Schooling obstacles in competition: a request for your input!

[asterix]

I'm passing this along from my coach -- there is apparently a discussion underway among some organizers and officials regarding a possible solution to this issue, and she's asked me to get feedback from the COTH community :)

Here's the snapshot, as sent to me:

Intention:
to penalize those riders seeking to ‘school’ any cross country jump/’test’ before presenting to their flagged obstacle in order to preserve a fair competition for all.

Situation
It is apparent that some competitors are
“schooling” certain cross country jumps at competitions. This happens the most at water complexes, where a competitor will take the horse behind the jump into the water, walk into or through the water, and THEN will present the horse to their official flagged jump.
Many other riders and officials believe this practice is clearly ‘schooling’, some labeling it as “cheating”, as this behavior does not really answer the question the cross-country course designer was asking of the horse/rider combination. Instead, these riders are gaining a competitive advantage over other riders playing by the rules.
This situation has been witnessed from the Beginner Novice level all the way up to the Advanced (even by some of our current Olympic riders!!)



Solution:
How to define this practice and penalize it without ‘loopholes’? Any competition should be a fair test of all horses and riders with the same standards.
It has been suggested that any schooling of an obstacle be penalized with 20 penalty points. But how does one state this clearly and without being vague so that it is easy to identify and score? That has been the weakness going forward with such a rule change. The other option is to simply not allow any jumping of obstacles not flagged for your particular course, which has the support of many organizers.
-----
OK, COTHers, have at it!

[eventinglvr]

I know a certain rider who does this at every competition she attends - comes to the water complex, goes around her flagged jump, gets her horse's feet wet, then comes out and jumps her fence.

I don't know if I'd consider this cheating, since to me "cheating" means that one person is doing something that is not allowed by the rules. As of now, everyone can get their horse's feet wet before jumping thier jump if they want.

I do feel, though, that the point of a competition is to test horse and rider over questions appropriate for that level. If your horse has a problem with water, take the time to school water before you get to the show. I personally would like to see a rule that does not allow this type of action. I know I use competitions to test where my horse is...I want to see if he'll back off the questions the course designer will ask. I just think that's what a competition is for.

[RiverBendPol]

Darren does it.
I happen to think it is cheating just as much as walking one's horse up to show him jumps that are, for instance, near the dressage rings or stabling.
Cheat cheat, never beat.

[flyingchange]

I dunno. Yes, 20 points seems like a good idea. To make it really clear for all, they could flag the water jump and then flag a "no-entry zone" - which would be the rest of the water jump. If you go into this zone you are assessed 20 points. Or else eliminated.

I admit I have been tempted to do school the water but never had the gumption to actually do it. Just doesn't seem very sportsmanlike. I can see it if you are running HC, maybe, and you have asked for permission to school it before going out on course. Since your score doesn't count anyway, then I guess it would be OK to do. But perhaps the score could have an indicator next to it showing that you did school the water. Like if you finished on a dressage score of 41 but you did school the water, then it could be marked as "41S" and then everybody would know that you schooled it (ha ha ha ha). It wouldn't count, as you went HC, but it also wouldn't be a selling point for you either (if you are selling the horse) as the record would show that you schooled it.

I can't believe people have been seen doing this past the training level. I thought it was only utilized for super-green horses. But at P-A??? Yikes.

[Catalina]

I would never imagine schooling during the course of a competition. It just doesn't seem right to me.

[purplnurpl]

I think it's totally fine.

If you are good enough to know that your horse may have some issues (because he is green) and you find a way to get through the water, jump your fence, or jump a little BN fence before going over your larger N fence-- and you make it cross the finish line with no time penalties then good for you.

When I first read about riders doing this I didn't think "That's Cheating!!" I though, "Wow, wasn't that smart!"

It's not cheating when everyone knows it is allowed and you do it in front of the whole world.

Personally, I just take my horses to schoolings and unrec schooling shows. But I think other areas do not host as many schoolings as Area V.

[sch1star]

One vote for not cheating. It is allowed for everyone, it is part of planning your course, and there is a penalty: time.

I would *never* walk my horse up to a xc jump near, say, the trailer parking or warmup. But I would walk through the water if I needed to, flags permitting, or recommend it to a student if I thought it would make a more secure and successful go for the horse.

To me it's no different from having a big puddle in the warmup that some people are schooling, or water crossings on the grounds that people school. You can choose to do it or not, and you can take the time added on course to alter your track, or not. But I don't think anyone would say hey, walking through that stream over there means you're cheating.

Personally one of the reasons I like eventing is that it allows flexibility like this which encourages riders to think and make (okay - hopefully!) smart decisions. Under the rules as they stand, it's perfectly legal and so it seems unfair to call names over it. But if people don't think it's in the right spirit, just disallow it by requiring no deviations from the prescribed track.

[Fergs]

This is interesting because I think it relates somewhat to the other thread about jumping flagged obstacles that are not on one's course. A BNT at MCTA last month rode two horses in the Training division over a Novice obstacle just before the one on the Training course. Couldn't that be construed as schooling?

[3dazey]

I would definitely support a rule like this. I think the practice is tacky.

That said, I heard a coach telling a student that if her horse stopped at the (training) drop into water once, then she should "get his feet wet" and re-present to the flagged fence. This I didn't mind so much. At least she would have tried the "correct" way first and would take her lumps in the form of jumping penalties plus time.

[justblu]

It's not cheating. With schooling opportuities few and far between it is useful to ensure that the green beans have a good, rewarding experience. A lot of horses that I've started did this the first time they actually had to jump a jump into water. Go thru the unflagged water then come around and jump the jump in. I much prefer the time wasted to a horse putting their feet back down at the last second or worse yet, falling. For the love of god, the last thing we need is more rules.

[sunhawk]

I'm all for schooling under certain circumstances. I mostly ride green horses, I have to travel long distances to compete, and there is very little schooling opportunity for my horses without competing. I'm working on building confidence in horses I ride, so if I have an opportunity to stick my horse in the water at a strange place, and that's going to build his confidence for future courses, you bet I will. A rule against that will just make eventing more unfriendly and uptight. I sell the horses I start, and I'm sure the future buyers of my horses like assurances that they've seen lots of natural obstacles and are fine with water.
If you go off your track to present to water, then have to come around to present through the flags, I'm sure that it's going to take a little more time to get round. A rider schooling a greenie is not likely to be trying for the time, ie, possibly trotting a lot of fences.
I think that by the time a horse is going training, it should be used to all the natural obstacles.
There is a ramp jump into a creek at the Maple Ridge Equestrian Centre, that if I was riding the training course there, and had that jump on my course, and my horse had never seen it, I would so want to get his toes wet first. It's very spooky and unfriendly and invites a stop. All the other training waters on courses I have personally seen, I would want to 'test' my horses ability to go straight through.

[asterix]

So maybe the solution scoring-wise is something like 15 points -- NOT as much as a disobedience, but a distinctive score so folks can see what this was on the horse's record.

It does seem fair to penalize it a bit, but not as much as a disobedience. Certainly at the lower levels it's now possible to do this and not even incur a time penalty.

I would think it would be fairly easy to implement at the water jump -- the TD simply needs to make sure the jump judges there understand exactly what they are looking for...but if it occurs elsewhere on course, how do you define that vs. "oops, I jumped the novice coop, let me circle back and do the training coop"

[mcw]

Totall agree with purplnurpl. Please, no more stupid rules!

I have gotten a green horse's feet wet before. He was at one of his first baby novices and I thought the water as it was presented on course was a little over his head. Rather than knock his confidence by showing him what he didn't know yet, I got his feet wet, let him see everything was ok and just like what we had been schooling, and then presented at the flagged entrance. I had some time penalties, but the little guy learned something. Happy horse, happy rider, happy owner. I probably still would have done it if I had gotten 20 penalties, but please don't eliminate people and pull them off course for this. For me competition is simply about furthering the education of the horse and rider, not winning. Maybe this is where I differ with some others.

ETA: I also think we are ruling ourselves to death if we start penalizing for not jumping something exactly how the course designer intended. Sometimes taking a little different route works better for that horse and rider. Let people use thier own horsemanship to decide the best way to get thier horse over what is flagged. Let the time do the penalizing. If someone is going unsafely fast so that they don't have time when they took a long detour through the water, give them DR penalites.

[bambam]

but if it occurs elsewhere on course, how do you define that vs. "oops, I jumped the novice coop, let me circle back and do the training coop"
does that really happen often enough to worry about? I honestly do not know the answer to that question but I have never seen or known of someone doing that on purpose (I have seen/heard of the "oops" I jumped the wrong fence, figured it out in time and jumped my fence). Or are we talking about being penalized for the genuine "oops" and not just an intentional "schooling"? I assume you are asking about the intent to school situation and not oops since it would be easy to regulate if including both the oops and the intentional schooling, just make a penalty associated with jumping anything not flagged for your level.
If it is easily addressable and more commone at water - and I think it is - and uncommon elsewhere, should we sweat the "other" that much?

[Jealoushe]

I've never even heard of this. How do you manage to do it without crossing your tracks?

[Ja Da Dee]

I know of one person who was going over her 2nd or so Training course, her (always kind of ditchy) horse lost some confidence over some of the earlier fences (not ditches) so she got his confidence back over the Novice ditch before trying the training ditch. I thought it was good horsemanship. She knew her horse was losing confidence, took him over something he was more comfortable with before getting back to the tough stuff.

[Speedy]

You are already penalized with time and have effectively taken yourself out of the competition. I don't see why any additional penalties are necessary.

[Jazzy Lady]

I don't have a problem with it. There is already too many stupid rules. I could see it pertaining to prelim and higher, but at training and below?

Jealoushe - It's different in Canada. You can't circle behind your fences here. You will cross your path and get a penalty if the jump judge knows what you're doing. You also aren't allowed to jump any fences other than your level here.

I *think* (although I could be very wrong) that a crossed path in the US only is penalized before the fence... hmmmm

I remember watching Darren (when I was working for him) take a horse who was doing one of its first prelims at Groton House through a tricky turning question. He did the training one first and then the horse jumped nicely through the prelim. I felt it was a nice way to introduce a greener horse to a new question... not cheating...

[sch1star]

I would definitely support a rule like this. I think the practice is tacky.

That said, I heard a coach telling a student that if her horse stopped at the (training) drop into water once, then she should "get his feet wet" and re-present to the flagged fence. This I didn't mind so much. At least she would have tried the "correct" way first and would take her lumps in the form of jumping penalties plus time.


Not trying to be witchy here - but why in the world would we wish a stop on a horse if there were an alternative that might avoid it and vastly improve the horse's experience over a refusal or scare? This just seems harsh to me.

*Every* time we get on our horses, competition or not, they are learning. It really is possible to "do your homework" and get to an event and still have reservations about the way that question is being asked on that course at that time. It's not unfair, or tacky IMO, to make decisions within the boundaries of the rules that benefit the experience of the horse.

To put it on the horse's permanent record that he got his feet wet before he jumped a jump into the water? Sorry - for me this is complete overkill!

[deltawave]

I do think it's sort of lame, but it really doesn't pose a safety hazard to anyone.(provided that spectators aren't being run over or riders aren't going places that haven't been checked for safe footing, etc.)

IME 90% of this sort of thing happens around water--so I'd say rope off the non-relevant portions of the water complex and make it VERY costly, time-wise, for the competitor to go in and get feet wet before jumping in. That way the rider can make a conscious decision as part of his/her course plan if they feel their horse MUST go into the water this way. I don't mean a 10-second thing that a thoughtless rider would just make up by gunning their horse the rest of the way. I mean serious time penalties, getting close to the "cost" of a refusal. You do want the rider to opt for just jumping in as the course was meant to be jumped.

[Jealoushe]

I don't have a problem with it. There is already too many stupid rules. I could see it pertaining to prelim and higher, but at training and below?

Jealoushe - It's different in Canada. You can't circle behind your fences here. You will cross your path and get a penalty if the jump judge knows what you're doing. You also aren't allowed to jump any fences other than your level here.

I *think* (although I could be very wrong) that a crossed path in the US only is penalized before the fence... hmmmm

I remember watching Darren (when I was working for him) take a horse who was doing one of its first prelims at Groton House through a tricky turning question. He did the training one first and then the horse jumped nicely through the prelim. I felt it was a nice way to introduce a greener horse to a new question... not cheating...

Thank you! I was confused. I know you can mostly jump the higher level fences here...so you can jump the lower level ones in the US? Interesting!

[Jazzy Lady]

Thank you! I was confused. I know you can mostly jump the higher level fences here...so you can jump the lower level ones in the US? Interesting!

No, you can't jump anything that isn't flagged in Canada for your level. You will get eliminated. I had this conversation with a TD recently.

[asterix]

bambam, good question, and I don't know the answer -- I posted to you all everything I was sent...
I suspect it is 90 or 95% the water, based on my own observations, and the "oops!" is NOT intended to be penalized. That's why they are struggling with what to do rule-wise. The simple solution is to do the 'flagged only' rule, but they'd prefer not to.

While the question of whether this type of schooling is useful, "fair," etc. is really interesting, I'm hoping to get input particularly on IF this practice IS to be penalized, HOW would you want that structured?

It sounds to me as though the concept of penalizing it has a lot of traction with the organizers/officials who generated this. If I had to guess (and it is JUST a guess; I haven't spoken with my coach about this), I would guess that the impetus is coming from organizers and officials who see BNTs doing this at the upper levels, NOT from watching folks on uber-green beans showing them the water.

If that were me, with my greenbean, I'd be fine with getting penalized, although I'd really prefer it not to look identical to a stop on his record. BUT I am not trying to sell a horse, and I realize that's a different question.

[bornfreenowexpensive]

Honestly....I have no issue with a rider getting his horse's feet wet before a water jump and schooling it in that manner. His penatly is the time that it takes to do that. Sure at novice and training he might still make time...but Prelim and above...where I don't think I've seen anyone do this (I can't think of ever seeing it done above training level other than on a rare rare occassion---and they didn't come close to making time)....they will not make the time.


I see no need for a rule on it and don't see it as cheating....if every rider could do it if they wanted...how is that cheating? Just because another rider doesn't need to get their horse's feet wet doesn't mean they are being cheated against because someone else has to give their horse a different ride.

[JennieRose]

I agree with Speedy, Ja Da Dee, and the others who have chimed in that this practice isn't "cheating". I cannot think of ONE example of someone doing this who wasn't doing it either for the horse (green, tense, nervous) or the rider (same). In fact, a lot of the time, it's the pro/top riders in the beginner novice horse division and a great confidence builder. We do not need more rules. If it is clear that a rider is doing something shady, ask the TD or ground jury about it, but there is no reason to penalize a rider for trying to make something a more positive experience. And, if it is *strategy* because the rider thinks the horse may have an issue--I'm not sure that that makes it cheating. They are, after all, taking the time penalties that go along with it--much like taking the option at a tough fence.
Additionally, as someone who often deals with (and often volunteers to be a) jump judges, we don't need more people making subjective decisions (what if the horse leaps sideways into the water in a spook without presenting? Is this a school?). I also don't have an issue with jumping obstacles out of your division...as long as it is SAFE--and if it's not, we have DR penalities. Let's let the rules we already have deal with these situations.
One of my favourite memories is watching a young (and tiny!) girl go towards the beginner novice water and feel her horse sucking back (okay, nearly slowing to a walk :) )...she trotted around and trotted her little pony through the water praising and patting all the way..and then they quietly and confidently went through their (slightly scary because it was near TREES) entrance to the water. It was AWESOME watching this girl think of her horse first and great to think of the trainer/rider conversation that must have occured before hand. Yes, she got time penalities, but I can tell you, she was happy as can be at the finish flags.
Sorry so long, apparently I had a bit to say...

[HiJumpGrrl]

I actually think you can jump fences at a higher level in the US, as long as they are flagged. For example, my friend and trainer was bringing her training horse back from an injury at a N event, and decided to jump some of the fences on the training course. It was like, an extra water question, and maybe a trakhener that wasn't on the N course. (FWIW, she did check with the TD before she did it)

Don't add another rule that has nothing to do with safety of horse and rider. The lower levels (where you generally see this happening) are meant to be a friendly introduction to the sport. Why make it less friendly? It's no skin off anyone's nose to do this. As far as people who think it's an unfair advantage... well, you could take the same advantage if you wanted, which makes it not unfair. Right?

[Camstock]

I have not done this in competition, but I have considered it, but in the end deemed it unnecessary in each case. I ride a lot of developing horses. I think it is perfectly fine to get their feet wet or whatever, if the state of the horse's confidence or experience suggests it would be a better experience for them. It is all about building up horses' confidence in my book. If someone ends up with a higher placing than me and uses this tactic, more power to them. Smart riding.

[deltawave]

I know one rider who would consistently do it at every opportunity on an otherwise successful, confirmed Training horse because he'd otherwise have the odd stop and she just didn't want to take the chance of 20 penalties. Neither she nor the horse were green, inexperienced or otherwise "anxious". The horse just had a hole in it WRT water, and the rider didn't want to chance a penalty.

[bornfreenowexpensive]

I know one rider who would consistently do it at every opportunity on an otherwise successful, confirmed Training horse because he'd otherwise have the odd stop and she just didn't want to take the chance of 20 penalties. Neither she nor the horse were green, inexperienced or otherwise "anxious". The horse just had a hole in it WRT water, and the rider didn't want to chance a penalty.


And if that is the ride she has to give her horse...I'm fine with it. Just like I might have to give my horse a stronger ride over a ditch than someone else might...or someone taking a different line thorough a combination...(one line might get 5 strides and another might get 3 strides). Again, as long as a rider is doing something that everyone else could do (if they thought about it or wanted to)...I don't see how it is cheating. It is just giving a horse a different ride.

[3dazey]

We have all been round and round with this issue in the past. While I do not call it cheating, I think it is against the spirit and intent of the sport. Cross country is meant to display the horse's courage and boldness while negotiating numbered obstacles in the most efficient way possible while traversing the countryside. The competition is to compete, not to train. I have no problem if schooling shows offer this option, since they are for schooling purposes.

There is also a serious safety element to this which many of you may have not considered. The flagged way through a water jump has been prepped and examined by the CD, the TD and probably the PGJ. When people go off entering water wherever, they may not be aware of hazards like fill pipes, small holes in the base, drains or whatever. I don't think it's fair to expect organizers to have to examine every square foot of every water complex on the off chance that someone will wander into uncharted territory and lose a shoe or worse (which I have witnessed and while I was sorry about it, the rider was "schooling" her horse at a USEA event, which I didn't agree with, and the horse put its foot in a drain). While you may not like more rules, the organizers sure don't need any lawsuits over something this preventable, either.

