New Cross Country Scoring

[steves]

What I have put below I posted under a different thread but thought it was worth advising people more generally about the new scoring system that we are supposed to use for XC. The new system does not change any results. Rather it is a difference in the way scores are shown and submitted to the Federations ( USEA and USEF).

I think many people will be confused inititally as several of you are already. The federation wants score sheets to show jump faults to date under XC jump even if one is eliminated, retires, misses a jump, or horse or rider fall. The RT, E, TE, or MR will show up as a final score. That is what some of you are seeing or may see on posted results. Thus a person who has 2 refuals at a jump and then retires will have 60 XC jump and RT as final score.

WHY are they doing this? It is in order to keep more accurate records. Suppose a horse has 3 refusals on a course then misses a jump for a TE. It will show as 60 (or 80 if 2 refusls were at one jump) with a final score of TE. That is a lot different than missing a MF where you will see 0 jump and a TE final score. As a purchaser of a horse wouldn't you want to know this difference? Similarly, what if a horse lost a shoe and then retires. Again there is a big difference between this or retiring after 60 XC jump penalties

[lecoeurtriste]

I think the USEF has the right idea, but how else does someone earn an "E" in a jumping phase besides disobediences?? Withdrawing before leaving the box is "WD"; Rider error is a "TE" (ie. missing a fence, jumping the wrong fence, etc.); voluntary retirement is "RT"; rider fall is "RF"; and horse fall is "MR". Putting the next to last jump penalties number in the penalty box and the letters in the score box is unnecessarily confusing! I completely agree that final scores should accurately reflect what happened on course--hence the introduction of TE a few years ago and the newer RF--but if the only way left to earn an E is to have multiple refusals, why not just leave it at that?? (I have shared these same sentiments to both the USEA and USEF, and those I spoke with agreed and said they are considering just using the letters after all).

[ThirdCharm]

I think the point is, not to differentiate between different "E"s, but to keep riders from obfuscating their horse's record by, say, "Retiring" when in danger of being eliminated for refusals, or "oops" missing a jump and getting a TE toward the end of a disappointing round (say, a owner wants the horse's record to look good for a future sale, but horse has a few refusals early on xc, and the rider "misses" the second from last jump b/c a "TE" doesn't look as bad as 60 penalties or Retiring.... which I imagine is why this rule was enacted.....).

Jennifer

[lecoeurtriste]

I agree that your penalties up until you retire on course or "give yourself" a TE should be shown in the jump column to reflect the fact that you're having a bad day. However, it is VERY confusing for the 99% of riders (and their parents!) who look at scoresheets and see one rider with 60 penalties on xc (2 refusals at one fence or one at 3 separate fences) who finishes with a numerical score, and another rider also showing 60 penalties on xc (3 refusals at one fence) and an E for a final score. Those of us who score USEA/USEF events regularly (thirdcharm, steves, etc.), will easily infer the difference, but the majority of eventers weren't privy to the email sent to organizers and secretaries in early July clearly explaining the change (which was the point of the OP).

I'm sure eventers across this board will thank steves for clarifying the new scoring (I do--afterall, someone should share this vital information with the general membership!), but why add just one more thing that makes our sport hard for spectators and well-wishers to understand?

[Thames Pirate]

In some ways it's good, but on the other hand it doesn't reflect some riders' wisdom. For example, I don't ride for owners--I own one horse and compete it for my own pleasure. She's normally a very solid horse, but there was one day when she just was having a bad day. We had a stupid stop early on course, two at a simple roll top, another elsewhere . . . I knew we weren't going to finish. I was worried about a table, so we jumped the trakehner just before it (which I wasn't worried about), then pulled up. The new scoring system makes it look like my horse isn't very good rather than a good horse having a very bad day. I think it's fine to differentiate between TE, E, RF, etc. but let's not penalize riders by making the wise choice and saying "this isn't working, let's pull up." Just a thought.

[subk]

The new scoring system makes it look like my horse isn't very good rather than a good horse having a very bad day. I think it's fine to differentiate between TE, E, RF, etc. but let's not penalize riders by making the wise choice and saying "this isn't working, let's pull up." Just a thought.
Any score reflects the horse only on a given day. If you had two stops you had two stops why shouldn't the score reflect that? I've always hated that people have hidden behind score sheets that are less than infromative. I've rolled my eyes at pros who pull up because they don't want the score to reflect the real story of the day for a particular sale prospect. A "little truth in advertising" is nice for a change.

[Janet]

...but if the only way left to earn an E is to have multiple refusals, why not just leave it at that?? But there are LOTS of other ways to get an E besides refusals, TE, and RF.

