanging round horses necks as they trot or canter or even gallop out of control across a course in order not to fall and get eliminated. This is lunacy!

There has to be some other way.
Perhaps increase the penalty. Make it a mandatory 5 min. hold. Something. But we must be careful about a rule change like this because of unintended consequences -- think, people!

If we eliminate a rider for a fall on cross country, in my opinion, WE FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE THE SPORT.
We move from eventing being a sport, to being a "performance", where mistakes you make eliminate you and not just bump you down in standings. It becomes a large hunter ring.
In eventing we only do three things. We don't ride in 18 classes a day and get other chances to dust off, dry tears, and go back in the ring. It is one competition, one day. Mistakes should not eliminate. Having a rail down in stadium doesn't eliminate. Going off course in dressage doesn't eliminate.

I said this before, not sure if here or another list, but it bears repeating:
Falling off and getting back on and going on is a basic tenet of horsemanship. "Getting back on that horse" is such a simple concept that it's part of basic everyday English language. If you never were near a horse you understand what that means. Not giving up, doing it despite adversity. We teach this in beginner equitation. If falling off no longer means you can get back on and continue then we have changed this sport.

Note I am talking only about cross country. Because of the nature of cross country with varied terrain and solid fences, it is different from stadium with flat ground and rails that fall down, in an enclosed area. A fall in stadium is serious because it comes from a severe lack of balance or obvious difficulty. A fall in the open is less a question of difficulty from competition standpoint, because of the nature of the test.

[Jealoushe]

That's just stoopit. Some of us don't compete with the 97 cent polyester ribbon as our goal and holy grail. Some of us compete for the sake of it, for the fun of it, for the training, for the experience. Often times on green beans, who think the trickle of water going across the xc trail is something to stop and look at, thereby dumping their unsuspecting rider into said trickle. Namely me. If we have to get eliminated every time we get dumped, a whole lot of horses will be going home lacking the experience they needed to get that day. Cripes, if they had thrown me out the day I got dumped at Groton House, I never would have been able to complete the event, with 4 dislocated fingers, and go on to win the thing.

I very much appreciate the work our governing body is doing to make the game safer for us but I also believe too many rules are going to really limit things.

I realize not everyone is not out for the ribbon, I just think it might encourage people to school more and be more prepared. You get eliminated in all other riding disciplines after a fall, so I think it just makes sense. Of course there will be times when it was a really stupid fall that shouldn't have happened and you will be bummed out, but if it means less people getting injured/killed Im all for it. A lot of riders who fall on course go on to fall again/have stops/ or retire anyways.

[mjedge808]

I like the intent, that a fall is an elimination. I think that eventers like to be tough, and that's not always a bad thing, but sometimes I think we take our 'hardiness' a little too far. sometimes we may be injured but not aware, adrenaline pumps hard and fast on xc courses, and can delay some pain reactions for some people. I think that in some cases, when a rider comes off, they may feel fine, but if they are not 100%, they may be injured later in the course, and also, may have potential to cause harm to their horse.

I think there will be a lot of people not happy with the fall-elimination rule, but USEA members have said they want safety. The Task Force listened and is proposing what they believe is in the best interest of the horses, riders, and the sport. USEF will decided what will be the rules. If you want these changes in place or if you don't want these changes, either way, write/call USEF and express your concerns.

[flyingchange]

Totally agree with Retreadeventer. This kind of rule results in this kind of stuff:

http://www.photoreflect.com/pr3/OrderPage.aspx?pi=0EBK006O0P0032&po=32

When you are falling you should be thinking about reducing injury to yourself. Not about the fact that you will be eliminated and could lose your qualifications to ride at your level because of the fall.

Foxhunters have to buy a bottle of wine (or other booze) for the next hunt breakfast or hunt ball when they fall off. The total number of falls you have in a season equals the number of bottles of booze that you owe the hunt. You don't have to walk your horse back to the meet and either hilltop for a few hunts or not show up just because you had a fall out in the field.

Falling is a fact of life in riding horses. We usually learn from our falls. I really shake my head in sadness with this new rule. It is not based on data, and without data, it is based on nothing but feeling instead of cold hard facts. And it is going to send the wrong message out.