But basically I like the way DW put it...I just think it's sort of lame.

[Hilary]

Please put me firmly in the NO MORE RULES camp.

Now lets consider horsemanship: Is it better to stuff your horse over something he may be worried about (ie, off the drop into water, big ditch) or let him run through (or jump a smaller one) and be calm and then eagerly jump in.

DW, not sure if you meant me, but that was me with confirmed T horse with one quirk - he'd been hurt jumping off a bank into water and would simply shut down rather than jump off a strange one UNTIL he'd gone through as a run-in. After which he would eagerly go into that particular water forever - even if it was a year later.

I used up time penalties and ultimately came away with a very confident horse.

Pol, I'm going to pick on you, but do you say "cheater" when you see me do it? I'm OK with that if so, but just asking.

I got frowned on by one TD (as unsportsmanlike) and told by another that it was "smart thinking". Even they have opinions.

Who did I hurt doing this? No one. Who did I help? My horse. Since he didn't do very well in dressage we never took anyone's blue ribbon away from them.

[Jeannette, formerly ponygyrl]

Putting in a rule seems much more likely to have unintended consequences, possibly serious, than leaving things be and grumbling a bit if that is your style when someone does it.

It doesn't seem too far fetched to me to think it could actually be a safety issue - lets say someone is running Intermediate, has a sticky go through the first water, and ends up having a rough jump somewhere in that complex. They get through the next couple fences, then there is the next water complex, with its' questions coming in pretty rapid succession - de we really want the rider weighing possible penalty points, or should she be focusing on how best to safely get through the water? It may be that getting their feet wet before tackling the bounce/turning question/water to water whatever is far smarter!

[bornfreenowexpensive]

I don't think it's fair to expect organizers to have to examine every square foot of every water complex on the off chance that someone will wander into uncharted territory and lose a shoe or worse (which I have witnessed and while I was sorry about it, the rider was "schooling" her horse at a USEA event, which I didn't agree with, and the horse put its foot in a drain).


Don't expect the organizers to examine every square foot....but if a rider is planning on doing something like this....basic horsemanship would dictate that THEY will have walked off their planned path as well as around to make sure that their plan was fesible and safe (and most will walk off plans A, B and C). Just like we do on any course. I don't know that the ground jury has walked the line that I plan to take on any course.....and I've watched pleanty of courses were the riders clearly took a different line than what the CD and others might have initially invisioned....and I've walked many a course were a rock, hole or other hazzard wasn't marked by the GJ after their inspection....(hole was marked after we stuck sticks in it and told the TD).

Don't know why it bugs me...but I don't want more rules...not over something like this. If the rider is stupid about what they are doing....it should be a DR penalty.

[clm08]

One more against additional rules here. My horse happens to be water-phobic. We don't have any water jump that we can use to school him less than 2 hours away, and that one is often closed due to sloppy footing (it is in a lower area, prone to flooding). When the farm owners do allow XC schooling there, we must find several riders to go together so they will fill up the water jump for us. They won't do it for 1 or 2 horses only. The other options we have are in public parks in IL, but the water jumps will be empty unless it is right after an event there (3 events in the entire season - 3 opportunities IF you can go there right after one of the events while there is still water in the water jumps).

We take every single opportunity we can find to school my horse in water jumps. We did that at KY Horse Park 2 years ago while there for Pony Club Championships. He is getting a little better after having gone to 6 events last year, all requiring walking thru water. But at the first event this year, my daughter was one who chose to take a very long detour from the intended XC course, make him go thru the water jump before heading uphill to the ditch, coop, bank, etc, then going thru the water. She didn't do the schooling at the water jump right before going thru the flags. She did it as a detour between jump 4 and 5, and the water jump was #8 or 9. She knew it would cost her time penalties, but better than a stop at the water. Will she be doing it the next time again? Probably not. It was her decision for that event, knowing the state of his training this early in the season, and the need to reassure him.

[archieflies]

Hhhmmm... I'm fairly new to eventing, and I hear a lot of eventers saying things like "We don't care about ribbons, we just want to improve our horses' performance every time out," and then I hear a lot of the same people talking about "fairness" in scoring because you wouldn't want anyone with a less-schooled horse to beat you. I guess at a certain level placings matter, but are the less-schooled horses really going to win at that level?

This practice may be a bit silly at upper levels, but at Training and below? If you know your horse isn't 100% confident yet, you find ways to increase their confidence. It can't ALL be schooled to death at home.

Seems time penalties would be the worthy punishment.

If it must be written in stone, I can see some sort of wording about being counted as a circle if you pass the back side of the jump before presenting to it, but then that would require a return of zones, wouldn't it? And would limit some of the twistier jump combinations that may require you to pass behind it and loop around anyway... A rule for "no water unflagged water crossings" just seems excessive at Training or below.

[GotSpots]

Not a fan of such a rule. The majority of the tme that someone does it, it's at novice or beginner novice (which I wish we could please think of as an introduction to the sport and a place where good horsemanship and positive riding are rewarded, rather than criticized or devalued vis-a-vis placings). At those levels, frankly, I want to see safe and careful horses and riders learning their jobs - if it takes a circle through the water to get the positive jump in, then it just doesn't bother me at all (though I would hope that the rider who did this rode the rest of the course at the appropriate pace such that there were time penalties attached). If it happens at Preliminary or up, then it's usually after a stop (hence the penalties are already assessed) and/or time is an enormous factor. I guess I'd rather see the riders make the best choices for their horses. With a youngster or a green one, sometimes the course designer will not flag the water's "in" just it's "out" (in a pass-through) so as to permit riders some room in trying to persuade a greenie to get its feet wet. When they don't do that, I don't mind a horse having a bit of a school to figure it out if need be.

On the other hand, if a new rule is put in place, we could possibly be treated to even more of the always unintentionally funny person-trying-to-get-recalcitrant-horse/pony-into-water-jump. Few things are as entertaining as repeated pony club kicks on an utterly oblivious horse teetering on the edge of a sandy run-through the water. Thelwell, writ live. Heck, if you can promise me we'll get more of those, I'd say carry on then.

[Jealoushe]

No, you can't jump anything that isn't flagged in Canada for your level. You will get eliminated. I had this conversation with a TD recently.

oh, yes you have to ask the TD for permission first. Well, you used to be able to ask and then do it. I havnt done it since I was like 15....

[deltawave]

Hilary, the person I was thinking of is a local person with a horse that did training for 5-6 years, and always she would do this at the water jump. It just got to sort of be a :rolleyes: thing.

[Late]

I know one rider who would consistently do it at every opportunity on an otherwise successful, confirmed Training horse because he'd otherwise have the odd stop and she just didn't want to take the chance of 20 penalties. Neither she nor the horse were green, inexperienced or otherwise "anxious". The horse just had a hole in it WRT water, and the rider didn't want to chance a penalty.

I used to have one that had this exact same issue - wish I'd though of this solution!

As far as it being a rule, I think it's ridiculous to ask for any more subjective judging on xc than there already is, especially when this isn't specifically a safety issue. I think there are many good points here, but everyone's reason for "schooling" or not schooling is different and there are too many valid situations.

[scubed]

I'm also in the camp that thinks it ok, and have had this discussion with asterix's trainer. It could also be hard to enforce even if it was only for water. For example, at Pine Top, there are multiple water jumps. When I was last there, novice wasn't doing the first one. I took my horse through the edge of that water, so that his feet would be wet before getting to "his" water jump, which I did not school (of course it was novice, so it was very straightforward anyway). On the other hand, I was tempted to get feet wet at Rocking Horse in 2008. It was my horse's 2nd training level (first had been in the fall) and the training water jump was a small roll top on a ledge, so you were jumping both over and down into the water, which he had absolutely never done. I ended up just riding aggresively and he was fine with it, but he is also a very bold horse. On a less bold horse, I would have loved the option to get the feet wet. Given that whenever I've done a clinic with a BNT, even when riding a prelim/int horse, they have always started at the water by getting the horse's feet wet before jumping, there is apparently something appropriate about the practice. I'm ok with the idea of setting up flagging/roping so that there is a time penalty at training and above, but for BN and Novice, for those of us that don't have the advantage of boarding at a facility with a xc course, more thought and more confidence seems like a good thing, not a bad one.

[CMCEventer]

Wow - I wish I had thought about this 15 years ago when I was competing Prelim on a horse that occassionally just wouldn't jump in the water - which, always seemed to be the second to last fence on the course! Why the heck didn't I just swing around and get his feet wet after a first refusal?!?! Never ever thought of it. Don't I feel stupid.

My initial on a proposed rule is - please, just leave it to the course designers. If they want to block off an easier entrance with plants or a portable jump or whatever - or design the route to be extremely costly in time - or if they want to permit it... let them choose.

And here's my question - sometimes, at Beginner Novice, I see the water is flagged on the far side of the obstacle. My interpretation of this is that the course designer wanted to give BN riders the opportunity to get in the water, but the "obstacle" is getting out - so, no refusals will count at the entrance - it will only cost you time if you can't get in quickly. Am I wrong in that interpretation? Would a "no schooling" rule effect the ability of a course designer to give this benefit on BN courses?

[SparklePlenty]

I would think it would be fairly easy to implement at the water jump -- the TD simply needs to make sure the jump judges there understand exactly what they are looking for...but if it occurs elsewhere on course, how do you define that vs. "oops, I jumped the novice coop, let me circle back and do the training coop"

Is jumping the wrong fence not penalized?? THAT to me doesn't seem fair! I knew a friend who got a DR penalty because she jumped a fence that wasn't on her course.

[SevenDogs]

I agree with Speedy, Ja Da Dee, and the others who have chimed in that this practice isn't "cheating". I cannot think of ONE example of someone doing this who wasn't doing it either for the horse (green, tense, nervous) or the rider (same). In fact, a lot of the time, it's the pro/top riders in the beginner novice horse division and a great confidence builder. We do not need more rules. If it is clear that a rider is doing something shady, ask the TD or ground jury about it, but there is no reason to penalize a rider for trying to make something a more positive experience. And, if it is *strategy* because the rider thinks the horse may have an issue--I'm not sure that that makes it cheating. They are, after all, taking the time penalties that go along with it--much like taking the option at a tough fence.
Additionally, as someone who often deals with (and often volunteers to be a) jump judges, we don't need more people making subjective decisions (what if the horse leaps sideways into the water in a spook without presenting? Is this a school?). I also don't have an issue with jumping obstacles out of your division...as long as it is SAFE--and if it's not, we have DR penalities. Let's let the rules we already have deal with these situations.
One of my favourite memories is watching a young (and tiny!) girl go towards the beginner novice water and feel her horse sucking back (okay, nearly slowing to a walk :) )...she trotted around and trotted her little pony through the water praising and patting all the way..and then they quietly and confidently went through their (slightly scary because it was near TREES) entrance to the water. It was AWESOME watching this girl think of her horse first and great to think of the trainer/rider conversation that must have occured before hand. Yes, she got time penalities, but I can tell you, she was happy as can be at the finish flags.
Sorry so long, apparently I had a bit to say...

GREAT post Jennyrose!! :yes:

[RAyers]

I don't have a problem with it. There is already too many stupid rules. I could see it pertaining to prelim and higher, but at training and below? ....

I can picture it now:

Trainer to rider at Rolex, "If your horse stops at the Head of the Lake, go around and pick up the training fence to to get his feet wet then come back around." ;)

I agree, I don't think it is cheating, especially if it takes more time (time penalties may be incurred).

[PhoenixFarm]

My first reaction is the same as some others: no more stupid, pointless rules, please. This isn't cheating and it hurts no one and only improves the quality of a green horse's experience. (I should add I guess when I think about this, I only think of it in terms of water schools--I've never seen, nor done myself or suggested to one of students, jumping another level's similar fence--I can see how that could lead to liability questions, so I guess I'm discussing the water school issue only).

But, and this is a big but, if they were to ram such a silly thing down our throats-- I could live with it being applied across the board at prelim and above. I'd be willing to listen to an argument at training, but at BN and N, it is supposed to be about introducing horses to the sport and developing them.

I would also add that often the "issue" for a green horse at a water jump may have nothing to do with the water at all. Out here in CA because land is at such a premium one pond will have jumps for all five levels strewn before, after, and in the water. N or BN often involves winding ones way amongst these fences, and then presenting the horse with an incredibly eye catching array of items they're supposed to realize aren't theirs and find the small opening for their simple pass through. My babies grow up ponying across, living with, and hacking across streams on my property--they don't have a "water issue" but they about have their eyes fall out of their heads the first time they see that endless sea of flags and jumps.

Schooling opportunities are few and far between for many (not everyone rides in Area II, remember :winkgrin: ) and frankly, I'm sick of the notion that everything at the show has to be perfect. We AREN'T hunters, people. The levels were designed as a progression of training, not a test you have to pass with a perfect score of 100. In fact, my belief is that the corollary of the belief that the show is sacrosanct, must be perfect, and every show counts the same, has led to some of the upsetting, and nonhorsemanship decision making we see at the upper levels. Used to be that folks rarely ran the time at, or tried to win, the horse trials. The focus was prepping for the CCI's. Now, you're expected to run their legs off and win all the preps PLUS the CCI's.

I also fail to see how encouraging people to shove their uncertain horses over, or off of, obstacles, is safer than a nice trot through a puddle. And yes, time penalties do figure in to that, so the choice to do it does get "punished."

At this stage of the game with the recent rules making history of this organization, one can't help but feel like somewhere a guy in a propellor hat is spinning around on a chair saying "allowing this is better for the horses, so IT MUST GO!"

As I say, I don't really know what to say about the issue as relates to other actual jumping efforts. I've never done it, never seen it done, and have never really thought about it--that maybe a different kettle of fish altogether from do a trot through the water.

[Gry2Yng]

And if that is the ride she has to give her horse...I'm fine with it. Just like I might have to give my horse a stronger ride over a ditch than someone else might...or someone taking a different line thorough a combination...(one line might get 5 strides and another might get 3 strides). Again, as long as a rider is doing something that everyone else could do (if they thought about it or wanted to)...I don't see how it is cheating. It is just giving a horse a different ride.

Agreed. If everyone can do it, then it isn't cheating. I remember seeing KOC do this many years ago. I forget the horse. Was standing with a group of pros. All thought very smart, everyone wondered if it was legal at the time. Have seen it get more common since, with both riders and coaches telling their kids to get horse's feet wet. KOC generally has a pretty good grip on how to get the job done within the rules. She's smart and talented and competitive.

I would be against another rule.

[asterix]

well, this is loud and clear! thank you everyone for your input -- I didn't really get an answer to my question, but I got an answer to the question one assumes should be posed BEFORE it (which is, is this a good idea in the first place).

I will pass this along, and see what happens.

oh, and for the poster who asked is it legal to accidentally jump the novice coop and circle back and jump the training coop -- yes it is. As long as it is not deemed "dangerous" you can jump another obstacle on course in such a manner. If you jump an unflagged obstacle, or one very much not on your level (if you run novice, and jump a prelim fence, for example), you may incur DR penalties, but that's a judgement call.

[Duramax]

To me cheating is doing something illegal or that gives you an unfair advantage. As seeing that everyone could do the same thing and with the current rules its not illegal than I don't see it as cheating.

[Ajierene]

This thread is quite interesting. I would have never thought to 'school' anything at a show. I do go to schooling shows where I like to be able to complete all phases if I get eliminated from one. But to school a jump or obstacle? It would never cross my mind to school an obstacle in any way at a competition.

Wouldn't schooling the water with a difficult horse pose a problem with timing? If the horse does not want to go into the water and is being difficult, then don't you run the risk of the horse sent out on course after you catching up to you? Likewise with taking a long route to school a jump one level above or one level below.

Though if there is no rule against it, I would not call it cheating.

[asterix]

Aijerene, I suppose it could, but in such a case we do not need any rule changes; the jump judge should absolutely pull the schooling rider out of the way and wait for the oncoming rider to clear the water. Just like when someone is having an issue in front of a fence and you have an oncoming rider.

[flea]

Leave it, we have bigger fish to fry. A person doing that is losing time anyway. Again, if we say no other obstacle than that on your course, have to have someone watch every obstacle out there. Impossible.

[eventer4eva]

count me as "no more rules please!!"

I have a horse who is, for everything else BUT a drop into water, honest as the day is long. however, very early in his career he got way overfaced by a drop, and it scared the pants off of him. now he likes to stop at drops into water.

anyway, it's NOT cheating if everyone can do it. the end

[carolinagirl191]

I agree w/ sch1star, jazzy, mcw, justblu and purpl - Enough w/ the rules!!!!

Everybody think for themselves, ride the horse they showed up with, make a plan and be flexable enough to have a back up or 2 as things unfold.
What the H**L happened to this sport.
The field is as level as a XC course is ever going to be - IT"S NOT!!!

People will come with the best they have and compete against themselves. What happened to personal best? What happened to systematically inproving the YR or ammy rider and systematically improving the horse OVER TIME? Now it's the record, the record - every outing has to count toward "something" - how about personal and partnership IMPROVEMENT.
Some of these posts about "cheating" sounds to me like people who live in a world where everyone should get recognition for showing up - you are taking the LIFE out of this thing.

I miss the old days. I miss truly galloping fences. I miss fly fences. I'm gonna miss JBF. I so believe in everything that Julie stands for with her "Soft" move up courses. I think "schooling" the question 1 level below on course is good horsemanship, depending on the horse and depending on the day. It's $300+ dollars a weekend people - it's getting a bit crazy w the expenses AND the rules. Even at rec. events, there should be a way for the competitor who is having trouble to stay in it. They are no longer "Competitive" for placing but the horse and the rider should carry on.(more on this later)

Years ago, I had the priviledge of competing at the Trakehner Horse Farm in Fl. I was stabled beside a fellow named Firestone. He had 3 upper level horses at the time, 2 grooms, a big fancy horse box and a Ferrari. I never saw him clean tack. He didn't "hang out" in the stables. I was moving up to prelim w/ a horse I was producing while being a WS. I wasn't competing against him - I was never going to compete against him. I was there to see if my hard work, if my training and conditioning would stand up to the test. I was competing against THE TEST.
This has to get back to the partnership w/ the horse. It has to be about the education, the journey, not about the rules and not about the placing.
Why in the world is there "a discussion underway among some organizers and officials regarding a possible SOLUTION to this ISSUE"
It's not an issue!!!

We are allowing our sport to be hijacked by well, and not so well, meaning people who are not event RIDERS. Evening is dangerous. YOU have to be ready and accountable. YOU will make mistakes. YOU will learn from those mistakes. YOU will be a better human being for having participated. STOP the buracracy already - the rules are becoming far more dangerous than the sport because people are thinking about rules and not about riding

NO more rules!! I'm going to do some breathing exercises and then I'm going to ride. Some of these threads just set me off.