Elimination is left to the discretion of the Ground Jury in the following cases:
(1) Jumping or attempting to jump any obstacle without headgear, or with an unfastened
retention harness, EV113.1.
(2) Willful obstruction of an overtaking competitor, or failure to follow the instructions
of the officials while being overtaken, EV138.5.c
(3) Causing danger to another competitor while overtaking that competitor,
EV138.5.c.
(4) Failure to stop when signaled, EV138.7.b.
(5) Unauthorized assistance, EV138.8.a.

[Thames Pirate]

Any score reflects the horse only on a given day. If you had two stops you had two stops why shouldn't the score reflect that? I've always hated that people have hidden behind score sheets that are less than infromative. I've rolled my eyes at pros who pull up because they don't want the score to reflect the real story of the day for a particular sale prospect. A "little truth in advertising" is nice for a change.

Fair enough, and if I were buying a horse I'd ask why he/she was retired. However, "not his day" should be an acceptable answer (it would be to me as long as it is one event, not every other). It's not "hiding" as much as just wanting to forget that bad day, if that makes sense.

I'm not saying I'm completely opposed to the idea of this scoring, but an R with a few stops might still be the result of a thrown shoe, for example--the horse may just have water issues or whatever but would have finished but for the shoe. An R with no penalties might be because the horse had a breakdown somewhere on course unrelated to a fence (I've both had that happen before the first fence and seen it happen in a big open field on a horse that seemed to be going fine and had been clean). It's not about hiding behind the R, it's about not penalizing riders for calling it a day by broadcasting the issue. Just throwing it out there. Obviously if there are multipe Rs or there is an R every time a horse moves up a level or whatever, I'd wonder. If there's only one (for a lower level horse) or a few (for upper levels), I wouldn't stress it too much.

When I look at Rolex scores, I tend to see R as a reflection of rider wisdom rather than a flaw. I realize E doesn't tell the whole story either (esp. now with the one-fall rule), but I tend to think of the R as the "better" score. If I'm looking at a sale horse, I'd take a horse with an R but otherwise good record, regardless of the reason for the R--every horse is allowed an off day once in a while. There should be incentive to pull up, even if the motivation is to "hide" a bad score--if the horse isn't going well (even under a pro at Novice), it shouldn't be on course and should be pulled up.

Sure, there will be the unscrupulous sellers/pros/etc. that will misuse the R. However, I think showing scores won't stop the shrewd from playing the game, and it might make some push on in the hopes of finishing on a crummy score, rather than retiring on a crummy score.

Again, I'm not completely opposed--I am just giving some food for thought.

[Janet]

I predict a LOT more RT, especially at I and A, after Dec 1.

[steves]

but how else does someone earn an "E" in a jumping phase besides disobediences?? Withdrawing before leaving the box is "WD"; Rider error is a "TE" (ie. missing a fence, jumping the wrong fence, etc.); voluntary retirement is "RT"; rider fall is "RF"; and horse fall is "MR". .

My understanding is that fall of rider is reported to USEA in the master score sheet as RF, but the score sheet will show them as an E. Thus final score will be a number if one finishes a HT successfully. OTher possiblities are: DQ, WD, TE, MR, RT, and DR (dangerous riding elimination). An E can be be for fall of rider or 3-4 jumping disobediences as well as what Janet has stated. I have a feeling that over the coming year a fall of rider (RF) will be shown in the final score instead of an E when a rider falls.

[lecoeurtriste]

I just turned in scores to the USEF for an event run in September, and they made sure that we had scored rider falls as "RF" and not as an "E". I also agree with Janet that E's can be earned other ways, but then the jump penalty box would be empty...my original point was that the only way to earn an "E" in the jump penalty box was with disbobediences and that putting all but the last refusal in there is confusing.

[Janet]

I just turned in scores to the USEF for an event run in September, and they made sure that we had scored rider falls as "RF" and not as an "E". I also agree with Janet that E's can be earned other ways, but then the jump penalty box would be empty...my original point was that the only way to earn an "E" in the jump penalty box was with disbobediences and that putting all but the last refusal in there is confusing.
But 60 jump penalties with an E COULD be "elimination due to refusals", but it could also be "2 refusals at one fence, and then Elimination for one of the other reasons".

Not sure if we are agreeing or disagreeing here.

[steves]

I just turned in scores to the USEF for an event run in September, and they made sure that we had scored rider falls as "RF" and not as an "E".

Thanks for the clarification. I just called USEA and stand corrected. I was told by the TD to mark an RF on the XC penalty jump sheet but show it as an E on the Master score sheet. However the USEA office says that we should mark and RF under final score for both

I also agree with Janet that E's can be earned other ways, but then the jump penalty box would be empty...my original point was that the only way to earn an "E" in the jump penalty box was with disbobediences and that putting all but the last refusal in there is confusing.