People are going to get back on after bad falls and keep riding when they shouldn't. We have all been there, done that - as have thousands or millions of our predecessors and ancestors. Eventing was originally created to show the training of soldiers/cavalrymen and horses for battle. I kinda doubt that, in the heat of battle, if a soldier were to fall, he would be encouraged to walk the horse back to camp and wait to ride in the next battle.

Lucinda thinks (from what she said in a clinic this week), that the problem is the emphasis on the dressage and that people are riding too fast now for modern day courses. I wish we could look more into these issues instead of coming up with kneejerk reactions that are based on subjective opinions.



Falls - bad idea.
We have now mandated that a rider stay in the tack at all costs to avoid losing qualification. We are no longer asking that good riding occur, only prevent falling off. That's not oriented toward safety.

We want riders to fall, if the circumstances occur, in the safest and less hazardous way possible. A rider cannot have running thru his head as he starts to lose his seat, "uh oh, losing qualification, elimination, have to stay on horse," and grabbing and holding with all his might hanging off the side of a galloping, out of control horse. There is no more effective way to make a simple fall turn into a Life Flight!!!!!

Now with this rule we are going to have kids (and adults) hanging round horses necks as they trot or canter or even gallop out of control across a course in order not to fall and get eliminated. This is lunacy!

There has to be some other way.
Perhaps increase the penalty. Make it a mandatory 5 min. hold. Something. But we must be careful about a rule change like this because of unintended consequences -- think, people!

If we eliminate a rider for a fall on cross country, in my opinion, WE FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE THE SPORT.
We move from eventing being a sport, to being a "performance", where mistakes you make eliminate you and not just bump you down in standings. It becomes a large hunter ring.
In eventing we only do three things. We don't ride in 18 classes a day and get other chances to dust off, dry tears, and go back in the ring. It is one competition, one day. Mistakes should not eliminate. Having a rail down in stadium doesn't eliminate. Going off course in dressage doesn't eliminate.

I said this before, not sure if here or another list, but it bears repeating:
Falling off and getting back on and going on is a basic tenet of horsemanship. "Getting back on that horse" is such a simple concept that it's part of basic everyday English language. If you never were near a horse you understand what that means. Not giving up, doing it despite adversity. We teach this in beginner equitation. If falling off no longer means you can get back on and continue then we have changed this sport.

Note I am talking only about cross country. Because of the nature of cross country with varied terrain and solid fences, it is different from stadium with flat ground and rails that fall down, in an enclosed area. A fall in stadium is serious because it comes from a severe lack of balance or obvious difficulty. A fall in the open is less a question of difficulty from competition standpoint, because of the nature of the test.

[bornfreenowexpensive]

I think Flyingchange and Retreadeventer make very good points.

I've fallen in competition and WD...and I've fallen and continued. The rule also does nothing to stop a rider with multiple rides from continuing on with other horses (or requiring them to get checked by medical personal before they do).


I also have to agree that I wonder what the affect of both rules will be with riders trying to stay on. All my worst injuries and longest hospital stay resulted from trying too hard to stay on. I came off my large 4 year old this past weekend schooling out in open. I wasn't happy it happend but the first thoughts running through my mind were I'm coming off and what do I need to do to minimize my injury..(oh and crap, this is going to hurt) not...I must stay on. The last thing I want to be doing is hanging off the side of a young 17+ hand horse ...sending him into a panic and then coming off when he is flat out at full speed. So instead, I came off earlier, hit the ground rolling and was only slightly bruised. (and luckily the boy didn't run off far!)

I would like more data....How would that data be obtained? Should they test these rules at an event? I know my instinct about falling....and I will try hard not to change it because of a rule...but what are other rider's instincts? Could some of the issue be people not learning about falling/how to fall? I had a great pony (and many young horses) who taught me that one...

[IFG]

I think that Retreadeventer made great points!

[MattMan]

I agree with Flying & Retread also..... Can I just sign a release or something.. I know I am doing something that could possibly lead to a early end... if I wanted safe I would play golf. Are horses that could be made to jump after a dirty stop/fall now going to learn that dirty stopping(etc) = back to stall? Will this rule apply to falls in between jumps? I have seen people/horse fall from slick terrain and it not count against them and they climbed back on and continued, would they now be eliminated?

I guess I'm one of the stupid ones... The idea of risk, danger, etc helps me try harder and become better.

[groom]

Did you guys see this?


EV 140.8 – Replace the first two sentences as follows: Obstacles constructed after September 1, 2008, for which Frangible Pin technology is appropriate, shall have Frangible Pins installed. In the interests of safety, Organizers are encouraged to install Frangible Pins in all previously existing obstacles, wherever it is appropriate.

How many people currently building xc courses are authorized by the USEA to install pins? It is a relatively simple process for mechanically-inclined people, but still: what is the time-table to educate all these builders? There are presently ZERO "Frangible Pin Seminars" scheduled according to the USEA website (http://www.useventing.com/education.php?section=courses&id=38), unless I am missing something...

How many TD's are qualified to inspect these installations? (when) Will all TD's be required to have this traning? I think this could be a big problem, as many of the TD's I know simply do not have the mechanical aptitude (typically) common to persons who build, and thus will be difficult to train to spot errors or misapplications, thus relying totally on the installer to do the job right. Is this is leading us down the road to licensing course builders?



EV 139.1 [New - re-number]
Courses and obstacles shall be constructed in accordance with information contained in the USEA Cross Country Design Standards.

USEA Cross Country Design Standards? Where are these published? Did the author of this rule change mean the USEA Cross Country Design Guidelines? (http://www.useventing.com/education.php?section=courses&id=1468) This document was recently revised and republished and is greatly improved from the previous version IMO, but is still not a suitable document to be made into "Rules". Implementation of these guidelines as presently written could be a much larger reconstruction of our courses than the implementation of frangible pins will be, as most of the specifications were written narrowly as suggestions: not allowing a 15'11" long table at Novice, for instance (must be 16').

(I know -I know - these are simply proposals. I bet the pin rule will pass and the guideline thing won't.)

[3Day-Eventer]

So, if someone has been going Prelim successfully for a long time (years), and happens to fall off 2 times within 6 months, will they have to go back down to training level for 2 shows to re-qualify? If so, that seems a bit riduculous. It could just be they got unlucky 2 times, but are overall very safe. It seems as though there should be a point when a horse/rider combo is 'permanently qualified', as long as they maintain a certain # of clear rounds per year.
It also seems like they should take the number of shows a rider has done into consideration. If, within a six month period, Rider A has show 14 times, and fallen twice, finished successfully 12 times, they would be unqualified. But then, so would Rider B, who maybe did 3 shows within six months and fell off twice. I doesnt seem fair to punish both equally.
I'm glad they are looking into the safety matter, but it doesnt seem as though any of these qualification rules would have helped any of the riders that have recently been hurt. They were all more than qualified to compete at the level at which they were hurt.
These rules seem to be punishing mistakes that even a good rider can make.

[purplnurpl]

Regardless of the rule I think it is human nature to try your darndest to stay on.
When a person is on the way down I don't think they are saying, "damn, I'm about to lose my QR or, darn, I'm going to get the big E." I would guess that they are thinking, "Oh CR-P this is going to hurt!!"

I like the rule.

After all, isn't our horses that often sting themselves on course and don't realize there is pain until their adrenaline comes down?

Same for the riders folks.

Also, interesting thought about mondern saddles causing issues.
Makes one think twice about that Sporty Haft Spary!

[colliemom]

EV 140.8 – Replace the first two sentences as follows: Obstacles constructed after September 1, 2008, for which Frangible Pin technology is appropriate, shall have Frangible Pins installed. In the interests of safety, Organizers are encouraged to install Frangible Pins in all previously existing obstacles, wherever it is appropriate.

How many people currently building xc courses are authorized by the USEA to install pins? It is a relatively simple process for mechanically-inclined people, but still: what is the time-table to educate all these builders? There are presently ZERO "Frangible Pin Seminars" scheduled according to the USEA website (http://www.useventing.com/education.php?section=courses&id=38), unless I am missing something...

How many TD's are qualified to inspect these installations? (when) Will all TD's be required to have this traning? I think this could be a big problem, as many of the TD's I know simply do not have the mechanical aptitude (typically) common to persons who build, and thus will be difficult to train to spot errors or misapplications, thus relying totally on the installer to do the job right. Is this is leading us down the road to licensing course builders?



EV 139.1 [New - re-number]
Courses and obstacles shall be constructed in accordance with information contained in the USEA Cross Country Design Standards.

USEA Cross Country Design Standards? Where are these published? Did the author of this rule change mean the USEA Cross Country Design Guidelines? (http://www.useventing.com/education.php?section=courses&id=1468) This document was recently revised and republished and is greatly improved from the previous version IMO, but is still not a suitable document to be made into "Rules". Implementation of these guidelines as presently written could be a much larger reconstruction of our courses than the implementation of frangible pins will be, as most of the specifications were written narrowly as suggestions: not allowing a 15'11" long table at Novice, for instance (must be 16').

(I know -I know - these are simply proposals. I bet the pin rule will pass and the guideline thing won't.)


Great questions. As with most sweeping policy changes, little thought is given to the logistics of implementation. I was looking for training sessions, and couldn't find any. Heck, there is only one opportunity for lower level certified course designers to get trained so far this year! I'm just really lucky it's (1) only 2 hours from me, and (2) on a weekend I am free.

I have long complained about the differences between the "Guidelines" and the "Rules" and how each is interpreted by various licensed officials. Our ditches are well within the rules, but are not quite within the "Guidelines." So, does this mean we will have to rip them out and start over?

I understand the need to bring these things in line -- heck, I was one who brought the disparity to Malcolm's attention (and gave him something productive to do while watching the NCAA basketball tournament!) but it will result in hardship to a lot of events if current obstancles, built under the rules at the time, will need to be re-built or replaced. We sure don't have that kind of budget, at least not to do it in one fell swoop.

[Janet]

So, if someone has been going Prelim successfully for a long time (years), and happens to fall off 2 times within 6 months, will they have to go back down to training level for 2 shows to re-qualify? If so, that seems a bit riduculous. It could just be they got unlucky 2 times, but are overall very safe. It seems as though there should be a point when a horse/rider combo is 'permanently qualified', as long as they maintain a certain # of clear rounds per year.
I am going to ask for clarification, but the proposed rule change says
A horse that falls in competition 2 times in any 12 month period loses its qualification for the level at which the falls occur.
Having lost qualification, a horse may be re-qualified by achieving 2 QRs at the level below within any 12 month period.
A rider who falls from the same horse during competition more than 2 times in any 6 month period will cause the horse to lose its qualification for the level at which the falls occur. The horse may be re-qualified as in b (above).

The way I read it, falls will only make the HORSE lose its qualification, not the RIDER.

Under current rules, for Prelim, there is NO requirement for HORSE qualification, only a requirement for RIDER qualification. So I don't think it will affect Prelim at all, only Intermediate and Advanced..

That is what it SAYS, but I intend to find out if that is what they MEANT.

[TB or not TB?]

Janet, you always make rules make sense. :D I like it more now that I've heard your interpretation - hopefully that's what the organizers are going for as well.

[bornfreenowexpensive]

Under current rules, for Prelim, there is NO requirement for HORSE qualification, only a requirement for RIDER qualification. So I don't think it will affect Prelim at all, only Intermediate and Advanced..



You are right...for some reason I got it in my head that the 4 complete training levels was for both horse and rider but it isn't.....Although I don't think I would have any issue if it was (and raising the minimum age of the horse to 6).

[RunForIt]

You are right...for some reason I got it in my head that the 4 complete training levels was for both horse and rider but it isn't.....Although I don't think I would have any issue if it was (and raising the minimum age of the horse to 6).

I think this is critical. Only thing I would add/suggest is that the final 2 Training rides would have to be on a course with XC jumps at max dimensions (which brings up another standard...) in order to test both the rider and horse ability to handle the next level's BEGINNING questions.

[Kementari]

Regardless of the rule I think it is human nature to try your darndest to stay on.
When a person is on the way down I don't think they are saying, "damn, I'm about to lose my QR or, darn, I'm going to get the big E." I would guess that they are thinking, "Oh CR-P this is going to hurt!!"


Exactly.

I don't see that elimination is going to make people try to stick to the point of being injured any more than 65 penalties do. I've sure as heck used every bit of stickiness I had to stay on (successfully) even without a threat of elimination - because, let's face it, competitively, 65 penalties might as well be elimination in most cases, not to mention that it hurts both the body and the ego to hit the ground! And, well, if you're just there for the schooling, then them's the breaks for schooling in a competition. I mean, I don't stop jumping after three refusals in a session at home, either, but I'm not going to argue they should let me keep going at a show just so my horse has a better experience. If you want your horse to have a good experience, you prepare them before the competition.

"Getting back on" doesn't mean "getting back on and continuing to jump big solid fences from a gallop right then and there." If you feel like you need a confidence boost, get back on and jump a few jumps in the warmup (which many people do). Or go school xc before your next show. Honestly - what do you do now if you fall off in stadium? Walk out of the arena completely cowed and call it quits on the eventing career?

I think the ruckus over changes to try and make the sport safer is very telling. We are all so sure that WE are not the problem, and so any rule that might catch US must be overkill. Well, first, SOMEONE out there IS the problem, and you can bet your bottom dollar that those people are just as sure they are safe as anyone else is. And second, any rule is going to catch a few people who would have been OK; that's the price you pay for trying to overcome human nature. If you're looking for changes that will ONLY affect the "bad people," then you'd better move to an alternate reality, 'cause that's not possible in this one.

[JER]

Regardless of the rule I think it is human nature to try your darndest to stay on.
When a person is on the way down I don't think they are saying, "damn, I'm about to lose my QR or, darn, I'm going to get the big E." I would guess that they are thinking, "Oh CR-P this is going to hurt!!"


I disagree here. Mostly this comes back to the all-important need for research...

Is it human nature to try your darndest to stay on? Or is it something we've learned -- i.e., don't fall off the horse, keep the horse between you and the ground and all the old jokes.

Speaking from personal experience, I can tell you I don't try my darndest to stay on at all times. I do try to sit out buckers and I've had some world-class buckers so I'm good at this. But when I ride a bucker I keep my stirrups a little short and just my toes in the irons. I have better leverage on the horse and I can stand up a bit in the irons to make the bucks easier to sit. I'm also not going to get hung up in the irons or dragged.

I hunted before I evented and learned not to stay with a falling horse. Just get the heck out of the way. It's not hard, you find a clear spot and bail. Much better than getting rolled on. But again, I learned to do this from people with far more experience out in the field. I don't know if I would have learned this in eventing and I can see a good case where I might have learned that a fall is bad because it's 60 points. Falls aren't good or bad, they're part of riding. Better to learn the wheres, whys and hows of falling and become the best faller you can be.

As I've mentioned before, steeplechase jockeys learn not to ride too long or with their foot too far home. This is for safer ejection from a falling horse. If your horse is somersaulting, the last place you want to be is with your horse, on that very deadly trajectory. You want to be thrown clear.

We can look at the recent deaths/serious injuries in eventing and see that UL riders are the most at-risk. We can look at the death/serious injury list and see that having your horse crush you is a life-changing experience. Although there is so much more research to be done, we do know that rotational falls in which the horse crushes the rider are the most deadly aspect of our sport. That is fact, not conjecture.

At this point in time, without the aid of further research, we should be encouraging riders to take simple steps to increase the chance that they are thrown clear in the event of a rotational fall. This is where we should be taking a cue from steeplechasing, seeing how that sport is so much safer than eventing these days. Ride short and with just the front of your foot in the iron.

However, a rider trying to avoid a fall might do just the opposite. He/she might have their foot too far home, they might be sitting deeper with longer stirrups. IFG referred to Jane Marray's studies in the UK; they touch on the vulnerabilities of riders who are trying to protect their place in the ribbons. And IFG also gave the good example of her daughter's innocuous fall. Falling is endemic to riding, so to speak, and most falls are harmless.

Rather than penalizing all falls -- most of which are without significant consequence -- eventing as a sport should be looking to protect riders from those falls which have been identified as the most dangerous.

[retreadeventer]

I think Flyingchange and Retreadeventer make very good points.

I've fallen in competition and WD...and I've fallen and continued. The rule also does nothing to stop a rider with multiple rides from continuing on with other horses (or requiring them to get checked by medical personal before they do)...

And if the reasoning behind the fall rule has to do with not being able to determine concussion....may I add that I myself had a concussion when I was hit in the face by a horse who pecked badly after a big oxer when he hit a slick spot in the arena -- doing a jumper round at a hunter show -- and I NEVER FELL OFF. In the days before ASTM helmets I might add. Continued the round, went out the ring, spoke to people at the back gate and was found unconscious back in the barn aisle with my horse's saddle off in his stall, but bridle on. (Obviously I did not fall off but dismounted and then removed the saddle before passing out.) So how can you legislate concussions?

Ditto Bornfree's last two points, copied above -- And might I add that if the rule were in place, and one did as another poster suggested, remounted and went back to warmup and jumped a few fences -- would that not be just as unsafe?

This one is not well thought out. JMO.

[Janet]

And might I add that if the rule were in place, and one did as another poster suggested, remounted and went back to warmup and jumped a few fences -- would that not be just as unsafe? Only if it were done unsafely.

I have done it in the past. I asked the TD first.

[LISailing]

Question regarding rider elimination. Is it rider elimination for only the mount that he is riding at the time or is it rider elimination for the event? Also, should a rider be eliminated if a fall of rider on xc is not associated with an obstacle (i.e. big spook in a gallop lane otherwise running well)?

[Janet]

Question regarding rider elimination. Is it rider elimination for only the mount that he is riding at the time or is it rider elimination for the event? Also, should a rider be eliminated if a fall of rider on xc is not associated with an obstacle (i.e. big spook in a gallop lane otherwise running well)?
"Elimination" is only the particular horse involved.
"Disqualification" is all horses the rider is riding at that competition.

Under current rules (for Cross Country), only falls related to a jump result in elimination. Falls caused by random spooks don't cause any penalty, except time. The proposed rule changes didn't say anything about changing that part of the rule.

[hopashore1]

I don't usually respond to these, but...

This really seems like the administration reaching out as if to say "Look, we're doing something!" when in fact what they are "fixing" has nothing to do with the problem at hand.

How many of the rider/horse deaths due to falls were in conjunction with the same rider having fallen earlier in the course/day?

Falling is a learning experience. What's the rule, you're not a real rider until you've fallen 7 times? It's best to learn to fall in the most safe way. I've bailed before--known the horse was going down and did my darndest to get out of the way. I've also fallen where the horse tripped on the approach to a fence and in just that instant I had been off balance and sort of slid off, landed on my feet, smiled sheepishly at the jump judge, remounted, reapproahced, and finished the rest of the course clear. Sometimes they have NOTHING to do with how prepared a horse/rider combination are--accidents happen to everyone. Part of being a rider, and especially being an eventer, is moving past a bad fence and concentrating on the next one.

I would be MUCH more supportive if the rule stated something along the lines of it being a mandatory retirement rather than elimination, and the rider had to be checked by EMTs before being allowed to continue riding any other horses at the event.

[vineyridge]

If these are the rules changes that KB promised would come out for the USEF meeting on April 23rd, are they still open to discussion? Are they the Chiacchia BNR Eventing Task Force Recommendations that Gina Miles was to present?

I'm a recovered administrative lawyer, and what disturbs me is that the rules, if these are they, were presented too quickly and without the chance for "official" Public comments. The Task Force of BNRs, as Reed and so many others have pointed out, lacks safety people, researchers, scientists, and statisticians. Rules that are put into effect without the input of all the above can't really be justified. There is, as IFG says, NO DATA.

Knee jerk reactions are usually not Good Things.

[rivenoak]

I would be MUCH more supportive if the rule stated something along the lines of it being a mandatory retirement rather than elimination, and the rider had to be checked by EMTs before being allowed to continue riding any other horses at the event.

I like this idea. I wonder if more people would buy in for a retirement rather than the big E...:confused:

[Kanga]

In light of what has been happening in this sport over the past several years I think the USEA is right on track with their rule change proposals. I completely agree with a horse/rider combination having 2 falls, must be moved down a level to re-qualify. This is long over due and if we have riders out there that are not smart enough to move their horses down on their own then the USEA SHOULD be able to mandate this. Perhaps more training should be done when things like this happen and LESS showing. If the homework is not done then why should it be that the rest of us in this sport have to pay for others that choose to ride unprepared.

Popping off horses happens but mulitple falls in competitions shouldn't. Homework should be done and shows should show us where we are at with that particular horse. If we are not up to par then why on earth would you want to be moving up to levels you are unprepared at?

We already have in place a fall in S.J. results in Elimination, why shouldn't it be the same for Cross Country??

I understand the flip side to all this, I have been there. Had falls, been ok and all I could think about is catch horse, get on fast and jump that jump immediately. I never wanted my horses to end thinking me falling off is what we did before we left the course and went back to the barn. However, for the sake of the whole sport this has to happen now and more schooling needs to be done to prepare riders & horses. We live in a different time now then we did before and when people decide they are going to sue our federation because THEY choose to Event, got hurt or died, then the USEA has absolutely every right to make these types of changes to the sport.

[ksbadger]

I can only agree wholeheartedly with Groom's comments and add that the Course Designer rule worries me a bit. I applaud providing TDs with more & better information about the course but, out here in the hinterland, I wonder if it's not another additional cost that will push smaller events into the unrecognized nether world.

Other questions that come to mind are how often must this info be updated? Is the course description as the CD intended or is it what was actually built with all the changes from plan caused by practical reasons including cost. (And if the actual course, does the CD have to make an inspection before writing this). Will TDs use it rather than doing a thorough inspection of the course on the day? We've all seen jumps that were great even the night before but have dangerous footing/takeoff/landing/runout (delete where necessary) areas during the actual competition. Most TDs complain about the level of paperwork already, will this help?

[Kanga]

I think this past weekend really showed us why some of these rule changes the USEA is proposing are valid. We need to support them in making qualifications harder and first falls on cross-country you are DONE for the day. I hope everyone starts to help this process through and that we act IMMEDIATELY before it gets worse.

[Reds-n-Greys]

I think this past weekend really showed us why some of these rule changes the USEA is proposing are valid. We need to support them in making qualifications harder and first falls on cross-country you are DONE for the day. I hope everyone starts to help this process through and that we act IMMEDIATELY before it gets worse.

Couldn't agree with you more!!

[JER]

Resuscitating this thread with an article from Horse & Hound about the proposed rule changes.

Horse & Hound: American eventing safety proposals stir heated debate (http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/competitionnews/391/255863.html)

Interesting comments from Andrew Nicholson, Mike E-S and Mark Phillips.

[Kementari]

The idea that people are going to be more afraid of falling and thus fall more is ridiculous. You already have to retire for a fall, not to mention the potential damage to horse and rider. It's not like people go out on course now saying, "Hey, if my horse has a rotational fall, it's all good!" :rolleyes:

(Of course, to me, that also points to the reason that that particular rule change won't have any appreciable effect: people already don't want to fall, and people don't go out on course thinking, "I'm the one who's going to end up in the hospital today.")

I don't think DR penalties, of whatever sort, would have stopped any of the recent accidents. Some riders may have been un/under-prepared, or had a poor approach to that one fence, but I haven't heard anyone say any of them were candidates for DR penalties.

For once, though, I actually agree with CMP (:eek:) - we need to look at what is really CAUSING the accidents at the upper levels (maybe we need to do something about the lower levels, too, or maybe not - but BN/N/T riders aren't the ones having rotational falls, and so they shouldn't be the focus of all our ideas for fixing the problem). And though riding and preparation certainly contribute, the fact is that serious injuries and death (as opposed to an ego-bruising) happen at big, square, vertical-faced fences. If we want to STOP those serious injuries and deaths, we need to get rid of those big, square, vertical-faced fences - or re-engineer them (with pins or otherwise) so that they fall before the horse rotates.

[closetoperfectionfarm]

Resuscitating this thread with an article from Horse & Hound about the proposed rule changes.

Horse & Hound: American eventing safety proposals stir heated debate (http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/competitionnews/391/255863.html)

Interesting comments from Andrew Nicholson, Mike E-S and Mark Phillips.

Just read the article in Horse and Hound, thanks for the link.
I find myself getting increasingly more annoyed with DOC's comments. In this he says basically the new rules are to deter the less experienced since the professionals make the courses look easy and it is the others who are affecting the sport with dangerous riding.....
WELL.... as I said before, none of these falls in the last 2 months were the little people,
Darren at Red Hills
Heidi at Rolex
Corrine at Rolex
Laine at Rolex
Tara at Rolex
Dorrine at Rolex
Boyd at Rolex
Kyle at Rolex
Andrew Hoy at Badminton
Pippa at Badminton
Allison Springer at one last week
and now at Jersey so far today...Karen and Leslie Lawand I am sure I am forgetting someone too!!!!
So, why does he keep saying it is the inexperienced riders that we have to get better qualified and this will help the sport?????
I'm thinking speed and courses are the culprits and it is not at the LOWER LEVELS.

[boppin along]

Yep... take a look at that list, where are the LL riders?

[pwynnnorman]

Leslie Law fell at JF? I thought he just had a run out.

You mean Lauren Kieffer, right? I'm not sure she's in the same group as the others you listed, though.

It's a useful list, though--would be even more so if we could go back over the last--what? Three years? What percent of bad/rotational/career-or-life ending falls have occurred between LLs (OR non-pros??) and ULs (OR just: pros)? If you take it as non-pro vs. pro, then Darren's LL fall would still be considered.

Why aren't those stats out there? You'd thikn they'd already be.

[RunForIt]

Maybe this is just my lack of sophistication about the problem, but it seems that simply taking a fall from a horse shouldn't be the issue - falls ARE going to happen, to both rider and horse. Its the nature of the fall that needs to be defined and examined from many different perspectives, speed, course, fence, terrain, experience of rider, level of injury to horse/and or rider, level of competition, just to name a few from my own limited perspective.

[arnika]

I disagree with DOC, it is not the LL riders that are the problem. It is lack of the vet box on the horses before running the xc, course design, speed requirements and rider error, IMO.

Whether there is an extrinsic component involved in the EIPH deaths vs. age/heredity/poor conditioning of the horse remains to be seen but regardless of WHY it's happening, these horses would most likely have been spun at the vet box under the long format.

Since that is not available any longer, we should make the fences collapsible, make frangible pins mandatory and reduce speeds. Failing to do this, make prelim or intermediate on up only for pros. Require the pros to get sponsors for funding their courses, just like NASCAR, PBR, NBA or the NFL. Then TPTB will no longer be able to blame the amateurs for the deaths and injuries.

PS:


Mark Phillips..................added: "A country should be careful about going off at a tangent before the equestrian community worldwide has properly considered the implications of a proposed rule change."

No offense meant to Mark Phillips but the man needs to just Shut Up. I don't remember him making that statement when the British made frangible pins necessary after their run of rider deaths in 1999.

[closetoperfectionfarm]

Leslie Law fell at JF? I thought he just had a run out.

You mean Lauren Kieffer, right? I'm not sure she's in the same group as the others you listed, though.

It's a useful list, though--would be even more so if we could go back over the last--what? Three years? What percent of bad/rotational/career-or-life ending falls have occurred between LLs (OR non-pros??) and ULs (OR just: pros)? If you take it as non-pro vs. pro, then Darren's LL fall would still be considered.

Why aren't those stats out there? You'd thikn they'd already be.

Those are just the ones I remember FROM THE PAST 2 MONTHS!!!!!!!!I am sure I have missed a few from Red Hills. I think I remember Amy Tryon falling off there too. I just went on the RH results page to see if there were more and I have to say, those results were staggering!
They just list the E and R but no scores so ya can't really tell how many falls, but as i said, I forgot how staggering those results were.
Yes, I meant Lauren, not Leslie, sorry.
Also, given my "list" if the new rules were in place, well there goes the Olympics!

[Thomas_1]

"PROPOSALS met with concern from the big names in British and world eventing". "I think the Americans need to take a deep breath before implementing any new rules."
http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/competitionnews/391/255863.html

http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/competitionnews/article.php?aid=254274

[KBG Eventer]

Just read the article in Horse and Hound, thanks for the link.
I find myself getting increasingly more annoyed with DOC's comments. In this he says basically the new rules are to deter the less experienced since the professionals make the courses look easy and it is the others who are affecting the sport with dangerous riding.....
WELL.... as I said before, none of these falls in the last 2 months were the little people,
Darren at Red Hills
Heidi at Rolex
Corrine at Rolex
Laine at Rolex
Tara at Rolex
Dorrine at Rolex
Boyd at Rolex
Kyle at Rolex
Andrew Hoy at Badminton
Pippa at Badminton
Allison Springer at one last week
and now at Jersey so far today...Karen and Leslie Lawand I am sure I am forgetting someone too!!!!
So, why does he keep saying it is the inexperienced riders that we have to get better qualified and this will help the sport?????
I'm thinking speed and courses are the culprits and it is not at the LOWER LEVELS.

Sorry, I am being nitpicky, but Kyle Carter did not fall off at Rolex.

[RunForIt]

KBG, don't apologize - if data - even informal data -is going to be useful, and have meaning, it has to be precise.