[blackwly]

I think it comes down to whether you personally think of a XC round as a competition, or a building block in the training of horse and rider. For me, other than 3days or championships, every event is really about learning/schooling, rather than going for the win. The most important thing is thus that the horse comes out with a positive experience.

I have done this (with water) a few times. In college I bought a 4 yr old off the track that was a great jumper but absolutely would not go in water whatsoever. No clue why. It took me about 3 months of learning to go forward, trust me, etc to get him to put a foot in, and then he improved pretty quickly. At this time I was relying on rides from friends (no trailer) and had one place to ride which had a water jump (Horse Park at Woodside, lucky me!) I had no opportunity to school any other water obstacles. The horse learned to jump into and out of that home obstacle well, but when competing at novice at other venues would spook a bit and then trot or walk into water jumps without actually stopping. You can bet that when I moved him up to training (the first few times out) I got his feet wet and then returned to the jump-in which he would happily then hop over. After a few events it was no longer necessary, but it was an important part of his development and far preferable to returning to a former bad habit or riding him overly aggressively and scaring him on the jump in.

So I'm on the side of saying that it is not cheating, just part of good horsemanship. Sure some people may abuse it, but most of the people out there using this loophole are schooling green horses around and I think they should be given every chance to have a positive experience.

[blackwly]

I would also add that often the "issue" for a green horse at a water jump may have nothing to do with the water at all. Out here in CA because land is at such a premium one pond will have jumps for all five levels strewn before, after, and in the water. N or BN often involves winding ones way amongst these fences, and then presenting the horse with an incredibly eye catching array of items they're supposed to realize aren't theirs and find the small opening for their simple pass through. My babies grow up ponying across, living with, and hacking across streams on my property--they don't have a "water issue" but they about have their eyes fall out of their heads the first time they see that endless sea of flags and jumps.

Schooling opportunities are few and far between for many (not everyone rides in Area II, remember :winkgrin: ) and frankly, I'm sick of the notion that everything at the show has to be perfect. We AREN'T hunters, people. The levels were designed as a progression of training, not a test you have to pass with a perfect score of 100. In fact, my belief is that the corollary of the belief that the show is sacrosanct, must be perfect, and every show counts the same, has led to some of the upsetting, and nonhorsemanship decision making we see at the upper levels. Used to be that folks rarely ran the time at, or tried to win, the horse trials. The focus was prepping for the CCI's. Now, you're expected to run their legs off and win all the preps PLUS the CCI's.

I also fail to see how encouraging people to shove their uncertain horses over, or off of, obstacles, is safer than a nice trot through a puddle. And yes, time penalties do figure in to that, so the choice to do it does get "punished."


EXACTLY. From my previous post, you can see that I was describing much the same scenario which occurred when I lived in Area 6. Schooling shows are great - but in some parts of the country they don't exist! You are forced to school at recognized competitions for better or worse. I also completely agree that horse trials should be about education, and the events you are really out to win are your end goals of the season - be it a CCI, an area championship, or just an important goal you've set for yourself. And finally, I think you are absolutely right that over-riding or shoving an uncertain horse off an obstacle is inherently dangerous and also likely to hurt the horse's confidence in the long run.

The only thing I would add, is that I think prehaps the MOST important level for this sort of schooling to remain allowed is training. At BN and novice, you're just going to run thru the water. At training, however, you are introducing the idea of jumping into water and that is where horses just moving up can most benefit from a simple water question followed by a more complicated one (jump in.) Thoughtful course designers with 2 water obstacles at their disposal often employ this at training/prelim anyway...but if they don't, I think we should have the option to do it ourselves (if possible given the nature of the water complex.)

[fooler]

I do think it's sort of lame, but it really doesn't pose a safety hazard to anyone.(provided that spectators aren't being run over or riders aren't going places that haven't been checked for safe footing, etc.). . ..

That is one of the reasons this rule is under consideration. A fellow official shared the experience at one competition where the water jump was placed on the side of a hile. The water was flagged so the riders came down the hill, made a turn and jumped parallel to the top of the hill (not going up & down hill). One rider, whose trainer instructed her to go thru the water going down hill, then turn to go thru the flags. Only problem was the line of spectators sitting along the hill above the water. The rider came down the hill yelling to the spectators to move and 'telling' the JJ that she was not "presenting" - all under trainer's instructions.

[Janet]

That is one of the reasons this rule is under consideration. A fellow official shared the experience at one competition where the water jump was placed on the side of a hile. The water was flagged so the riders came down the hill, made a turn and jumped parallel to the top of the hill (not going up & down hill). One rider, who was instructed to go thru the water going down hill, then turn to go thru the flags. Only problem was the line of spectators sitting along the hill above the water. The rider came down the hill yelling to the spectators to move and 'telling' the JJ that she was not "presenting" - all under trainer's instructions.

Sounds like a prima facie case for DR. No need for a separate rule for that.

[fooler]

Sounds like a prima facie case for DR. No need for a separate rule for that.

I believe the official did either speak to the competitor or charge the competitor with a DR. Of course. . . there is 'no rule' against going thru either the unflagged or water flagged for a different level - so the competitor & trainer did not 'agree'. Silly spectators should have known. . .

[SevenDogs]

That is one of the reasons this rule is under consideration. A fellow official shared the experience at one competition where the water jump was placed on the side of a hile. The water was flagged so the riders came down the hill, made a turn and jumped parallel to the top of the hill (not going up & down hill). One rider, whose trainer instructed her to go thru the water going down hill, then turn to go thru the flags. Only problem was the line of spectators sitting along the hill above the water. The rider came down the hill yelling to the spectators to move and 'telling' the JJ that she was not "presenting" - all under trainer's instructions.

I can see where this could be a problem, but if the rider was riding dangerously, wouldn't the DR be a better choice here than throwing out the baby with the bathwater and prohibit schooling?

It has always been a part of the sport that the rider gets to choose their own line to a fence, which includes checking footing, etc on your course walk. Granted, this rider didn't show very good judgement (or the trainer that put her there), but I would hate to see more rules when I think we can work within the framework we already have to punish this type of thing.

[fooler]

I can see where this could be a problem, but if the rider was riding dangerously, wouldn't the DR be a better choice here than throwing out the baby with the bathwater and prohibit schooling?

It has always been a part of the sport that the rider gets to choose their own line to a fence, which includes checking footing, etc on your course walk. Granted, this rider didn't show very good judgement (or the trainer that put her there), but I would hate to see more rules when I think we can work within the framework we already have to punish this type of thing.

LOL - I am play devil's advocate here:
The horse & rider were in control, the track taken to 'school' the water was reasonable. The only problem was the line of spectators on the 'intended' track. So an argument can be made & probably was, that the competitor was not riding dangerously.

[Janet]

We are allowing our sport to be hijacked by well, and not so well, meaning people who are not event RIDERS. The people that are behind this rule change proposal ARE Event riders. They may also be organizers and officials, but they ARE riders too.

[Janet]

I think it comes down to whether you personally think of a XC round as a competition, or a building block in the training of horse and rider. For me, other than 3days or championships, every event is really about learning/schooling, rather than going for the win. The most important thing is thus that the horse comes out with a positive experience.

...
So I'm on the side of saying that it is not cheating, just part of good horsemanship. Sure some people may abuse it, but most of the people out there using this loophole are schooling green horses around and I think they should be given every chance to have a positive experience.
I think the way to deal with this aspect of it is to have penalty points associated with, for instance, "schooling the water".

That way, people who are , at this event, more concerned with "giving the horse a positive experience" than a ribbon will willingly take a few penalty points. But those who ARE in it for the ribbon, or to qualify for AECs, etc., will have to take the jump "cold" in order to meet their objective.

[scubed]

Originally Posted by carolinagirl191 View Post
We are allowing our sport to be hijacked by well, and not so well, meaning people who are not event RIDERS.
The people that are behind this rule change proposal ARE Event riders. They may also be organizers and officials, but they ARE riders too.

And in this case, current riders of horses at the lower levels as well

[Janet]

I believe the official did either speak to the competitor or charge the competitor with a DR. Of course. . . there is 'no rule' against going thru either the unflagged or water flagged for a different level - so the competitor & trainer did not 'agree'. Silly spectators should have known. . .
But the definition of DR says
EV112.1 Any competitor who rides in such a way as to constitute a hazard to the safety or wellbeing of the ... spectators, ...will penalized accordingly.
Doesn't matter if the spectators are silly, smart, stupid, informed, ignorant, well intentioned, or being difficult.

[Janet]

LOL - I am play devil's advocate here:
The horse & rider were in control, the track taken to 'school' the water was reasonable. The only problem was the line of spectators on the 'intended' track. So an argument can be made & probably was, that the competitor was not riding dangerously. On the contrary, once she SAW that the competitors were in her way (whether she was on her way to "schooling", or just an unconventional track to the official obstacle, or even on the "normal" track to the obstacle), she needed to change her track to avoid being a danger to the spectators.

[SevenDogs]

LOL - I am play devil's advocate here:
The horse & rider were in control, the track taken to 'school' the water was reasonable. The only problem was the line of spectators on the 'intended' track. So an argument can be made & probably was, that the competitor was not riding dangerously.


Me being Devil's Advocate now :winkgrin::

I gotta be honest (and I have no doubt that the incident in question was a bit crazy), riders should take precedence over spectators (and no, this isn't a license for riders to run over spectators per the rules). If the rider truly was not out of control or riding dangerously, than there should be better spectator control?

I'm always a little surprised at some events how sure spectators seem about what line a rider is going to take. I guess I am just paranoid and consider that the rider may take a different line or frankly, be out of control and I don't want to get trampled!

If it wasn't DR and the only concern was for the spectators, than it should be the spectator area that should change in the future?

[Janet]

When I PLANNED to take an unmarked (but used the previous year) obstacle set into the fence line on the way to the bank complex at Seneca, I asked the TD in advance.

One of the things he said was "if there are spectators in the way you have to change your plan to avoid a DR penalty."

[SevenDogs]

When I PLANNED to take an unmarked (but used the previous year) obstacle set into the fence line on the way to the bank complex at Seneca, I asked the TD in advance.

One of the things he said was "if there are spectators in the way you have to change your plan to avoid a DR penalty."

Agreed. It is like being the driver of a car -- regardless of how clueless a pedestrian might be, you can't run them over.

Since this incident is over, we are looking at future changes that might prevent it from happening again and that is why I was asking about spectator control vs. rule change for the rider.

[west5]

I'm confused, is this rule change coming about because of the one story mentioned a few posts earlier?

There is always some rider somewhere that will do something stupid.
Haven't we established that we can't legislate away stupid?

I'm in the enough rules camp.

I've had to yell at spectators who were standing in my way while going xcountry. They were hanging out right in the "track". I wasn't doing anything creative, they were just clueless.

I've also jumped the wrong fence by accident. I have never schooled something while competing but if others need to and they don't break a rule so be it.

It seems the "safer" we try to make everything the less personal responsibility people take for themselves.

[Gry2Yng]

As long as we are telling stories about spectators being in your path...

Many years ago, I was the first rider out on a prelim course. Probably fence 5 or 6 at Wayne DuPage was a hanging log in the woods, landing was below take off, sharp left downhill over the ditch and uphill over a skinny log. Anyone who has done Wayne knows this little complex in the woods, it changes a bit every year.

Anywho, coffin cantering along on my experienced horse, horse's front feet leave the ground to jump element A and low and behold there are the jump judges sitting right in my landing (could not see them until take off as they were sitting on the backside below the A element in the trees). Experienced horse throws the landing gear down against the log to cut his trajectory. I lose a strirrup. We turn left do the ditch and the log out. I see GotSpots at the next fence and tell her they need to move the jump judges.

Turns out, the husband of a fellow competitor, was standing at that fence during my ride, had seen where the jump judges were sitting and told them they needed to move as they were in the riders' path. They told him no one would be making that left turn. He told them that turn was his wife's plan and they should move. Well it was the plan of the majority of competitors. Don't know what they thought we were going to do, but having my horse nearly land on them left them a little more open minded.

I have the whole thing on tape. Could have been VERY bad except for the experience of the horse and rider.

[NRB]

*****warning cranky old bat about to vent*********
Honastly If you are riding a horse at an event that is green, and your only objective is to build confidence, then by all means school the water but Take The Penalty. I am Old Fashioned but firmly believe that if your horse can't do the water at a recognized competition then you need to stop, go home and school the water. At Home. As in Do your Homework. Then you can get of the porch and play with the big dawgs. Please don't give me the "there is no xc course to school with water near me" cry for help. It will fall on deaf ears, I grew up competing at venues 4 to 8 hours away and NO XC courses any closer than that. Hence I never schooled XC..... At......All.....Period. But only up to training. And if your pony doesn't do water by training level then maybe nows a good time to think Hunter, Jumper or Dressage. I trail rode, I crossed creeks daily, I placed jumps in the creek etc, and never ever got to school water at an XC facility. Never had a problem with water. Never understood people that had issues at water. Sorry. I guess if you live in a desert then I'd feel some sympathy, maybe.

But I vote with the 20 pts for schooling the water, and for schooling any other fence on XC.

[subk]

To me it's no different from having a big puddle in the warmup that some people are schooling, or water crossings on the grounds that people school. You can choose to do it or not, and you can take the time added on course to alter your track, or not. But I don't think anyone would say hey, walking through that stream over there means you're cheating.
I'm pretty sure that "jumping" unflagged jumps in warmup can get you eliminated. So playing in a puddle if your intent is to school is wrong. Jumping back and forth over a ditch on the way to warm up is against the rules too. Not that I've ever seen anyone called out for it...

Which leads to to an interesting thought. I couldn't find the warm-up rules--I know there are some--but the wording might be very interesting. If you can't "school" over unmarked obstacles and the only flags on XC "in effect" are those on your own course (EV139-1a.) It might be possible to re-determine how the existing rules are interpreted without actually changing the rule. But again I can't find the rules for warm-up and finding something on my computer screen instead of a rulebook sucks.

I see both sides of the issue. On one hand it is unrealistic to think that people aren't using their XC rides to teach their horses. On the other I do think it is misrepresenting a horse's record. It also encourages riders to ride faster than the appropriate speed to make up the time. I'm sure there are pros who use the school the water technique to hide from potential buyers a hole in a sale horse's training. I wouldn't object to something as small as a 5 pt. penalty just so it shows up on the horse's record.

[retreadeventer]

NRB, you and I are the voices in the wilderness. No schooling at an event...go home and do it...poor riding manners I think.

I watched Leslie Law take a horse around and around and around in the water jumping in and out and finally through what was the horse's flagged obstacle at Waredaca last year, and frankly I thought it was stupid. More jumps for the horse, more wear and tear over the organizers water jump approaches for the other divisions, confused the jump judge, no one knew which way he was going, and the horse looked like it had been jumping water about 30 years anyway. An event is a competition, not an opportunity to "live in the ring" ala hunter jumper practices. Heck if they are going to do that why not let everyone run the XC twice and pick which one they want scored. Or gambler's choice at every complex.

Guess I'm too old. Never done it, and shocked BNT's do it regularly - do people PAY training on these horses? They aren't getting their money's worth if they are doing this at all the events.

[GotSpots]

*****warning cranky old bat about to vent*********
Honastly If you are riding a horse at an event that is green, and your only objective is to build confidence, then by all means school the water but Take The Penalty. There already IS a penalty. It's called time faults. You get them if you take the tour. That's the penalty, and it's plenty appropriate, since if someone is busting too fast to make up that time, then they should get called out by the TD for too much or unsafe speed.

And Gry - that's a minorly understating (and majorly sanitizing) report of what was said at the time - and I think it was Ed doing most of the swearing!

[tulkas]

The rule change is being proposed, as it has for the past three years because it agravates Brian O'Connor and Gretchen Butts.

tulkas

[OverandOnward]

I know of one person who was going over her 2nd or so Training course, her (always kind of ditchy) horse lost some confidence over some of the earlier fences (not ditches) so she got his confidence back over the Novice ditch before trying the training ditch. I thought it was good horsemanship. She knew her horse was losing confidence, took him over something he was more comfortable with before getting back to the tough stuff.I see it the same way. It's not cheating, it's smart riding, when it's needed.

One of the special things about eventing is the latitude riders have to choose the best path for their ride. It adds interest and strategy. Riders have to trade off time and maybe a continuous path for whatever need is served by doing an unflagged obstacle first.

I'd vote against making this a new rule.

[Gry2Yng]

There already IS a penalty. It's called time faults. You get them if you take the tour. That's the penalty, and it's plenty appropriate, since if someone is busting too fast to make up that time, then they should get called out by the TD for too much or unsafe speed.

And Gry - that's a minorly understating (and majorly sanitizing) report of what was said at the time - and I think it was Ed doing most of the swearing!

Not a foul word escaped my lips, I have the video to prove it. What Ed and I were thinking is another matter.

Agree, time penalties is the penalty. Tho I have never seen anyone do what LL is described as doing.

ETA: Not a foul word said to the jump judges. I cannot remember what I said to you as I rode by requesting that they be moved. Could have been quite foul.

[enjoytheride]

So what about people who do not have access to miles of trail riding or have trail riding but no creeks and streams? I have to trailer my horse over an hour to get to a place where we can trail ride and none of those places have any water. Many of our local schooling trials do not have water, the few that do have water only on the day of the event.

I watched an event this spring that had the flags set back 2 feet from the water for novice so you could pass between the novice flags without getting your feet wet at all. BN was right on the edge with no room to pass around.

[Janet]

I'm pretty sure that "jumping" unflagged jumps in warmup can get you eliminated. So playing in a puddle if your intent is to school is wrong. Jumping back and forth over a ditch on the way to warm up is against the rules too. Not that I've ever seen anyone called out for it...

Which leads to to an interesting thought. I couldn't find the warm-up rules--I know there are some--but the wording might be very interesting. If you can't "school" over unmarked obstacles and the only flags on XC "in effect" are those on your own course (EV139-1a.) It might be possible to re-determine how the existing rules are interpreted without actually changing the rule. But again I can't find the rules for warm-up and finding something on my computer screen instead of a rulebook sucks.

The warm up rules are EV108.3.

EV108.3 d says
d. The only practice fences that competitors may jump are those flagged fences provided
by the Organizer.
...
Violation of any of the above provisions relating to practice
fences is forbidden, under penalty of disqualification, at the discretion of the Ground
Jury.

Of course, since you aren't actually JUMPING the puddle, I don't think that ridieng through puddles violates the rules.

[kt-rose]

I've done this with a green horse that is worried about a strange water jump. It isn't cheating, it isn't against the rules or 'spirit' or anything. Anyone can do it. It's just a useful way of teaching a green horse that they need to get from the start box to the finish line, over and through whatever they are presented with. Way better to get some time faults and have them learn this lesson than to get eliminated and have them learn that if they stop, they get to go home. Now that most BN courses have real water questions, instead of a little creek crossing or something, I'd hate to see them 'rule' this out.

[clivers]

I think it's totally fine.

If you are good enough to know that your horse may have some issues (because he is green) and you find a way to get through the water, jump your fence, or jump a little BN fence before going over your larger N fence-- and you make it cross the finish line with no time penalties then good for you.

When I first read about riders doing this I didn't think "That's Cheating!!" I though, "Wow, wasn't that smart!"

It's not cheating when everyone knows it is allowed and you do it in front of the whole world.

Personally, I just take my horses to schoolings and unrec schooling shows. But I think other areas do not host as many schoolings as Area V.



I did it for the first time a few weekends ago - after a stop at the jump in at Novice level (Pretraining here) I got my horse's feet wet and then did the jump in.

I think at Novice and below it's reasonable since these are schooling levels. The "penalty" for such behaviour is already built into the rules: the time penalties. Finally, I think it's a safe, smart thing for a rider who knows his/her horse's needs. Every weekend all summer with every horse at every level is ridiculous, but every now and then...doesn't bug me in the slightest!

[Thames Pirate]

At one show I attended the water was causing LOTS of unexpected trouble at Prelim. It seemed inviting enough, but for whatever reason horses really struggled with it. Training had a similar jump, and several of us decided to go around and get the horses' feet wet first. The fence caused huge problems at Training, too--one horse fall, several rider falls, and numerous stops. My horse will do water, but it is her weakest spot cross country. I wanted to give her a good, confidence-BUILDING round, so I went through first. She jumped in beautifully, and while I suspect she would have done it anyway, she would have been nervous about it. Now I KNOW she'll go next time because of the good experience this time. I view it like a black flag option--taking the long routes at your first **** or what have you. I know my horse and worked to accommodate her weaknesses, which in my mind is smart riding.

That said, if we're talking a pass through at BN/N that is the same at one entry as at another and you just want to make sure your horse goes before presenting, that's different. It seems less fair (though certainly smart). That said, I don't think we can create a reasonable rule against it. I just don't see it as that problematic, either.

[retreadeventer]

Essentially - someone chime in here - when you do that (jump a non-required obstacle on the way to jumping your own) aren't you sort of giving the course designer the finger? I mean, the course designer sets things up for a REASON.


Shouldn't you and your horse be prepared prior to crossing the start line?

If the course requires you, for example, to head first over the drop and then thru the water, but you circle around the jump and trot thru the novice side first - what you have done is schooled your horse. You may not have headed his ears and nose toward YOUR particular set of flags, but you've presented your horses to a similar obstacle in the vicinity, and your HORSE KNOWS what you are doing (so does everyone else.) Yes we can label this "smart" riding but it's ALSO SCHOOLING and that should not be permitted in competition. It's not FAIR because it give your horse an advantage over a horse who is presented to an obstacle as the course designer wanted.

Cross country is about being prepared and jumping what is on the track, in order, as required. It's about training and experience and good riding, and taking a horse who has NOT seen the fences and riding them confidently over whatever in the path. The roots of the sport, the military, the foxhunting - our cross country phase was meant to reflect the quality of a bold horse and rider tackling anything in their path on the way to the end of the run or to complete the mission. How does this "schooling" while competing fit in to that purpose? It doesn't. It's horse show. It's lazy pros who don't stop partying long enough to get up in the morning and take the greenbeans to the XC school. (This ought to draw a couple flame posts! Woohoo!:) I really don't know of any lazy pros, just trying to get a rise out of someone, what the he77 - let's have some fun):)

Also I think that, especially water jump schooling is very VERY rude to other competitors, and those who must compete over that obstacle, after you. Especially during this wet spring we have had in Area II - making a double set of tracks at approaches not set up for your own course really wreaks havoc on footing. The organizers plan for so many horses running over certain jumps and to add several more sets of tracks, tearing up approaches even further than planned, treats the land cheaply - like the organizer has a free set of slaves to fix everything instantly the minute your Royal Highness finishes churning up two approaches and landings. A few time faults is not enough punishment for this thoughtless, unprepared riding. Do you know what a load of stonedust costs? one load will fix maybe the approach and landing of one novice level jump. Like USEA President Kevin B. said at the Area II annual meeting last year, "if you had to pay an entry to cover the REAL costs of an event, your fee would be $2,500."

Taking advantage of no rule in place will require a rule eventually. Those of you who say, "no more rules"; well, then, you have to run on the honor system, which has always been a tenet of eventing - up until the Hunter Jumper Business Model began to rear it's ugly head in this sport.

I'm in favor of re-visiting the "penalty zone" on water jumps and combinations, or expanding the Dangerous Riding penalty to include jumping an obstacle not on your course, or some other more extensive penalty than just time faults at the lower levels to combat this problem. But I have no illusions. I know people want the easy way when it comes to cross country.

Please - disagree with me.

[lwk]

I am a lower level rider and experienced fence judge.

I think schooling should continue to be permitted. I have never done it myself, but I have certainly seen it done quite a bit. And I'd like to have the option in the future. The last thing we need are more rules.

I do not like the direction this sport is going. I haven't competed in two years now and I haven't volunteered this year. I guess I am voting with my feet.

[Ajierene]

Essentially - someone chime in here - when you do that (jump a non-required obstacle on the way to jumping your own) aren't you sort of giving the course designer the finger? I mean, the course designer sets things up for a REASON.


Shouldn't you and your horse be prepared prior to crossing the start line?


OK, not disagreeing - stating again that I do not understand this whole 'schooling at a competition' thing. I was always taught that you school at home and show at a show.

You have a very valid point where people jumping jumps not on the course are putting extra wear and tear on footing.

I can see some schooling at the Beginner Novice and possibly Novice level with water, especially if you do not have ready access to streams and such. It still seems odd to me. My first horse trials, my mare was iffy about water but I never thought to present her to a water obstacle outside of the course parameters before a flagged obstacle.

It is kind of funny to me that people keep saying how smart this is, but I have to ask....did the original eventers do this? Was this common in the 50's? When did this start being a more common occurance? Who started this?

[Atigirl]

I think that there is a difference between schooling and smart riding. I think I know the event that Thamespirate was talking about and that water jump did cause quite a bit of problems. They even stopped the x-c at some point to check out the footing in the water. One prelim horse stopped at the entry into the water. I thought that it was SAFE and SMART riding that the rider circled around the fence, went through the water (without presenting or jumping another fence) and then nicely jumped into the water. Without an option like that you are either going to have more eliminations or worse yet maybe an accident.

[LISailing]

For what it is worth, I thought that the old penalty box rules were effective in understanding when to penalize a fall and what a presentation to a fence was. Those of you from the 70's remember - ~20' in front of the fence and ~40' behind the fence from what I remember. The rules changed in the 80's and I really don't understand the reasons that lead to this decision. It seemed to be easily interpretted and defined the limits of the jump judges review.

[Thames Pirate]

I think that there is a difference between schooling and smart riding. I think I know the event that Thamespirate was talking about and that water jump did cause quite a bit of problems. They even stopped the x-c at some point to check out the footing in the water. One prelim horse stopped at the entry into the water. I thought that it was SAFE and SMART riding that the rider circled around the fence, went through the water (without presenting or jumping another fence) and then nicely jumped into the water. Without an option like that you are either going to have more eliminations or worse yet maybe an accident.

Atigirl, I watched that rider, too. I also know of several riders and at least two horses who fell there (one in Prelim, one in Training). If a jump is causing problems--and nobody really knew why--then it's nice to have a safe, confidence-building round. My horse KNOWS water and is fine--not always GREAT, but she does go--thanks to tons of schooling. However, one bad moment can undo tons of schooling and ruin an emerging confidence. Now she's so much more confident that I can easily say next time I'll go straight, regardless. That first time (and we were fairly new at Training) I wasn't willing to risk all of that work to GET the horse confident if I didn't have to.

I also don't consider it a finger in the face of the course designer. Yes, they have certain questions in mind, but there isn't always a single solution to a question. They may want to ask if you can turn, but you may answer "no, but I can angle a fence" or whatever. There isn't one set way to jump something. That's a hunter medal round. As long as you jump the flagged fences in order you can get off and walk your horse in circles if you so choose.

I can think of one instance (Inavale maybe 2 years ago?) where the Prelim track took you down a drop combination into a field (going downhill). The next fence was in an adjacent field heading up the hill. You could do a tight right turn, go up the hill through a gap in the fenceline, do a tight U-turn to the left, go down the hill, then turn right back up towards the fence--OR you could jump the Training fence in the fenceline that made a perfect path between the jumps. I think the CD wanted people to consider the two options--considerably longer route with hairpin turns in changing directions vs. shorter route with an extra jump. A good CD wants you to think on your own and answer a question creatively if that's what suits your horse.

[Late]

I also don't consider it a finger in the face of the course designer. Yes, they have certain questions in mind, but there isn't always a single solution to a question. They may want to ask if you can turn, but you may answer "no, but I can angle a fence" or whatever. There isn't one set way to jump something. That's a hunter medal round. As long as you jump the flagged fences in order you can get off and walk your horse in circles if you so choose.

I can think of one instance (Inavale maybe 2 years ago?) where the Prelim track took you down a drop combination into a field (going downhill). The next fence was in an adjacent field heading up the hill. You could do a tight right turn, go up the hill through a gap in the fenceline, do a tight U-turn to the left, go down the hill, then turn right back up towards the fence--OR you could jump the Training fence in the fenceline that made a perfect path between the jumps. I think the CD wanted people to consider the two options--considerably longer route with hairpin turns in changing directions vs. shorter route with an extra jump. A good CD wants you to think on your own and answer a question creatively if that's what suits your horse.

I just think that's worth repeating. It'd be interesting to hear from a course designer on this particular topic, but I've always believed that thinking on your feet is something that Eventers do best, and being creative in understanding your options. Just because the CD doesn't specifically flag something as an "option" doesn't mean it isn't there, just like in the case mentioned above. if the CD specifically DIDN'T want that training fence to be an option, they would have taken the flags down while Prelim ran and that would be that.

[retreadeventer]

Having done a little unrecognized course designing....and having a long, long set of course walking and riding experience at low levels from coast to coast and in two countries....believe me when I tell you that course designers do indeed have a way they want you to go, and there is always a reason for it. Things early on courses set you up for things later on courses. There are not always options. There may appear to be but once you walk it and study it and look at it, they are wanting you to show you can collect your horse or turn your horse or prepare it for jumping the obstacle in the correct order -- ***because that is what teaches you how to negotiate fences safely for the NEXT LEVEL****. In fact, I'm going to categorically state that for the vast majority of lower level courses (those under preliminary) there are indeed, once you walk the course properly, very FEW options.

I get the feeling people think the distinct difference between eventing and other jumping contests is that cross country is like a free-for-all. Course designers don't want people to "think on their own". They want them to jump the jumps in order, in the way they have set them up, for a REASON. This is why some of the most educated, experienced eventers in this country feel strongly that extra schooling on a cross country course during an event is a no-no. I respect the opinions of people who have competed at the highest levels in the world, who have sat on horses in Olympic stadiums and worn the US flag on their saddle pads. THEY KNOW how horses can be ridden and should be ridden.

Follow the flags. Walk the lines. See what was intended. Ride it the way it was laid out. You will gain the most from that program. Being clever, finding a sneaky way to get around following the track, and being inconsiderate - well, good for you. As I said before, being sneaky is going to result in yet another rule...which no one wants.

[caffeinated]

Ride it the way it was laid out. You will gain the most from that program. Being clever, finding a sneaky way to get around following the track, and being inconsiderate - well, good for you. As I said before, being sneaky is going to result in yet another rule...which no one wants.

But it's not always about being "sneaky" as far as I understand it. I would assume that the people ON the horses know the horses best and may know what will help them most. At the lower levels, where this sort of thing may not be resulting in time penalties, it seems to me that it might be better to err on the side of horse confidence, if you really know the horse and can feel a problem coming up. And at the higher levels, it seems it most certainly will result in time penalties.

I dunno, I don't have much of a leg to stand on here, or anything, but I think that saying people are being inconsiderate and sneaky is probably painting with a very broad brush.

[asterix]

I was going to stay out of this since I am supposed to be merely soliciting opinions ;)
but
I have to say I am perplexed by the reaction that this is some onerous imposition of big brother on the free spirited eventer.
It's not Woodstock, it's a competition.

Now, it may very well be an excellent "horseman's" decision to get your horse's feet wet on some occasions. I have no problem with the thought that sometimes you may choose to do something to help your horse learn in a positive way.

But.

I'm sorry, that's not the PURPOSE of the competition at hand, and it is not answering the question the course designer posed. So if you choose to do it, it seems unremarkable to me that there might be a penalty attached. Not a big one, 5 pts ought to do it, but HOW is this different than choosing to run a Training course at Prelim speed (and incurring speed faults) as you prep a moveup? It's fine to do that, probably a good idea, but it is NOT the PURPOSE of that Training competition, which was designed to be run at Training speed; if you choose to do something different, you take a competitive hit for that.

Ditto "schooling" in the dressage ring; many times I know folks who have been having issues have decided, nope, not this time, if you blow through my aid (or whatever) I will halt, or downward transition, regroup, and TAKE THE HIT. Because it may indeed be excellent horsemanship, and it may be the right choice, but THAT is not what the dressage test is designed to test.

So while I agree with all the arguments proposed here about why it might be a smart, or kind, or even clever thing to do, I don't see why everyone is up in arms about the idea that it might ALSO be a competitive "ding" since it is SO CLEARLY not what the course designer is asking. Do it, be happy with your decision, but why shouldn't you get a 5 pt penalty for it? Are you as well prepared as the person who sails over that same water jump without a hitch? NO. You may have a great reason for it, and have a great solution for it, but in a competition the question is, does your horse understand how to jump into the water?

There is a difference between "NOT ALLOWED" as in a standing martingale, or a gag in dressage, and "penalties apply."

This seems to be getting lost in the conversation.

[Hilary]

And maybe being "Competitive" means figuring out the best way for your horse to have a clean, safe round.

We don't all use the same saddle or bit because we've found our horses do better with specific pieces of equipment. Someone warms up at the canter for 20 minutes because that produces their best dressage test, someone else does nothing but 10m circles in shoulder-in. That is being 'competitive'.

And NRB, bless your heart for never having had a horse with a difficult quirk, or one that needed retraining after a bad experience.

Maybe we just have to agree to disgree here.

[tle]

I do think it's sort of lame, but it really doesn't pose a safety hazard to anyone.(provided that spectators aren't being run over or riders aren't going places that haven't been checked for safe footing, etc.)

I haven't read all the replies so forgive me if I'm jumping into something that has already been dealt with, but I see a lot of people saying it isn't really a safety issue so what's the big deal. Most of the time I'd agree. I would also agree that we already have enough stupid rules and certainly don't want to add any more. However, this weekend, this came up and I was told an interesting story. Think of a row of ditches next to one another -- Novice, Training and Prelim in a row. The rider in question was riding Training but presented to the Novice ditch in order to "school" first. They had *2* refusals and darn near fell off at each. Is that a rider you REALLY want presenting to a BIGGER fence? They've pretty much already prooved they are having trouble. Now think of other times you've seen fences in a row like that -- like something with height like a Trakehner. Or as in what was seen this weekend... the rider SHOULD have jumped the log to enter the water... so if they stop, the horse chests the fence.

Is it cheating? In the strict sense no... because as has been pointed out, the option is available to everyone. Is there already a penalty? Eh... not sure. You can point to time, but knowing how BN and N time is set, it's wouldn't be too difficult to be up on time to be able to get away with this without incurring time faults. Is it in the spirit of the sport? Eh... not sure on this either. Part of me wants to say it is because we are all always learning and the objective is to always give our horses the best possible outcome. part of me says it isn't simply because, using water as an example, you're not answering the question as it is put before you per the course designer.

I'm not sure where I stand on this after hearing this true story from someone who IS pushing the rule change (says it will be represented this year and should pass). I'm not sure it's a 100% good thing... but I'm not sure making a ton of written exceptions is going to make it ok either.

[Janet]

There is a difference between "NOT ALLOWED" as in a standing martingale, or a gag in dressage, and "penalties apply."
I completely agree. But the devil is in the details- unambiguously DEFINING the actions that get the penalty.

BTW, another analogy would be chosing to circle to regain balance, control, or stirrups between fences in Show Jumping (saw a couple of those this weekend), or choosing to go slowly on either Show Jumping or Cross Country, knowing you may get time faults (I did that this weekend), because that is the right thing to do for the horse TODAY.

[asterix]

I completely agree. But the devil is in the details- unambiguously DEFINING what the actions that get the penalty.

BTW, another analogy would be chosing to circle to regain balance, control, or stirrups between fences is Show Jumping (saw a couple of those this weekend), or choosing to go slowly on either Show Jumping or Cross Country, knowing you may get time faults (I did that this weekend), because that is the right thing to do for the horse TODAY.

Thank you, Janet!

And, YES, the devil is in the details, which is what I was HOPING we could discuss on this thread. People obviously feel strongly about this, so I didn't get much input on how one might do this if the rule were to go through, but...

[LisaB]

I think the ideal situation would be if the horse is presented to the obstacle and refuses, THEN go around it and step into the water and re-present.
Anyway, I think going past the obstacle would be fine for tr and below. A horse can be schooled at home just fine and then *know* that they are on course and be a poopie head and needs to be schooled to get over the hump. Prelim and above, you better have your crap together and you should get penalized. Make a ruling like in sj where you've gone past the imaginary line, consider it a refusal.

[asterix]

right, but if the horse is being a poopie head (:lol:), why shouldn't you get a penalty for that?

[Ja Da Dee]

right, but if the horse is being a poopie head (:lol:), why shouldn't you get a penalty for that?


Why? If you can work them out of it and have a safe, successful ride that builds his confidence and teaches him it's pointless to be a brat, why would you need to penalize it? If naughty horse was taking off on XC and the rider decided to circle a few times to slow him down, gain controll and rebalance, the penalty is the time.

[sunhawk]

I can think of so many scenarios where schooling a horse on a course at a competition is a necessary thing for the advancement of that horse it's not funny. Don't you think that it's waaaayyyyyyy cheaper to haul even hours to a cross country course and pay a schooling fee, and instructor, than it is to haul hours to an event and pay an entry fee and stabling knowing that you are deliberately going out to school on a course because that is where you horse is at. If I go out knowing that my horse might be sticky at a strange ditch or water, then I go out knowing full well, that I want my horse to go through those finish flags with another notch in his education as the whole picture slowly comes together.
We all luv and live for those few minutes on course where everything comes together and you and your horse are a unit negotiating a course, and the whole thing feels like magic, but the days, weeks, and years it takes to create that.......I don't beleive we need more rules to negotiate through in the process. Dedicated eventers make good horses, and good horses create more good eventers.

[Onawhim]

On the penalities issue, I think it was said before, but you risk time penalties for going into water via another route or jumping another fence that isn't yours before going back to your fence. True, at BN and N you can probably make up the time relatively easily, but you do risk the time faults. Same as if you need to circle to gain control or otherwise get your horse's attention -- you risk time faults but it will likely make the rest of the course better and it may prevent you from having a stop or runout. Should that be penalized?

On the footing issue, I'm not sure a horse skidding up to the edge of a ditch or the edge of the water and chewing up the ground is much better than having an extra set of prints into another part of the obstacle. Of course, in an ideal world the schooling would have taken care of all this. I agree that a competition is different -- but when schooling there are often less nerves, other horses around for "company" and no jump judges so it is often lower-key. All these factors make the competition different from schooling, so if a greener horse is having to deal with things unique to competitions, maybe allowing the option to trot through water first will make the whole competition go more smoothly for everyone.

On course design, wasn't is the next-to-last Olympics that the, I think, US rider jumped a decoration to get a faster line to a jump, saving significant time? I suspect the decoration was there to make it clear the course designer wanted a different line, but the rules permitted the shortcut. Are we really going to micromanage to this extent?

What I'd rather see, frankly, is a penalty of some sort (in the form of a notation I guess) for those who school after being eliminated -- those who know they are E but who "happen" through the water or who ignore the jump judge and try one more time. That, to me, is a bigger issue but all that happens now is at best a discussion with the TD.

[flyingchange]

well said retread and asterix.

Schooling and competing can be done within the confines of the cd. if you must school off course then why should you not be penalized for doing so. you get 2 points in dressage for going off course to re-do a movement (school your horse). why should you not be penalized on xc.

(Deleted second paragraph b/c I don't want to make too many people angry!)

[bornfreenowexpensive]

well said retread and asterix.

schooling is schooling. competing is competing. if you must school then you have already placed schooling in front of competing. why should you not be penalized for doing so. you get 2 points in dressage for going off course to re-do a movement (school your horse). why should you not be penalized on xc.
.


My point is I don't care if someone is "schooling" or just taking a different line. The sport already addresses this through time penalties. We do not need another rule...and if a rider does something that either endangers a spectator, endangers their horse or themselves....you address it by a DR penalty (including if they are going like a bat out of hell to make up time that they lost because they "schooled" some element first).

If a course designer wants to make it tougher to "school" a water first....well they can address that in their course design or otherwise make it difficult. But you ABSOLUTELY do not need a new rule to make a new penalty.

And those that think that a competition is a competition and schooling is schooling.... I guess I just plain disagree. EVERY time you ride your horse you are schooling/training it. Whether it is in a competition or not. And therefore you ALWAYS need to consider the long term in all your actions...all that a competition does is limit some of your options that you otherwise have in schooling (such as only wacking your bad pony 3 times instead of 4 ) and gives you a score at the end (and sometimes a nice ribbon or prize). No competition is the end all be all for a horse....and every competition you are schooling something...even if it is schooling how to be more competitive.

[flyingchange]

Yes BFNE - I agree that schooling and competing can occur at once. Yes, OF COURSE you are always training your horse and trying to improve it (you are very literal, aren't you?). HOWEVER ... when you are at a competition, if you blatantly choose to SCHOOL your horse by essentially going OC, then why should you not pick up points for it????

Yes, we all want for our horses to get more confident out there. Of course we all want that. We can teach and compete and ride smart at the same time while staying OC. And maybe it IS smart to school the water on a certain day with a certain horse ... you are right. That IS good training and good riding. HOWEVER ... don't kid yourself that you deserve a better placing than someone who is 2 points behind you after dressage and whose chooses the direct route into the water or over the ditch.

And just let me be really clear - I could CARE LESS about ribbons and placing. My goal is to improve my horse and myself. But if I choose to school the water, which may be in my horse's best interests, then I have zero problem with picking up penalties for it. What I guess I don't understand is how people can think it's OK to school the water or whatever jump and then also want to be competitive against those who go through directly.

Again, I am all for improving confidence and taking competitions as opportunities to school and teach - all this can be done, and done well, within the "confines" of the CD.

[bornfreenowexpensive]

Yes BFNE - I agree that schooling and competing can occur at once. Yes, OF COURSE you are always training your horse and trying to improve it (you are very literal, aren't you?). HOWEVER ... when you are at a competition, if you blatantly choose to SCHOOL your horse by essentially going OC, then why should you not pick up points for it????

.


Because this sport is NOT a subjective sport other than the dressage phase. Our test is whether we ultimately jump the jumps and in the time (or closest to the time) allowed. We do not need to be judged or penalized based on how we get our horses over the jumps. And as I said....if someone "schools" the water first, or takes a more conservative line to a jump or take the jumps more slowly than someone else (i.e. trots some jumps or down hill)....then the rules as they exist for the competition already address this point. And there is NO need for any additional rule or penalty. Yes, it is a competition...but not a subjective one judged on who jumps the course in the manner exactly as dreamed by the CD. It is who jumps the jumps and makes the time....even if it isn't always pretty or exactly as planned by the CD (or sometimes even the rider!). If you are not happy about that...there are other sports that DO judge how the jumps are taken. That is a different sport and I personally am sick of seeing this sport change.

I see this rule as a slipperly slope and heading in a direction that I don't want to see eventing go....even for "safety" sake.

ETA: On a personal level...I can't ever remember "schooling" a jump or water first....but as my post indicated, I really have no issues if someone else does and then they beat me. In the end, they jumped the jumps and made the time and had a better dressage score than me. And in this sport, they are then entitled to win even if I had a smoother, more technically correct xc round.

[SevenDogs]

Bornfree: I completely agree with your post!

For the record, I have NEVER schooled or taken an obstacle not on my course (except one time when I THOUGHT I was jumping my cabin but I was jumping the next size up by accident!).

We don't need new rules -- we have everything already in place. There is already a penalty (time) and provisions to penalize dangerous rides (DR), so let's not go further.

Retread: I have the utmost respect for course designers, but I think you are taking something personal that isn't meant that way. I do believe that walking your XC course is NOT just about following the flags. It IS about figuring out lines, approaches, and other strategy for your particular horse. We ARE always teaching our horses something, so in essence, we are ALWAYS schooling. I don't know, but I doubt Michael. Etherington Smith is offended if someone takes a different line. I have found that most top course designers like to "see" what a good rider can do with one of his/her courses.

Time penalties are in place for more than just setting a mimimum overall pace at a certain level. They have always been there to reward riders that take a direct/faster route and penalize those that decide to take a longer approach, an option, or, in this case, add fences. The fact that the rules don't forbid/penalize jumping extra fences isn't an oversight or omission. It is there for a reason and is considered part of the sport for the rider to have to think and strategize their way around the course.

One of the things I like about eventing is that we are all on our own path. When you are at a show, each rider's goals are different. I like the fact that "old school" eventing says that you aren't even trying to win at your first few times at a given level. You shouldn't be looking to make the time, but rather make sure your horse is comfortable and happy going around. For some, that might mean schooling a lower level fence prior to trying the actual level they are competing at (ditches, water, etc). Everyone is having their own experience within the context of the show.


So those of you that state a rider must be there only to show and compete (in essence, ready to go for the top prize) I disagree strongly and ask why? Other than international top level competitions and championships, that hasn't been the case in the Eventing world (historically, it hasn't been all about the ribbons - it has been about a slow and steady rise through the levels).

Someone might be at the top of their game at a given level and be there to try to win and someone else might just be starting out at that level or trying to inspire confidence with good horsemanship. I don't see someone being more dangerous just because they choose to school something. If they are a dangerous rider, they are going to be dangerous no matter what they do or don't do and should be dealt with accordingly by the officials with a DR penalty.

It seems like some people (certainly NOT all) that are advocating additional penalties for schooling or calling it cheating are upset that they are missing out on a better color ribbon.

[Ja Da Dee]

...HOWEVER ... when you are at a competition, if you blatantly choose to SCHOOL your horse by essentially going OC, then why should you not pick up points for it????


Define OC on xc please I thought it was going through the flags in the correct order. If there is a specified "track" one must follow, then let the CD tape the lanes, and put manditory flags along the way.

You do pick up ponits, those are called time penalties. Slowing down to take a jump that's not on your list of jumps generally would result in you having to take extra time.

[fooler]

well said retread and asterix.

Schooling and competing can be done within the confines of the cd. if you must school off course then why should you not be penalized for doing so. you get 2 points in dressage for going off course to re-do a movement (school your horse). why should you not be penalized on xc.

(Deleted second paragraph b/c I don't want to make too many people angry!)

I empathize with the posters who have limited schooling opportunities. Same issue for me some 15-20 years ago when I was starting my old Prelim mare. So we did what we could with the water jump at the boarding barn - including setting gymnastics and placing stadium fences before the water & draping a blanket to mimic a solid fence into the water.
There was a really neat article in The Horse Journal about manufactoring schooling options by visiting your 'friends' barn and treating it like a schooling show.
As an official - I see a need for a rule against schooling obstacles at a competition. At a competition you are testing yours & your horse's preparation - whether to win 1st place or as personal improvement on the prior competition.
Reasons to add the rule:
*Maintaining the footing before and within the obstacle, be it water, ditch or bank - the most common problem fences
*Spectator safety - everyone wants to watch the water in case someone goes swimming. As already noted - some riders do not show common sense
*Scoring - as someone noted a competitor had 2 stops and an almost fall at the schooling obstacle - there is nothing in the rule book of how to score that, unless we always go to DR.
*Fence Judges - how would you like to be the JJ at the water, knowing multiple people plan to school & any penalities you note will be under scrutinity! Not to mention the JJ briefing will be more & more complex!
*The Spirit of the Sport - A circle or halt in the SJ arena is an automatic refusal (3 circles & you are E), an error of course in Dressage results in 2, 4, E penalties. So why is XC exempt? If you must 'school' before presenting to your flagged obstacle, then you should be penalitized - be it 5, 10 or 15 points for schooling or automatic 5, 10 or 15 time penalty points.

Again it is a competition - whether for a spot on the team or to better your last time out.

[clm08]

Fooler,
Read Ja Da Dee's post prior to yours - answers are there (and in many other posts) to some of your arguments.
-Maintaining footing at water jumps - have you seen the footing right by a jump into the water when/if a horse refuses before the jump? It gets pretty chewed up, and it happens in the approach line that is flagged. So you will "save" the footing elsewhere where it is not flagged and add big divets right in front of the jump. I don't follow this logic.
- Spectator safety - see many previous posts that already addressed this topic ad nauseum. It is called DR.
- Scoring - whoever is wasting time at another jump will have lots of time penalty points (again, repeated ad nauseum).
- JJ the water - the TD usually talks individually to the water JJ about the special situations seen at the water. I was the JJ at one of the water complexes at Otter Creek, and the TD wanted to specifically address the BN flags in that water. The flags were at one end of the rather large water complex, and he told us JJ that if the riders picked a different approach that made them enter the water on the far side, away from the flags, we should not penalize them if their horses balked and refused, UNTIL they got close to the flags, at which point they were to be penalized as per rules. In other words, the CD had left room for riders to pick up a strategy that might better suit their mounts, and the TD wanted us JJ to understand they had that choice. It seems to me both the CD and TD had no problems with lower level riders/green horses "schooling" the water jump, at the expense of time penalties, unlike the opinion of so many on this thread...
-Spirit of the Sport: we are talking about eventing, not Hunters, and yes, there are enough rules re. XC phase already in place. See the many posts addressing this in this thread.

[bornfreenowexpensive]

If they show a real lack of common sense...the it should be a DR. If they threaten Specator Safety or fall off and have multiple stops...again...a DR penalty. As for the footing...if the CD is really concerned...then block off those paths. Why make a rule?


Spirit of the sport is to encourage rider responsibility....NOt make more rules and regulate us to death. Nothing about the spirit of eventing is that you have to jump the course exactly the same and on the same line as the CD plans....I'm not seeing the issue here at all.

I've been to a whole lot of events, jumped judges at many many (often at the water or in sight of the water) at all levels...and even organized one. Yes, there may be a few who "school" but the vast vast vast majority of riders and competitiors do not...and most events, I can say that no one schooled first. And if I was at an event where a lot of competitors were schooling a fence or the water first...then I would question whether that course is well designed and asking too hard for the level questions that is making competitors think that they need to "school" a jump first. I was at one event like that last year....6th fence on the novice course was a drop (legit drop) into water from a down hill approach. That was a stiff stiff question for novice in my book and many competitors took their green horses into the water jump first before stepping off the drop. None did it in an unsafe manner....and most of those horses, including mine, had schoolled a lot of water before but NONE of us expected a drop into water that early in a course at Novice. That was a problem with CD not riders using a competition as schooling....

[frugalannie]

Well, decisive ol' me finds herself splitting hairs on this one. I think Fooler's final point is well taken. I would love to school the scary flowers and my canter transitions before having scores given in dressage!;)

So how about this: no penalty associated with "schooling" the obstacle at levels below prelim. Prelim and above, 8 points. Because I really don't think a prelim and above horse should need to be schooled at the water, ditch or whatever. That's what the lower levels are for. The obstcles are more complicated, but getting a horse's feet wet shouldn't be the issue at that level.

And in the meantime, I think some yellow tape strung along the potential schooling accesses should do the trick.

[SevenDogs]

Define OC on xc please I thought it was going through the flags in the correct order. If there is a specified "track" one must follow, then let the CD tape the lanes, and put manditory flags along the way.



I agree, if this is where we are headed, you better start drawing lines from fence to fence on the course maps or (god forbid) bring back the penalty zones. XC is supposed to be about figuring out the best route to go between the flags

Fooler and other officials: I have the utmost respect for you and how hard your job is, but I don't think making rules because it makes the officials job easier is a good argument. Putting officials, JJ's, and spectators ahead of the competitor is getting the priorities wrong.

The water has always been a tricky spot to JJ and that is why officials put their most experienced JJ's there. I actually think it is easier for the JJ's as currently written. Either you go through the flags or you don't - doesn't matter how you get there. As JennyRose stated earlier, I think it would be HARDER to jump judge the water if you are trying to figure out if someone's approach is schooling or "just an approach". In any event, making JJ's jobs easier is not really what I think should drive rule changes.

[bornfreenowexpensive]

So how about this: no penalty associated with "schooling" the obstacle at levels below prelim. Prelim and above, 8 points. Because I really don't think a prelim and above horse should need to be schooled at the water, ditch or whatever. That's what the lower levels are for. The obstcles are more complicated, but getting a horse's feet wet shouldn't be the issue at that level.

And in the meantime, I think some yellow tape strung along the potential schooling accesses should do the trick.


Honestly...are you seeing a lot of riders school the Prelim and above water or ditch or other fences...cause I sure am not. And if someone does school something at that level....I would almost bet that they will be getting time penalties since most courses are wheeled fairly tight and not easy to make time on if you are taking a detour to do a school.


I hear what folks are saying about the deceptive "record" of a horse...and to me that has been the only argument for a "rule" so far has much worth IMO. But honestly...this isn't a new problem....and not one that I see needing a rule regulating. That risk has always been around....since long before we could even GET a horse's record. You avoid it by buying only from people you trust...and sometimes you need to dig around and watch the horse go in a competition if it is a concern of yours.

[fooler]

Fooler,
Read Ja Da Dee's post prior to yours - answers are there (and in many other posts) to some of your arguments.
-Maintaining footing at water jumps - have you seen the footing right by a jump into the water when/if a horse refuses before the jump? It gets pretty chewed up, and it happens in the approach line that is flagged. So you will "save" the footing elsewhere where it is not flagged and add big divets right in front of the jump. I don't follow this logic.

- Spectator safety - see many previous posts that already addressed this topic ad nauseum. It is called DR.
[COLOR="teal"]Yup - DR is called for, but why do we have to go there?
- Scoring - whoever is wasting time at another jump will have lots of time penalty points (again, repeated ad nauseum).
OR the competitor trys to make up the time and the answer is. . . DR!
- JJ the water - the TD usually talks individually to the water JJ about the special situations seen at the water. I was the JJ at one of the water complexes at Otter Creek, and the TD wanted to specifically address the BN flags in that water. The flags were at one end of the rather large water complex, and he told us JJ that if the riders picked a different approach that made them enter the water on the far side, away from the flags, we should not penalize them if their horses balked and refused, UNTIL they got close to the flags, at which point they were to be penalized as per rules. In other words, the CD had left room for riders to pick up a strategy that might better suit their mounts, and the TD wanted us JJ to understand they had that choice. It seems to me both the CD and TD had no problems with lower level riders/green horses "schooling" the water jump, at the expense of time penalties, unlike the opinion of so many on this thread...
I have JJ for some 30 years and I AM a TD. Organizers try to put their most experienced JJ at the water, but sometimes things don't always work out as planned. This spring in Aiken I had to work with the water JJ to show the best place to sit & how the water for flagged for each level.
1st rule - make no assumptions :winkgrin:
-Spirit of the Sport: we are talking about eventing, not Hunters, and yes, there are enough rules re. XC phase already in place. See the many posts addressing this in this thread.
Ok, then shall we consider these rules already on the books which help define the Spirit of the Sport?
Is your horse really qualified if you KNOW you must School/Practice the water before attempted the flagged route?
EV106 Entries - Withdrawals.
See also GR909.
1. RESPONSIBILITY. It is the responsibility of the competitor to enter a horse at the level that corresponds to its abilities. If the competitor is a minor, a specified adult must accept this responsibility. If a competitor starts a competition for which he is not qualified, the competitor may be fined up to $50 (Payable to the Organizing Committee), at the discretion of the Ground Jury. It is the responsibility of the competitor to know and comply with the local, state and interstate (where appropriate) health requirements for the shipment of horses.

What is the difference between 'schooling' the water or 'practicing' the water? You are taking a practice 'jump' thru the water before 'jumping' the flagged route. Disqualification for jumping a 'practice' fence unflagged or in the wrong direction'.
EV117 Disqualification.
1. Disqualification means that a competitor and his horse(s) may not take further part in
the Event. It is applied at the discretion of the Ground Jury.
2. Ground Jury may disqualify a competitor in the following cases when, in its opinion, the
action constitutes unsportsmanlike or abusive conduct:
a. Allowing anyone other than the competitor to school his horse, EV108.2a.
b. Riding in the Dressage arena or in the Jumping arena prior to the actual competition,
EV108.2c.
c. Riding close to Cross-Country obstacles prior to the actual competition, EV108.2c.
d. Jumping practice fences that are not flagged, EV108.3c and EV108.3d.
e. Jumping practice fences in the wrong direction, EV108.3d.f. Jumping practice fences while they are being held, EV108.3d.
g. Jumping practice fences that have been raised above the height or beyond the
spread allowed, EV108.3d.
h. Jumping practice fences at times other than those laid down by the Organizer,EV108.3d.
i. Inspecting the obstacles of the Cross-Country course before they are officially
shown to all competitors, EV109.1a.
j. Inspecting the obstacles of the Jumping course when the arena is closed, EV109.2.
k. Entering the Jumping arena on foot after the competition has started, EV109.2.
l. Abuse of horse, EV111.
m. Exercising with improper saddlery, EV115.1.
n. Use of a radio or cellular phone while competing. EV116.

[SevenDogs]

Fooler;

I am not trying to be adversarial here and maybe we just agree to disagree, but do you believe that the current rules (which do not forbid jumping fences on XC that are not your own) are intentional or just an omission that needs rectifying? I think they are very intentional and a part of the sport. The rules you cite don't change my view on that.

The rule about competing when "not qualified" has more to do with maintaining rider responsibility for meeting any criteria needed to enter a certain level such as Prelim and above (even if an Organizer accidentally allows them in that class). The other language about entering a level matching their ability serves to limit Organizer liability, not determine whether or not someone deserves extra penalties.

The rules about the warm-up fences have to do with having multiple riders warming up at one time and not crashing into each other and also with the requirement that all jumping in warm-up arenas must have a steward present (hence the rule about not jumping at times not laid out by the organizer).

I feel like the rules allow schooling for a reason (not just an oversight) and exist as part of a philosophy that a rider may choose his/her own route, as long as they clear each of the flagged obstacles on their own course. Making things easier for officials, spectators, potential horse buyers who want to look at competitive records, etc. should not govern rule making. The fact that you had to spend extra time with the JJ at the water also doesn't change my mind -- it is part of the gig to oversee/train JJ's, even if it is a pita! :)

[clm08]

We are going round in circles with this thread. I didn't realize TDs didn't interpret the rules the same way. I am not an eventing official, but am assuming that TD's must have annual meetings to re-certify themselves just like we, swimming officials do. The reason swimming officials are re-certified annually is to allow us to be updated on new rules in effect, or interpretation of old rules that are not standardized among officials.

If I understand correctly, you are citing EV117 2 d, e as potential causes for elimination of riders who go thru the water outside the flags, whether it is because it is unflagged or because they went the wrong direction (even though there is no "jumping" involved, is that what you are trying to tell me?). I humbly admit that I have not been a JJ for 30 years, only 3, and by no means am a TD. I have been instructed by at least 6-10 different TDs in the last 3 years, have been at water jumps quite a few times, and never received instructions to radio in a rider who went thru the water under the conditions you highlighted, in order for the TD or GJ to consider elimination of said rider. On one particular occasion, the TD parked his golf cart by the water complex I was judging and saw the few riders approaching the water outside the flags, then heading to the flags, and didn't raise any issues.

As I posted earlier, my daughter schooled our horse thru the water at the last Novice event she went to, discussing her plan with the TD prior to getting on course, and was never told it was not an allowable option. She was not the only one who did that during that event, with other novice and BN riders incurring lots of time penalties but producing a safe, educational XC experience on their water-phobic mounts. Also stated earlier, she has no plans of repeating this experience and getting all the time penalties if she feels it unnecessary. The footing at that water complex where some LL riders went thru did not require any type of maintenance and held up pretty well for the upper levels, from Training thru **, and the organizers did not complain about footing being wrecked by riders going thru the water at unflagged places.

In my humble experience, I have seen many rider/horse combos be eliminated at the water at the BN and novice levels. If I understand you correctly, you cite EV106 as a case in which the rider or parent was irresponsible entering at these levels because they were unprepared to tackle the water without "schooling" first, therefore are liable to be assessed $50 as per EV106.

If I misunderstood the points you were trying to make, I apologyze. If you truly meant you would consider giving them the $50 fine or eliminating them for schooling the water, then let me know what events you will be part of the GJ and we will make sure not to enter them. Our goal of being eventers is to have fun and be safe in the XC phase. If water is the only bugaboo for the green riders/horses, let them choose the best strategy and have a safe and fun ride!

[enjoytheride]

After reading a similar thread a while back I JJ'd at an event. I specifically asked if the BN and N riders were allowed to enter not in their flags then circle back to do the flags (getting a time penalty but getting the feet wet). I was told NO, any and all schooling or jumping a different fence was to be counted as a refusal. I was told this is up to the TD.

I think the rule needs to be made more clear, otherwise you get someone who schools the water at event A and is fine and then gets a penalty for schooling it at event B.

I would also like to add that competition is very different from schooling. In schooling you are in a large group jumping with buddies and there is lots of start, stop, standing around, repeating a fence, adding in jumps, etc. At an competition you go go go without stopping, you're all alone, and you don't get to perfect the first fence before moving onto the second one.

[SevenDogs]

After reading a similar thread a while back I JJ'd at an event. I specifically asked if the BN and N riders were allowed to enter not in their flags then circle back to do the flags (getting a time penalty but getting the feet wet). I was told NO, any and all schooling or jumping a different fence was to be counted as a refusal. I was told this is up to the TD.



At a recognized event (assuming you were at a recognized event), it is not up to the TD to "decide" anything. They are there to enforce the existing rules. In that role, they may interpret rules in certain ways and/or make judgement calls -- usually in conjuntion with the Ground Jury but they aren't "making rules".

The current rules do not prohibit schooling. If you truly believe you were given incorrect guidance, you should probably file a report with USEF, who oversees TD's.

[fooler]

Fooler;

I am not trying to be adversarial here and maybe we just agree to disagree, but do you believe that the current rules (which do not forbid jumping fences on XC that are not your own) are intentional or just an omission that needs rectifying? I think they are very intentional and a part of the sport. The rules you cite don't change my view on that.
Not adversarial at all-this is a good discussion. Schooling the water is different than jumping a fence flagged for another level because it is line to your next fence. Something we will see less & less of due to the number of portable. Many organizers move the fences, especially of the levels already run.

The rule about competing when "not qualified" has more to do with maintaining rider responsibility for meeting any criteria needed to enter a certain level such as Prelim and above (even if an Organizer accidentally allows them in that class). The other language about entering a level matching their ability serves to limit Organizer liability, not determine whether or not someone deserves extra penalties.
Agreed - but ambigous enough ...

The rules about the warm-up fences have to do with having multiple riders warming up at one time and not crashing into each other and also with the requirement that all jumping in warm-up arenas must have a steward present (hence the rule about not jumping at times not laid out by the organizer).

I feel like the rules allow schooling for a reason (not just an oversight) and exist as part of a philosophy that a rider may choose his/her own route, as long as they clear each of the flagged obstacles on their own course. Making things easier for officials, spectators, potential horse buyers who want to look at competitive records, etc. should not govern rule making.
Agreed the rules do not limit the competitor to a 'specific' path so long as all fences are jumped in order - unless the galloping path is roped off. So you are allowed to jump an obstacle "in route" to the next if you believe the "line' is best for you and your horse. However I do not see where this philosophy affirms schooling/practicing a specific fence, either the unflagged route or the flagged route for another level, so you can jump the "same' fence as flagged. Stretching rules to avoid having stops on a horse's competitive record doesn't impress me. I have had more & more competitors try to remove a refusal because: "There can not be a refusal on this horse's record". Sorry, I have met very few horses that Never, Ever Stopped - Ever! As a prospective buyer, I will overlook some stops at ditches & water knowing that is part of the learning process and in some cases - a change of riders. I know riders whose horses aways stop a a particular obstacle, but the horses go fine with another rider.
Maybe we Eventers need to turn away from the 'perfect sale horse' idea present in other disciplines and understand there will be bobble along the way.

The fact that you had to spend extra time with the JJ at the water also doesn't change my mind -- it is part of the gig to oversee/train JJ's, even if it is a pita! :)

No complaint about working with the JJ - it was a confirmation that not all water/ditch or bank JJ's are experienced. In fact the JJ was very interested in the sport and planned to tie it back to her work with wounded vets. So far working with JJ has NOT BEEN A PITA AT ALL!.

[SevenDogs]

No complaint about working with the JJ - it was a confirmation that not all water/ditch or bank JJ's are experienced. In fact the JJ was very interested in the sport and planned to tie it back to her work with wounded vets. So far working with JJ has NOT BEEN A PITA AT ALL!.

Ah, come on... it HAS to be a pita at least once in awhile! :lol:

Seriously, I want to reiterate my respect for all officials, especially the TD's as I think it is a VERY difficult job.

[fooler]

We are going round in circles with this thread. I didn't realize TDs didn't interpret the rules the same way. I am not an eventing official, but am assuming that TD's must have annual meetings to re-certify themselves just like we, swimming officials do. The reason swimming officials are re-certified annually is to allow us to be updated on new rules in effect, or interpretation of old rules that are not standardized among officials.

If I understand correctly, you are citing EV117 2 d, e as potential causes for elimination of riders who go thru the water outside the flags, whether it is because it is unflagged or because they went the wrong direction (even though there is no "jumping" involved, is that what you are trying to tell me?). I humbly admit that I have not been a JJ for 30 years, only 3, and by no means am a TD. I have been instructed by at least 6-10 different TDs in the last 3 years, have been at water jumps quite a few times, and never received instructions to radio in a rider who went thru the water under the conditions you highlighted, in order for the TD or GJ to consider elimination of said rider. On one particular occasion, the TD parked his golf cart by the water complex I was judging and saw the few riders approaching the water outside the flags, then heading to the flags, and didn't raise any issues.

As I posted earlier, my daughter schooled our horse thru the water at the last Novice event she went to, discussing her plan with the TD prior to getting on course, and was never told it was not an allowable option. She was not the only one who did that during that event, with other novice and BN riders incurring lots of time penalties but producing a safe, educational XC experience on their water-phobic mounts. Also stated earlier, she has no plans of repeating this experience and getting all the time penalties if she feels it unnecessary. The footing at that water complex where some LL riders went thru did not require any type of maintenance and held up pretty well for the upper levels, from Training thru **, and the organizers did not complain about footing being wrecked by riders going thru the water at unflagged places.

In my humble experience, I have seen many rider/horse combos be eliminated at the water at the BN and novice levels. If I understand you correctly, you cite EV106 as a case in which the rider or parent was irresponsible entering at these levels because they were unprepared to tackle the water without "schooling" first, therefore are liable to be assessed $50 as per EV106.

If I misunderstood the points you were trying to make, I apologyze. If you truly meant you would consider giving them the $50 fine or eliminating them for schooling the water, then let me know what events you will be part of the GJ and we will make sure not to enter them. Our goal of being eventers is to have fun and be safe in the XC phase. If water is the only bugaboo for the green riders/horses, let them choose the best strategy and have a safe and fun ride!

It is my goal to have a fun and safe event whether officiating or competing. I chose to educate competitors, rather than eliminate or fine them whenever possible - as do most officials. My mistake to join this conversation when at work & not giving it my full attention. I listed those rules as an example of the Spirit of the Sport - be qualified for the level you are competing, Understand jumping unflagged fences or practicing outside of the times posted is cause for disqualification. With those rules in my mind, I view schooling the water during competition the same.
Yes all officials have to re-certify every 3 years which includes a written test and later a weekend training session in conjunction with a competition. This issue was brought up at our training session earlier this year. As we shared notes we discovered that more and more competitors are taking this option and we discussed it at length.
The only rule to apply at this time is Dangerous Riding. And I really don't consider this DR! I would rather a rule be put into place to apply X number of penalty points if you chose to school a particlar fence before jumping it. Again, just like an error on course in Dressage counts and a circle in Stadium counts, so should a school in XC count.

My name is Jean Grizzell

[Hannahsmom]

Fooler;
The fact that you had to spend extra time with the JJ at the water also doesn't change my mind -- it is part of the gig to oversee/train JJ's, even if it is a pita! :)

Why thank you Seven Dogs, what a sweet thing to say to those of us who have been in the sport for 30 years and give back by jump judging. And yes, because of my experience I often end up at the water.

Personally, although the rules 'allow it' I think it shows a lack of training. One thing that I don't want to deal with as a jump judge at the water is a rider 'schooling' their horse when the next rider shows up all set to jump the water. Hope they won't mind me hollerin' at them to get out of the way and are willing to take those extra time penalties. :) Maybe I'm fortunate enough that for some reason my horses never seemed to need that stroll thru the water before I approached the flagged obstacle 'for real'.

I am with Retread on this one.

[SevenDogs]

Why thank you Seven Dogs, what a sweet thing to say to those of us who have been in the sport for 30 years and give back by jump judging. And yes, because of my experience I often end up at the water.



Interesting that you assume you are the only one that gives back. I've been a jump judge,competitor, scorer, XC controller, and organizer of schooling events and clinics for a lot of years myself. It was a JOKE -- hence the smiley face afterwards!

[retreadeventer]

Thank you, Janet!

And, YES, the devil is in the details, which is what I was HOPING we could discuss on this thread. People obviously feel strongly about this, so I didn't get much input on how one might do this if the rule were to go through, but...

Well, how about using what is already in place - the Dangerous Riding penalty - and make it an organizer's option to have the DR apply to riders who present, or attempt, obstacles not flagged on their course. Organizer would announce this at time of entry so it would be clear six weeks before the event whether you could be Johnny or Janey HorseTrainer on cross country or be there to ride like the rest of us.

[Whisper]

What is the difference between 'schooling' the water or 'practicing' the water? You are taking a practice 'jump' thru the water before 'jumping' the flagged route. Disqualification for jumping a 'practice' fence unflagged or in the wrong direction'.
EV117 Disqualification.
d. Jumping practice fences that are not flagged, EV108.3c and EV108.3d.
e. Jumping practice fences in the wrong direction, EV108.3d.
h. Jumping practice fences at times other than those laid down by the Organizer,EV108.3d.

My understanding is that the above applies during the *warmup*, hence practice fences. Once on course, riders are allowed to jump unflagged fences, unless they are so far above their level as to constitute Dangerous Riding. Usually they don't do so, due to time penalties, and because most people don't feel the need to take any extra fences while on course.

This whole debate reminds me a lot of the threads on coaches riding during the warmup in regular dressage shows, which is allowed by the rules, but which many people feel is cheating/unsportsmanlike. Everyone is allowed to do it, by the rules, and it does give the competitor an advantage.

[fooler]

clm08

Now I can respond properly. The rules listed provide insight to what I and possibly others consider the Spirit of the Sport.
Rule EV106 - States one should be qualified for the competition entered. IMO it reiterates the need for personal and/or parental responsibility. I personally have never known it to be enforced, it is on the books. One should take it as a guideline.
Rule EV117 - Lists reasons for disqualification which include:
d. Jumping practice fences that are not flagged, EV108.3c and EV108.3d.
e. Jumping practice fences in the wrong direction,
h. Jumping practice fences at times other than those laid down by the Organizer,EV108.3d.
Again in IMO the intent of these rules to stop some competitors from having an unfair avantage over others. So when a competitor enters the water or jumps a smaller ditch or bank, outside of their flagged option, they are practicing or showing the question to the horse outside of the practice area laid out by the organizer.
Now I am not advocating disqualification for those competitors, but I do advocate some sort of penalty. Be it a jump or automatic time penalty. We can not assume that all competitors schooling an obstacle will incur time penalties. Personally I would go faster before and after the 'schooled obstacle' in an attempt to make up any lost time. So just as barrel races are penalized 5 or 10 seconds for knocking down a barrel, then we should consider an auto time penalty. If you want/need to school, then do so and accept the penalty. Just like competitors accept time penalties when just moving up or getting out again. Or speed faults when running a novice course at near training speed when preparing to move up a level.

Janet, Retread, others:
I do not agree schooling an obstacle always constitutes Dangerous Riding. I have no problem with a controlled team that does not endanger spectators. Going faster, in a controlled fashion, before and after the schooled obstacle is not Dangerous Riding. We should use DR for DR and deal with this practice differently.

Asterix - Thanks for starting this thread, it gives us all a chance to debate and truely understand our individual positions.

[Janet]

clm08

Janet, Retread, others:
I do not agree schooling an obstacle always constitutes Dangerous Riding. I have no problem with a controlled team that does not endanger spectators. Going faster, in a controlled fashion, before and after the schooled obstacle is not Dangerous Riding. We should use DR for DR and deal with this practice differently.
_I_ never suggested that schooling an obstacle should automatically considered DR. But if it urns out that there are spectators in the way of your intebded "schooling" path, you need to change your plans to avoid DR.

[retreadeventer]

Fooler, EV117 referring to reasons for disqualification - when they state "practice" fences I believe that refers to practice fences in the warm-up area. A designated "practice" fence. As such it may not apply to obstacles on the cross country course that are flagged but for different divisions. Technically they would not be practice obstacles.

However, it [EV117] DOES allow disqualification for unsportsmanlike conduct. I like that in this context. Is it unsportsmanlike to school while others do not, and then beat them in the same division?

And while we're defining, let's straighten something out here.

Schooling is not training. Schooling is repeatedly attempting or practicing the same thing over and over to enforce a desired habit or create familiarity with a desired outcome.

Training is the process of development and the reinforcement of basic skills in the horse, that can be utilized when one COMPETES. (Example: You teach a horse to leg yield [basic skill] at home, so that when you trot down center line, you can straighten him a step or two, should you become crooked at that moment in the test.) Competition can hone, and define skills [or lack thereof], but competition is and should be removed from schooling, and should be used as a definition within a training scheme. Yes, of course, "esoterically" you "train" a horse every time you sit on one, whether at home in the ring, out on the trail ride, or at an event, but AT AN EVENT, the dressage test, stadium test and cross country test are meant to be a culmination of where you and your horse are at that moment. If you've over-entered and things are going wrong, by all means, make the horse mind, or reinforce an aid that is being ignored, everyone makes a mistake and over-enters once in a while. It does not have anything to do with ribbons or winning. It's a pop quiz, if you will, of you and your horse - a snapshot of your training staircase - at that moment in time you've pulled into the parking lot to begin your competition day. Nothing more.

In this context - in my opinion - to purposely go out on cross country and take extra fences of some other division - just so you can get over your flagged obstacles easier - is ultimately and logically unsportsmanlike conduct. (It's like pulling out a calculator to do the math on a pop quiz when everyone else in the class can only use a pencil and scratch paper.) It's grounds for disqualification to SHOW a horse an obstacle on the cross country course prior to riding it. Why wouldn't JUMPING one be just as onerous? It's an unfair advantage, and in some cases can even be dangerous, if the circumstances warrant it - i.e., endangering a jump judge or spectators.

Whether or not it will be legislated is sort of up to our officials and officers of the sport. If it doesn't stop, it will be. [Trust me on this.]

Jimmy Wofford is fond of repeating a wonderful phrase from Bert DeNemethy: "A good feeling after the round is better than any ribbon."

I think I know what he meant by this. I think he meant that at a show, a round well done is satisfaction enough for knowing you've trained your horse well and he has done a good job for you at that moment - the pinnacle of all your hard work.

[bornfreenowexpensive]

Jimmy Wofford is fond of repeating a wonderful phrase from Bert DeNemethy: "A good feeling after the round is better than any ribbon."

I think I know what he meant by this. I think he meant that at a show, a round well done is satisfaction enough for knowing you've trained your horse well and he has done a good job for you at that moment - the pinnacle of all your hard work.

True...but Jimmy would also have you ride your horse in a competition in the best manner to train him....in otherwords, especially at the lower levels, the goal is to improve and move on. Horse trials can be schooling...schooling for the bigger competitions. You don't necessarily try and win and be competitive at every Horse Trials. Do the best you have that day but you are prepping your horse for the "goal" whether that be to move up a level, a CCI, AEC etc.... And if you have a horse that is being sticky on course or has an issue in a competitive situation....you do what you need to to give improve that horse, get him confident so that you end the course with a horse going better then he started. There will be people at the HTs who are there to be competitive...and there will be people at the HTs with different goals...depending on the horse and the rider. NEITHER is incorrect.

The only way you get better at competing and the only way to work on certain issues and skills IS competing....and therefore some of us will be "schooling" at a competition because our goals or issues are different from someone who is there to win (as in they have a confirmed for the level horse/rider).

You of course don't go to a competition unprepared....but since it is a competition...there will be things out of your control and especially with green horses. As my earlier exemple....a DROP into water as the 6th fence in a novice event not known for being a "BIG" event.....that was an unexpected question at that level. Within the rules...sure...but that was the first and only time that I've seen that question asked at that level. So at that competition...riders did what they needed to so that the green horses still had a positive go. And yes, some did win who "schooled" the water first...my horse was not one of them but it didn't matter to me...because my goal at that competition wasn't to compete....but to give my horse a postive experience in a competitive situation so that he will be more competitive in the future.


I think ultimately...we will all just have to agree to disagree. This is just a different mind set among eventers. But I will say that "schooling fences/water" in a competition isn't new....and while fooler and others are saying it is happening, and I'm sure it is.....I also highly doubt it is happening in such numbers to justify a new rule...and if it is happening in large numbers at an event...I'd look hard at the course design and think that perhaps that course design is not set up well for the level.

[Jazzy Lady]

Completely agree with everything BFNE said.

Everyone has different goals when going to compete. Just because it's a competition doesn't mean that everyone is there to win. Compare it to a triathlon. Not everyone competes to win. Completing is a major achievement in itself. Improving on your swim, or your bike or your run from the last go round is an achievement, and many people's goals. So perhaps the goal of someone is to get their horse more confident than the last time and not to be competitive. But should people REALLY be penalized for doing what is right by their horse? If training the horse by going into the water is what will make that horse confident and safe, then obviously that's the ride the horse needs.

[Ajierene]

Completely agree with everything BFNE said.

Everyone has different goals when going to compete. Just because it's a competition doesn't mean that everyone is there to win. Compare it to a triathlon. Not everyone competes to win. Completing is a major achievement in itself. Improving on your swim, or your bike or your run from the last go round is an achievement, and many people's goals. So perhaps the goal of someone is to get their horse more confident than the last time and not to be competitive. But should people REALLY be penalized for doing what is right by their horse? If training the horse by going into the water is what will make that horse confident and safe, then obviously that's the ride the horse needs.

I think part of the problem is the two different dynamics to 'schooling at a competition'.

On the one side you have an incident like Thames Pirate describes where the obstacle was maybe a difficult question for the level - that venue, that course that time - a specific incident where a 'practice' (ie-running through the water first) helped prevent accidents.

You also have the schooling concept at a lower level show - where someone does not have ready access to water or a ditch and therefore schools their beginner novice, novice or maybe Training level horse over a smaller ditch or through the water before presenting to the obstacle.

The reasons for this are clear to see.

On the other side you have examples of someone constantly running their confirmed training level horse through the water before the drop, rather than straight to the drop. This reeks of holes in education and a rider who would prefer take the 'easy' route rather than further their own education. I can understand someone doing their first one or two or first season of trials this way, but even if this person does not want to move up, shouldn't the educational aspect still be there? Shouldn't the rider still by trying to better their riding?

You also have the example of the person in training level try a novice level ditch first and fail. Doesn't this mean the horse is not really ready to move up? I can understand an iffy horse, at their first training level, do the novice ditch first - for confidence. But if they are even refusing the novice level ditch, doesn't that mean they are REALLY not ready for the level?

In the first instance, those people with a particular goal in mind should be fine with a penalty of a few points (5 maybe). They are not in it solely for competition and are looking to school as well, so a yellow instead of a blue because of that schooling should not bother them.

In the second group, a penalty may be a good incentive to teach them to make sure their horse is as ready as possible for the level and not wanting to move up does not mean you should stop learning.

[GotSpots]

On the other side you have examples of someone constantly running their confirmed training level horse through the water before the drop, rather than straight to the drop. This reeks of holes in education and a rider who would prefer take the 'easy' route rather than further their own education. I can understand someone doing their first one or two or first season of trials this way, but even if this person does not want to move up, shouldn't the educational aspect still be there? Shouldn't the rider still by trying to better their riding? It's not my job to try to teach someone else how to "better their riding". And frankly, it's not necessarily the job of the rules: if that were the case, we'd allow all sorts of coaching on course. Frankly, if someone takes a big loop-de-loop on their way to a jump in an effort to slow their horse down, I don't really care: I don't think they need to "better their riding" and shouldn't be allowed to do it. Similarly, if they decide they need to get their horse's feet wet before a drop in at Novice, have at it.

In the first instance, those people with a particular goal in mind should be fine with a penalty of a few points (5 maybe). They are not in it solely for competition and are looking to school as well, so a yellow instead of a blue because of that schooling should not bother them.

In the second group, a penalty may be a good incentive to teach them to make sure their horse is as ready as possible for the level and not wanting to move up does not mean you should stop learning. There IS a penalty already - it's called time faults. I don't know many courses (particularly at Training and up) where you wouldn't get faults for taking a loop or a frolic-and-detour. And guess what, if you take 20 seconds to do your tour (not unreasonable), there are your five penalty points. If they're going fast enough not to have time faults for doing it, then I'd think that the TD might take a gander at whether they are going too fast for the level and aping for a DR.

And a second ditto to BFNE. What she said.

[retreadeventer]

The purpose of a competition is to demonstrate mastery.

We have only one sport. One set of [ever-expanding] rules.

An organizer does not know your particular intentions when you enter their event. How do they tell those who are competing from those who are there to school? A number?

Regardless of your intentions for competing, if you choose to ride, you should have to follow the rules, and participate in a sportsmanlike manner. Using a competition for something other than competing might be noble but it must be fair to others, too.

[bornfreenowexpensive]

Regardless of your intentions for competing, if you choose to ride, you should have to follow the rules, and participate in a sportsmanlike manner. Using a competition for something other than competing might be noble but it must be fair to others, too.


I guess I'm not seeing where it is unfair if everyone has the ability to do the same thing. The sport on xc is jumping the jumps under the time....or as close to the time....that is the competition and those are the rules...and have been since the sport's conception. Every rider walks the course and choses the line best for their horse and their ride. It will not all be the same and in the end, if someone schools a fence or the water and still safely makes the time....and had a better dressage score than I did...well then they beat me. They took a risk of not making the time by doing that schooling....just as someone make take a different line to any fence. We don't know the track the GJ wheeled when setting the time....and every rider has to make decisions as to how they think is the best way for them to get around the course. I see nothing unsportsmanship or unfair about that. If I want to beat them...I need to improve my dressage. The sport and competition is NOT who rode the smoothest or best xc ride or who has the best postion or horse jumps in the best manner.....that is a different sport.

As I said....it just seems like there are different mind sets and perspectives on this.

[bambam]

One of the arguments that keeps showing up here as support for not having a special penalty for schooling water is that there are already penalties - time penalties- for this. Since I strongly suspect most of this is occuring at BN and N (if you have to show your horse the water at prelim and it is not a circumstance in which the jump is a problem like that mentioned above then :eek:), there really is no penalty unless you stop long enough in that water to take a bath. It is really not that hard to make time and make up time safely at BN and N- heck I could trot part of BN courses and get close to OT without going over. So, in fact, there really is not a penalty most of the time at the levels at which this is most commonly occuring. And if you do not have a problem with being penalized in the form of time penalties, then why would have a problem with having another form of penalty such as 5 points for schooling (especially since I don't think there really are time penalties for this at BN and N)?
You are still able to school (no prohibition) but you pay the price for it which is like the price we pay in many instance in which we have to make decisions that are for the benefit of our horse and their training rather than for highest placing.
I frankly don't feel strongly either way- not sure I see the need for a rule as DR would take care of the problematic situations like the rider who was willing to run over spectators to school the water but I also don't think imposing a small penalty without prohibiting it is a big deal- shrug

[retreadeventer]

Yes, everyone has the opportunity to do the same thing...but is that the intent of riding cross country, to use the loophole in the rules to gain an advantage over your fellow riders by showing a horse a similar obstacle, or jumping a smaller version to the left or right of your division's obstacle, then circling, gaining more control than you would if you just cantered up to the flagged jump originally?

I don't think anyone is saying you MUST follow a certain footstep-precise pattern. That is neither smart nor safe. Obviously each horse is different and can manage obstacles in different ways. No one is prescribing exactness if they are advocating a "no schooling" policy. I think it's a policy of just being fair to everyone else who is thinking about how to get from A to B in a safe and rule-abiding way.

The rule says you can't jump an unflagged obstacle, or that you can't show the obstacle to the horse, or that you cannot jump obstacles on your course out of order. What if it were to say you can't jump an obstacle not flagged for your course? Or can't jump an obstacle next to your obstacle first then do your flagged obstacle, as that would be "showing" it to them? Or can't circle in the vicinity of your flagged obstacle before attempting it? Just those changes would mean this schooling would end. And I do not see how that changes the sport to hunter equitation classes. It just means you got to get up in the morning, throw the pony on the trailer and make the cross country school this week before pressing "enter". (This is a joke everyone, BF gets up earlier than anyone I know - she has LESSONS at 6:30 AM...where's that roll-eyes thingie?)

It is about the rules...and unfortunately we may see yet another come from this...as much as we all really do not want more rules. The sportsmanship of competing vs. do what you want to do when you want to do it. Sigh.

BF I have seen this in action ... it was very confusing as well as dangerous .. we were trying to walk another course at the time and could not figure which way to run to get out of this person's way as they circled and jumped, circled and jumped -- the jump judge was yelling - it was confusing and to be honest, rather unnecessary. Then the rider sprinted off at an intermediate gallop to make up time directly after the last effort the horse made at the obstacle. There was no horsemanship there at all. I think the rider forgot the course and kept looking and circling until he figured out which jump was his. If this is a typical example of this sort of thing, then I am sorry, I think it will need a rule change. It was flat out stupid.

[bornfreenowexpensive]

BF I have seen this in action ... it was very confusing as well as dangerous .. we were trying to walk another course at the time and could not figure which way to run to get out of this person's way as they circled and jumped, circled and jumped -- the jump judge was yelling - it was confusing and to be honest, rather unnecessary. Then the rider sprinted off at an intermediate gallop to make up time directly after the last effort the horse made at the obstacle. There was no horsemanship there at all. I think the rider forgot the course and kept looking and circling until he figured out which jump was his. If this is a typical example of this sort of thing, then I am sorry, I think it will need a rule change. It was flat out stupid.

See to me then....that is DR and already a rule in place to address....and I don't think it is a typical example. When I've seen "schooling", it was done where the rider took a line to go through the water, perhaps down the ramp and through and then back around to their jump (so if it was a house in or drop in, they passed through the water from the easy ramp and then back around to string together the jump in...very much in the manner that you would normally do out schooling). Or they passed through the water early in the course to get their horse's feet wet. It is typically done in a way not to be in the way of any other horse on course, spectators or JJ....and the riders doing it know that they need to give way to others and spectators on the course. It was clear what they were doing and not an issue at all.

If they are as crazy as you described...that is just DR or stupidity...not schooling.

[gjump]

WHY NOT???

If I'm on a horse moving up to Training level for the first time and he's already sticky at the water.... I'm certainly not there to win but just gain competition experience..... then I would definitely get his feet wet first. I would rather do that and have a few people pissed off at me than have him have a bad ride.

Not everything in life is completely fair... get over it and stop making stupid rules because people are going to something else that you don't like and then you'll make up a rule for that too.

I've been eventing for 20+ years and have done the long format and I hate what eventing has turned into today. I'm seriously considering switching to the jumpers. :mad:

[sfir]

Over my many years competing I have seen many riders jump an obstacle that was not flagged for their course and I have never seen it done in a dangerous, abusive or reckless way. As the rules are now a rider has the option to jump a fence of a lower level in order to encourage and educate their horse and finish with a safe round. I fail to see how this is 'cheating' or a disadvantage to other competitors in any way. Here are some examples that illustrate the ways I have seen jumping an alternate fence used
1) Young horse doing his first novice. Novice fence one is spooky and headed directly away from barn. Rider jumps young horse over less spooky and smaller Beginner Novice fence one before circling back and jumping Novice fence one and continuing with a more confident horse around his course.
2) Water obstacle on mid season prelim course is difficult one stride with big drop into water that was used on Intermediate course the week before. Experienced prelim horse jumps A part but stops at B drop into water. Rider turns and jumps smaller training drop into water and then successfully negotiates prelim A and B on second attempt.
3) Advanced rider has glance off at advanced corner after water. Horse runs out again on second attempt. Rider goes and jumps prelim corner in close proximity and then successfully re-negotiates advanced corner before pulling up and retiring knowing that it is not their day but horse has finished on a positive learning experience.
4) Prelim coffin is off of tight turn. There is a direct line to prelim coffin with training log directly in path. Many riders chose to jump the training log to give their horses the best line possible in order to negotiate the coffin successfully.
I could go on and on with these but you get my point.
I have to disagree with retreadeventer here about horse trials competition showing off your mastery. At the novice, training and prelim levels horse trials are stepping stone learning experiences to the next levels and should be done with education and safety in mind. Allowing your horse to jump a less difficult obstacle before being faced with one on his course that he may be uncertain of would be far safer, smarter and show greater horsemanship.
Last year at a CCI** there was a difficult line to a corner. There was an unflagged table at prelim height that if jumped at a slight angle would put you on a direct line in a perfect 3 to the perfect spot at the corner. Many of us at the CCI** went to ask the ground jury if we could indeed jump the table without being penalized. We were told if we chose to jump the table to the corner and did it successfully there was nothing in the rules to penalize us. However, if we jumped the unflagged table and made a big muck of it to the corner it would be DR. This seems very fair to me. You can weigh the options that suit your horse best within the rules but if you choose to jump unflagged or fences that are not flagged on your course in an unsafe, haphazard manner then you should be penalized.
I really hope this rule does not get passed under the guise of making the sport safer as it will be yet another rule added that prohibits riders from being able to educate their horses and will actually push them to make less safe decisions if their horse encounters an obstacle that it is unsure of.
Ruthie

[hey101]

This all seems like much ado about nothing, and all because a few ULR have their panties in a wad? The rules are fine the way they are. I truly don't care if people want to take the direct or the long way through the water (or any other part of the course) on the way to their fence. If the CD doesn't want people schooling the water, he can rope off every part of it except the fences. Problem solved.

It seems ridiculous to worry about something so trivial when any more it seems like an UL horse dies every time there is a major competition.

[gjump]

It seems ridiculous to worry about something so trivial when any more it seems like an UL horse dies every time there is a major competition.


AMEN :yes:

[Ajierene]

This all seems like much ado about nothing, and all because a few ULR have their panties in a wad? The rules are fine the way they are. I truly don't care if people want to take the direct or the long way through the water (or any other part of the course) on the way to their fence. If the CD doesn't want people schooling the water, he can rope off every part of it except the fences. Problem solved.

It seems ridiculous to worry about something so trivial when any more it seems like an UL horse dies every time there is a major competition.

Please do not try to make it an upper level vs. lower level fight. As noted in the first post:

I'm passing this along from my coach -- there is apparently a discussion underway among some organizers and officials regarding a possible solution to this issue, and she's asked me to get feedback from the COTH community

Note, the OFFICIALS and ORGANIZERS are discussing this.

Their issues most likely are:

extra damage to footing.
Safety (running over spectators)
Safety/timeliness (spending time schooling is holding up the course)
ease of scoring (like the novice ditch issues - that's technically not a refusal and technically the competitor can school that all day and only incur time faults).

There may be others, but that is what I gather are the main issues.

[Invested1]

However, if we jumped the unflagged table and made a big muck of it to the corner it would be DR.

I understood that you could only jump another level's fence if it was flagged?

[sfir]

I very much hope that the officials and organizers will confer with riders before pushing for the rule change. I have not heard from any of the officials or organizers in our area that they feel it is a problem.
If the concern is footing I would think there is a lot more damage done to footing from a rider having a stop at an obstacle than from successfully negotiating one from a lower level.
If the concern is time I would think that there would be more time being accrued from people having multiple stops on course than there would be for riders jumping one or two jumps extra on course.
If the concern is running over spectators that is a DR issue and has nothing to do with jumping the jumps. I have never heard of a rider running over spectators while jumping an extra fence on course on purpose.
Once again I will reiterate that the riders I see making the decision to jump a lower obstacle on occasion are the riders on course that are making smart, well thought out and safe decisions it is the ones that do not have the forethought or quick thinking in a bad situation to do so that are more dangerous on course.
Ruthie

[Janet]

I understood that you could only jump another level's fence if it was flagged?
Under current rules you can jump both flaged and unflagged obstacles.

[GotSpots]

Note, the OFFICIALS and ORGANIZERS are discussing this.

Their issues most likely are:

extra damage to footing.
Safety (running over spectators)
Safety/timeliness (spending time schooling is holding up the course)
ease of scoring (like the novice ditch issues - that's technically not a refusal and technically the competitor can school that all day and only incur time faults).