Is what you are saying that if a person is E'd for jumping ( 3-4 refusals), then we show the E under Jump penalty and final score, but if TE, RF, MR, HR or even an E ( for the reasons Janet gave) we should show jump penalties to date. If that is what you are saying I am not sure that is any less confusing. If you are saying we should go back to old way of showing all these as Jump penalty, then the problem arises that you won't know how they were doing otherwise before the dangerous ridng, TE, fall of rider etc,

[lecoeurtriste]

But 60 jump penalties with an E COULD be "elimination due to refusals", but it could also be "2 refusals at one fence, and then Elimination for one of the other reasons".

Not sure if we are agreeing or disagreeing here.


I said the EXACT same thing in an earlier post (4th one done)...so we do agree.

My point is to reduce confusion when reading the scoresheet...for example, if you put an E in the jump penalty box AND an E in the score box, it would clearly indicate that the rider was eliminated for refusals. If you put a score in the jump penalty box (0, 20, 40, 60, etc.) and an E in the score box, then you would know that the rider was eliminated for something other than refusals (you still wouldn't know necessarily what for--DR, assistance, etc., but it would be clear that it wasn't for disobediences). The same could be said for a rider who is having a bad day and chooses to retire (put the numerical score for refusals to date in the jump penalty box and an RT in the score box). Having it both ways will/is causing confusion!

[lecoeurtriste]

Is what you are saying that if a person is E'd for jumping ( 3-4 refusals), then we show the E under Jump penalty and final score, but if TE, RF, MR, HR or even an E ( for the reasons Janet gave) we should show jump penalties to date. If that is what you are saying I am not sure that is any less confusing. If you are saying we should go back to old way of showing all these as Jump penalty, then the problem arises that you won't know how they were doing otherwise before the dangerous ridng, TE, fall of rider etc,

I don't think the TE, RF, MR, etc. should be shown as jump penalties--they aren't disobediences. The way the USEF explained it to me when I called in July was that they wanted to separate jumping disobediences from everything else. If you put disobediences in the jump penalty box (0, 20, 40, 60, 80, E) and then the numerical or abbreviation score (TE, RT, RF, etc.) in the score box it might be clearer than what we've been asked to do (starting August 1). You still wouldn't know what the other Es would be for (unless the USEF comes up with codes for every possible scenerio--which I hope they don't!) :-D

I still think you are doing a great service to this board by making riders aware of the new (albeit convoluted) scoring system!!

[klc]

My daughter was eliminated when she jumped the training ditch instead of the novice ditch. She never had any refusals on the xc course. A friend also got eliminated after a clean xc round when she didn't go through the correct side of the finish flag.

[4Martini]

I'm pretty sure you can get an E by going too slow too.

(I've been warned many times as I tend to be much closer to the Max time than the optimal. I just want to make sure we get our full money's worth on CC.)

[Janet]

I'm pretty sure you can get an E by going too slow too.

(I've been warned many times as I tend to be much closer to the Max time than the optimal. I just want to make sure we get our full money's worth on CC.)
That would show up as an E in the "Time penalties" column

[Janet]

My daughter was eliminated when she jumped the training ditch instead of the novice ditch. She never had any refusals on the xc course. A friend also got eliminated after a clean xc round when she didn't go through the correct side of the finish flag.
Those would both be TE- though missing the finish flag could also be scored as going over the time allowed- since until then you could always realize you mistake and ride through the flags correctly.

[mjedge808]

Those would both be TE- though missing the finish flag could also be scored as going over the time allowed- since until then you could always realize you mistake and ride through the flags correctly.

If you missed the correct place to cross the finish flags and then circled back around to go through them properly, would that technically be a willful delay? (by definition not intention)

[steves]

[QUOTE=lecoeurtriste;3555360]I don't think the TE, RF, MR, etc. should be shown as jump penalties--they aren't disobediences. The way the USEF explained it to me when I called in July was that they wanted to separate jumping disobediences from everything else. If you put disobediences in the jump penalty box (0, 20, 40, 60, 80, E) and then the numerical or abbreviation score (TE, RT, RF, etc.) in the score box it might be clearer than what we've been asked to do (starting August 1). QUOTE]

I have passed your suggestion along to USEA and they said they will consider it. I think You have a very valid point.

I hate being outdone by others :)

[Janet]

If you missed the correct place to cross the finish flags and then circled back around to go through them properly, would that technically be a willful delay? (by definition not intention)
According to at least one TD I discussed it with- no penalty if you weren't intending to delay.

[RiverBendPol]

Gosh, 2weeks ago, I completely missed a fence. Not bc I wanted to get a TE and hide the fact that I had already had a stop on course but simply bc I am a dimwitted old hag and FORGOT to go over there and jump the thing. I hope no one looking at scores will see that and assuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuume i was trying to hide something!:cool::cool: