Loss of qualification-does it apply to all levels?

[IFG]

I have been looking at the new USEA safety initiatives (published 9/24 on -line).

On the USEA site, it says:

Loss of Establishment of Qualification

A horse that is eliminated twice, for non-technical reasons, within any six-month period loses its qualification to compete at the level at which the eliminations occur.

A horse that falls in competition two times in any six-month period loses its qualification to compete at the level at which the falls occur.

A rider who falls in competition from the same horse during competition two times in any 12-month period will cause the horse to lose 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 next lower level within a six-month period following the loss of qualification.


There is no indication that these rules apply only at the Prelim level and above (as I had understood that they would). Is a sticky Novice horse going to be sent back to BN?

[Highflyer]

I'm pretty sure it was only meant to apply P and up when I read about it originally. Unless they've changed it since.

[Lisa Cook]

Since a novice horse doesn't have to meet any qualification criteria to compete at Novice, I don't see how it can be forced back to BN, no matter how poor the record.

[bip]

I don't know the answer to your question, but say you have two falls off the same horse at Novice, how long do you have to go back to BN for to requalify? Or what if you have two falls at BN, how do you requalify?

Not that we should just be falling off our horses, but I can imagine people having two falls for totally different reasons that don't indicate lack of preparation. I am just wondering how the rules deal with this (kind of hypothetically because when I fall off, it is always because I was unprepared and I drop my own self back - but other people who are a lot better than me sometimes have falls too, so I'm just wondering how the rule will apply).

[Hilary]

I agree that since there are no qualifications for running at BN/N or Training, that having a "dequalifing" event is kind of impossible.

Also, the reasons that BN riders fall off are different than upper level rider falls. Lower level riders tend to fall off because they are less experienced and don't stick as well if the horse does something unexpected. If I think about the falls at Rolex like Corinne and Heidi, had they been going at N speeds/heights, they probably would not have fallen. So the more difficult course contributed to the fall more than a Novice fall might be.

I'm not being very articulate this morning.

[luise]

The qualifications are ONLY for prelim and up. Does not apply to BN-Training.

[IFG]

I agree that since there are no qualifications for running at BN/N or Training, that having a "dequalifing" event is kind of impossible.

Also, the reasons that BN riders fall off are different than upper level rider falls. Lower level riders tend to fall off because they are less experienced and don't stick as well if the horse does something unexpected. If I think about the falls at Rolex like Corinne and Heidi, had they been going at N speeds/heights, they probably would not have fallen. So the more difficult course contributed to the fall more than a Novice fall might be.

I'm not being very articulate this morning.

You are not being inarticulate. Certainly no more inarticulate than a national organization, with a majority of riders who compete at the lower levels, that posts a rule change like this without a clear clarification that it applies to only the upper levels.

[bornfreenowexpensive]

You are not being inarticulate. Certainly no more inarticulate than a national organization, with a majority of riders who compete at the lower levels, that posts a rule change like this without a clear clarification that it applies to only the upper levels.

I guess I have had enough coffee.....it is clear to me that the rule applies to ANY level that has qualifications. At this point in time, the ONLY levels that a horse has to be qualified to compete at are Prelim and up. That may or may not change in the future. If they add a qualification for a horse to compete at training level....then this rule would automatically apply to that level.

I don't think there needs to be clarification.

[IFG]

I don't think there needs to be clarification.

Then you are probably better versed in the terminology than I (and probably most other LL riders). Speaking as a LL rider, I find it very unclear. I don't think that I am alone or just plain stupid.

[IFG]

BFNE, I wanted to add. As I recall, you are an attorney and familiar with legal language. Clarity is something that I am very sensitive to, as I do research. When we design a questionnaire, we vet it to ensure that it is understandable at an 8th grade reading level. I would think that any major rule change for a large organization, should be similarly vetted.

[NeverTime]

Agreed with the above. But I'm not really understanding the argument that it would be a bad thing to have something similar in place for BN-T or P?

[Lori B]

I don't think the discussion is on whether such a qualification rule should exist at the lower levels than P, but is in fact asking, are the rules written to clearly indicate the levels to which the loss of qualification rules apply. Right?

In user interface design (my work), if something is confusing enough to elicit this kind of discussion, it needs to be made more clear, by definition. Doesn't matter whether a super smart careful reader can figure it out. Reader shouldn't have to be a lawyer or researcher to be able to make sense of it. (IMHO)

[bornfreenowexpensive]

I personally didn't find it confusing...and I am not a lawyer or researcher! Just an eventer who has had a couple of Eliminations recently for stupid reasons and was wondering if I was still qualified to go Prelim. I just read it carefully.
Agreed it could be more straight forward to read but it is written like the rest of the rule book.


You are right....I keep thinking they adopted that rule change for qualification for the horse at Prelim.....

I didn't imply that one is stupid if they don't get the rule. It is just drafted the way rules are drafted. The rule book makes even a sophisticated lawyer's head spin at times. But this rule, I personally don't think it needs to be more clear that it doesn't apply to lower levels.

But to be honest....what about some common sense. Do we really need a rule to tell us if we are having trouble at a level with our horse that we should be considering moving down? Why make more rules for all the levels....I doubt anyone who has posted on this thread so far wouldn't be already thinking those thoughts and wouldn't base their decision NOT to move down because there was no rule requiring them to move down. You make the decision that is best for your horse using common sense and advice from people who know you and your horse.

To me it is sad that we even need the rule to begin with.....because there are a minority of idiots (most of whom are NOT LL riders) who don't seem to have common sense.

[Beam Me Up]

On the qualifications (not the de-qualifications) I don't see any time frames listed for national, just CCI.

Once achieving qualification (horse or rider) are you qualified forever (barring disqualification, for horses)?

I don't dislike this--if an advanced level rider takes 2 yrs off they shouldn't have to requalify for P, I, etc, though they should have to requalify for 3-days--just curious.