There may be others, but that is what I gather are the main issues.
Each of these issues can already be addressed within the existing rules:

"extra damage to footing" -- flag or rope off areas where you don't want a rider to go. Takes less time than it does to shift jump judges between levels.

"Safety (running over spectators)" - DR. Period. This isn't a hard one.

"Safety/timeliness (spending time schooling is holding up the course)" -- Either riders are getting time penalties by holding up the course (in which case they ARE penalized for the "schooling" or they are making up the time comfortably, in which case they aren't holding up anything.

"ease of scoring (like the novice ditch issues - that's technically not a refusal and technically the competitor can school that all day and only incur time faults)." I don't see how this is an issue - if it's not at a flagged jump, it's not a refusal (just like a fall that's not in connection with an obstacle is not elimination). If I want to, I can stop dead in the middle of my course and back up a few steps. I've done it with one who wanted to be stupid; I've seen David O'Connor do it about every 100m down at Rocking Horse. Is it a "refusal"? No. And if you have a stop at a fence not on your course either (a) it's a DR, (b) you'll get time faults, or (c) it's no different than me having a refusal at the big flapping banner hanging on the fenceline at Morven - from mid-gallop to slam on the brakes and spin.

None of these seem to me like a good reason to add a rule for which the chief proponent, as far as I can tell, boils down to an iteration of "it's not fair". To which I say, tough cookies.

[enjoytheride]

I think the rule should be changed to say a BN or N horse must trot or canter into the water between their flags and their flags only and T and P must canter every jump and into the water and between their flags only.

That way we do away with people schooling the drop by trotting in and BN horses from walking slowly into the water to prevent refusals.

Anyone who can't do those things obviously needs to go home and school more because it just isn't fair if MY horse can canter into his water and your horse trots into it.

[fooler]

Over my many years competing I have seen many riders jump an obstacle that was not flagged for their course and I have never seen it done in a dangerous, abusive or reckless way. As the rules are now a rider has the option to jump a fence of a lower level in order to encourage and educate their horse and finish with a safe round. I fail to see how this is 'cheating' or a disadvantage to other competitors in any way. Here are some examples that illustrate the ways I have seen jumping an alternate fence used
1) Young horse doing his first novice. Novice fence one is spooky and headed directly away from barn. Rider jumps young horse over less spooky and smaller Beginner Novice fence one before circling back and jumping Novice fence one and continuing with a more confident horse around his course.
2) Water obstacle on mid season prelim course is difficult one stride with big drop into water that was used on Intermediate course the week before. Experienced prelim horse jumps A part but stops at B drop into water. Rider turns and jumps smaller training drop into water and then successfully negotiates prelim A and B on second attempt.
3) Advanced rider has glance off at advanced corner after water. Horse runs out again on second attempt. Rider goes and jumps prelim corner in close proximity and then successfully re-negotiates advanced corner before pulling up and retiring knowing that it is not their day but horse has finished on a positive learning experience.
4) Prelim coffin is off of tight turn. There is a direct line to prelim coffin with training log directly in path. Many riders chose to jump the training log to give their horses the best line possible in order to negotiate the coffin successfully.
I could go on and on with these but you get my point.

Ruthie

Examples 2 & 3 - there was a stop before the rider took the smaller/easier option and retried their flagged obstacle. Good thinking by the rider especially if there was no option (black flag) available.
Example 3 - the rider finished jumping on a good note & retired.
Examples 1 & 4 - Good thinking by the riders, but not what is being discussed.

Using example 2 - The prelim rider does not present to the Prelim question first, but goes immediately to the Training drop into the water. Then circles back to take the Prelim route - usually with no penalty. General discussion is the rider will be penalized with time, but that can often be resolved by going at a quicker pace before & after the water.
What are you thoughts?

[retreadeventer]

Over my many years competing I have seen many riders jump an obstacle that was not flagged for their course and I have never seen it done in a dangerous, abusive or reckless way.

Good heavens, you must be in Alaska or someplace. I am in Area II and just last season saw THREE dangerous, abusive or reckless incidences of this. Someone jumped a prelim table with a jump judge SITTING on it. Someone did the circle jerk around spectators and seated fence judges. Someone attempted the novice trakehner next to their training trakehner and gave everyone heart failure by nearly falling off when the horse slammed on the brakes and slid into the ditch, then put herself back in the saddle, backed out, turned around and rode hell for leather at the training one and had a double clear round! And most of the time I am by myself competing and can't see everyone go - I am sure there were many more other places.

I have to disagree with retreadeventer here about horse trials competition showing off your mastery. At the novice, training and prelim levels horse trials are stepping stone learning experiences to the next levels...

No, actually they are not stepping stones. They are TESTS. Says so right in the rule book. While introductory in nature, (at levels below the national level, i.e., preliminary on up) they are meant to allow people to experience the sport, not experience another training exercise. You don't get to free for all canter about the dressage arena doing whatever movement you feel like performing. You do a prescribed course. Same with stadium. Same with cross country. Learning experiences are clinics. Competing experiences are horse trials.

If I'm on a horse moving up to Training level for the first time and he's already sticky at the water.... I'm certainly not there to win but just gain competition experience..... then I would definitely get his feet wet first.

I submit that a horse that is sticky at water at TRAINING level has a pretty gaping hole in his education as an event horse. To use that as an excuse to allow unsportsmanlike behavior on course solely because you can't get to a water jump often enough to address the problem is the straw breaking the Eventing camel's back, and what is going to change the sport, IMO, not an overdue rule.

Twenty years ago you wouldn't dream of jumping something else on course at Ledyard or Whidbey Island or Ram Tap - you would get a stern talking to. No one I rode with back then would dream of it. And we didn't have ANYWHERE to school cross country in those days. If we wanted to school water we had to make a puddle in our backyard. We did not have arrows or skinnys or ditches or banks to school either. We made do with trails and stuff we found, or built from junk at home and couldn't wait to get to an event and get to ride over a real one! We didn't fall off, (well not bad ones anyway) we didn't have stops at every fence, we didn't have rotational falls. Our horses didn't die of heart failure. NOBODY had a warmblood. All our horses were ex-racehorses with big bowed tendons or lumps and bumps, but they wore snaffle bits and no bandages or boots. Some were not even shod. We galloped like hell. We rode without knee rolls most of the time in flat saddles. We had way more trouble whoaing the horses than making them go. I can't figure out what this sport is anymore, the joy and honor we used to feel in cross country riding has turned into a wimp contest of some kind where everyone has to "School" and "feel good" about getting their chicken hearted warmbloods over some little novice ditch about a foot wide. GAAUUUGGHHHH! (Where IS that roll eyes thingie!)

[3dazey]

retreadeventer, my hat is off to you. You are definitely my new hero after that last, brave, post. :lol:

I'm just guessing here, but it looks like the battle lines are drawn between "old-school" and "new-school". And so is the way of the world...I would wish to keep a little of what was special and honorable and worthwhile about our sport, but it seems like we are probably dying off too fast to make any of it stick. First the long format, now this. :cry:

[sfir]

Did the people you mentioned get penalized for DR? Just curious as it sounds like they were all riding dangerously even over the fences on their own courses and should have been given DR regardless of what they were jumping. They sound like trainwrecks and should have been stopped on course but that really has nothing to do with a rule regarding jumping fences of a lower level.
I would love to get input from Cyndi on this. She sees more people running xc at every level than anyone else in the country so she should have a good idea if this is being abused.
I will continue to disagree with you on the 'training prepares you for everything'. You can train for every scenario possible but in the long run you probably will still at some point come upon a question that even the bravest horse does not understand. Being able to jump a fence of a lower level and have your horse be able to complete is better any day than having the horse walk off the course scared and/or defeated.
A lower level horse trial is not the Olympics and should not be treated as such. The dressage and showjumping phases are not the same as the xc phase and should not be treated as such. Just my humble opinion.
As far as going through and easier water before even attempting the one at your own level I just don't see the big deal. If it makes the rider and/or the horse more confident going through at their own level and they want to take the extra time to do that then so be it. It is not against the rules, does not affect anyone else and is not cheating. I would be relieved that it would be an option if I was on a green horse and felt like the flagged jump on my course was a little over my horses head....
Ruthie

[sfir]

sorry this is not an 'old school versus new school' battle at all. I am in disagreement with you and retreadeventer on this one and I evented in the 80's and am arguably one of the biggest supporters of the long format around (I still make a point to do one every year as a matter of fact).
From this thread there does not seem to be a majority on either side between upper level, lower level, old school or new school. it is just one of those issues we cannot all agree on....

[SevenDogs]

Posted by Retreadeventer: Twenty years ago you wouldn't dream of jumping something else on course at Ledyard or Whidbey Island or Ram Tap - you would get a stern talking to. No one I rode with back then would dream of it. And we didn't have ANYWHERE to school cross country in those days. If we wanted to school water we had to make a puddle in our backyard. We did not have arrows or skinnys or ditches or banks to school either. We made do with trails and stuff we found, or built from junk at home and couldn't wait to get to an event and get to ride over a real one! We didn't fall off, (well not bad ones anyway) we didn't have stops at every fence, we didn't have rotational falls. Our horses didn't die of heart failure. NOBODY had a warmblood. All our horses were ex-racehorses with big bowed tendons or lumps and bumps, but they wore snaffle bits and no bandages or boots. Some were not even shod. We galloped like hell. We rode without knee rolls most of the time in flat saddles. We had way more trouble whoaing the horses than making them go. I can't figure out what this sport is anymore, the joy and honor we used to feel in cross country riding has turned into a wimp contest of some kind where everyone has to "School" and "feel good" about getting their chicken hearted warmbloods over some little novice ditch about a foot wide. GAAUUUGGHHHH! (Where IS that roll eyes thingie!)


Did you have to walk 10 miles to school too? ....barefoot.... in the snow....? :lol:

I appreciate your historical perspective but it seems a little over the top and inaccurate. Everyone wants to think of the "good ol days" but twenty years ago was 1989. There were warmbloods -- my trainer had an extremely successful three star warmblood in the late 80's early 90's. Yes, there were a lot of TB's and there still are. I have always ridden them and still do. Trainer rode them and still does but there were (and still are) lots of breeds represented.

Horses wore boots -- I believe the porter boots and the ulsters were quite popular then. Not all but most photos I see from that era show boots (and grease, etc). Lots of them even wore shoes. All the upper level horses I knew wore shoes. I'm sure some didn't and I'm sure some don't today.

People fell off, people were injured, people died, horses fell, horses were injured, horses died from falls and from health related failure (granted, we are having a large increase in all of that in recent years that needs to be dealt with, but that is another discussion). Look at videos from "the good old days". Lots of horse falls. Lots of rider falls. I was at a show in the early 90's where one of our esteemed COTH colleagues fell off more than once going around Southern Pines Advanced (not mentioning any names :)). Of course, in those days, you got back on and kept going (I miss that).

People jumped fences that were not on their course if they were on the line they wanted to ride (at some of the very shows you mentioned). I don't know of anyone who got a "stern talking to" unless they were idiots and deserved today's DR penalty.

People used bits that were not snaffles (particularly on XC). I was fortunate to have a horse that used the same bit for all three phases (come to think of it, my current horse has one bridle too), but I also had a horse that had a different bridle for all three phases. Why is that wrong? You use the appropriate equipment for your horse. It wasn't all that long ago that standing martingales were banned and water jumps mandated to be shallower when a horse drowned. That was the good ole days. Maybe it was easier to go in a snaffle bit if it was attached to a standing martingale!

The point is, that time frame had good and bad. Personally, I like an awful lot about the good old days and think we should go back to some things that worked better but berating people like this isn't productive.

I respect your opinion on penalizing schooling, even if I don't agree. I think the person that said we might have to agree to disagree had the right idea.

[BarbB]

This has been interesting. I always thought that jumping a 'hazard' or an unflagged jump was only done if you wanted to take an unusual line to an obstacle and the hazard was in the way. I think riders have always taken advantage of that to jump something easy on the way to something daunting to avoid trying to stuff a horse over a difficult or scary jump.

I have never heard of circling around your flagged water approach to get the horse's feet wet before attempting the official approach.

My first impulse was to say that this is unsportsmanlike and should be illegal. After reading several good arguments on the side of allowing it I have changed my mind. I would like the see the obstacle layed out to guarantee time penalties for this sort of schooling on course, but I would think that is impossible/impractical.

I still think that in the spirit of competing you should take the course as it is layed out and pass or fail on your abilities and training, but I can understand the desire to use the course to build confidence, even if I don't exactly agree. I think that in a perfect world a rider planning to do this would not be there to try to win. And in a perfect world I should be able to beat a horse/rider combination that stop to do this if I don't stop to do this. This is not a perfect world.

I think I can live with this either way....I think I am in the minority who don't really like this and it doesn't bother me enough to worry about it.

[Hannahsmom]

I think the best advice given overall is to FLAG OFF THE ROUTES to prohibit this if you don't want it to happen. Then all the riders may have issues about their horses being spooked at the 'tapes' depending on how natural they look, but it would be the same for everyone. Thus no new rule. If the CD and the hosting event decide not to do this, then just let it go as they are in agreement to let the schooling happen and I prefer to let them make the decision.

I agree with retread who said that in reality BN and Novice have plenty of time so doubt that any horse would really incur time penalties. I do disagree though with those who say they are 'just schooling'. There is an option for this...it's called HC. If you don't take that then you are really hoping to do well and get that ribbon, aren't you? I haven't seen HC in many years.

I would not penalize with a DR or add an extra penalty. The JJ's have enough to deal with in the basics of people falling off and otherwise invoking penalties in the normal manner.

[Janet]

Twenty years ago you wouldn't dream of jumping something else on course at Ledyard or Whidbey Island or Ram Tap - you would get a stern talking to. That is because 20 years ago the rules said you could not jump anything except the fences flagged for your level.

[SevenDogs]

Janet:

Do you remember when the rule changed? Although I have never done it, I don't remember that it was ever illegal (however, my old brain is just that -- old!).

As it might have some bearing on the discussion here, do you remember the rationale for allowing it?

Interestingly, if the rule changed to allow it, we can certainly say that it is not oversight in the rules.

[BarbB]

In the 80s riders most certainly did jump unflagged obstacles...they were called hazards. There may have been a rule change after that to disallow them, but I am inclined to think that courses just started being better groomed and hazards were roped off rather than a rule against it.
I could be wrong.

[Janet]

Janet:

Do you remember when the rule changed? Although I have never done it, I don't remember that it was ever illegal (however, my old brain is just that -- old!).

As it might have some bearing on the discussion here, do you remember the rationale for allowing it?

Interestingly, if the rule changed to allow it, we can certainly say that it is not oversight in the rules.

The rule changed sometime between 1986 or 1987, when I started organizing the CDCTA HT, and 1990.

I can't find my earlier rule book, but in the 1990-1991 rule book it says "Thus jumping an obstacle marked for another competition is permissible", which I UNDERLINED. I usually only underline new/changed text. So my best bet is that it changed between 89 and 90

[SevenDogs]

Thanks, Janet! :)

[Whisper]

In this context - in my opinion - to purposely go out on cross country and take extra fences of some other division - just so you can get over your flagged obstacles easier - is ultimately and logically unsportsmanlike conduct. (It's like pulling out a calculator to do the math on a pop quiz when everyone else in the class can only use a pencil and scratch paper.) It's grounds for disqualification to SHOW a horse an obstacle on the cross country course prior to riding it. Why wouldn't JUMPING one be just as onerous? It's an unfair advantage, and in some cases can even be dangerous, if the circumstances warrant it - i.e., endangering a jump judge or spectators.
The rules are very clear that showing the fences or schooling only applies *before* they leave the starting box, and the rule change *specifically* allows riders to choose this strategy.

Your analogy to math tests is completely incorrect - rather, it's like a math test which *specifically* allows use of a calculator and a 3"x5" index card with notes, per the syllabus and a reminder from the instructor. A few students choose to use the options which have been allowed, and other students choose to not use either, then accuse those who do of "cheating" and "unsportsmanlike behaviour" while the struggle to do all of the calculations on paper, and remember the formulas. If they have that all in their head, or they forgot their calculator, or for some reason, they have a philosophical objection to using that allowed assistance, fine. However, it's absurd to accuse people of cheating when they are explicitly following the rules. Starting the test as soon as the instructor hands it to you, or even turning it over and looking at the problems, may still be against the rules, as you need to wait for the signal to start. ;)

[retreadeventer]

Blyth Tait, "Cross Country with Blyth Tait, World and Olympic Champion":

"Training is the time to teach horses and riders, not to test them - that is the job of competitions, much as an exam is the time to test a student's knowledge and learning. It would be unwise to send a pupil to an exam without first teaching him the answers, formulas, or methods of solving potential problems. The same will apply to competing cross-coutnry. FIRST THE HOMEWORK MUST BE DONE." (my emphasis)

Pippa Funnell, "Training The Young Horse; Schooling for Success", Rolex Grand Slam winner and Olympic Medalist;

"It really helps to be OVER-PREPARED. By this I mean that your horse should be capable of doing more than will be required of him in his first competition - more difficult dressage movements, and bigger fences. The challenge presented by the event or show should be reassuringly within his current level of training."

Here's the illogic in all the arguments for schooling thus far: say you're riding training. If you take a novice fence before the training fence, that's schooling - everyone can agree on that. It's practice, right? So that you can get the one that counts, the training obstacle - right. So...really....you ARE there to compete, aren't you?

To. get. the. one. that. counts. right. Practice the one that doesn't count.

But you're doing it on course, under the rules, in competition - and all happy and seemingly content to accept this practice as perfectly sportsmanslike. So...how is that the same as the competitor who does it RIGHT THE FIRST TIME? Whose a better competitor, better prepared, better rider? Would we all agree that in competition the winner should be a better rider, better prepared, better competitor? The person who uses the practice fence, legal as it is [currently], should not be placed above the one who does not. That's my view.

Winning honestly is different from just winning.

[mcw]

I think it probably comes down to how you view competitions: if you see them as part of the horse's training or if you view them as tests to the horse's training. I really don't care how anyone else rides the course. I don't care if they have a different plan for the course or goals for the event to fulfill than I do. I want to have a positive learning experience for myself and for my horse. If that means I win, fantastic. If that means I finish last, so be it. I think we are going to have to agree to disagree.

[Invested1]

I really don't care how anyone else rides the course. I don't care if they have a different plan for the course or goals for the event to fulfill than I do. I want to have a positive learning experience for myself and for my horse. If that means I win, fantastic. If that means I finish last, so be it.

Couldn't agree more. :yes:

[asterix]

I just want to chime in here to say that I do not know specifically what the inspiration, if you will, was for this proposed change. I didn't realize it would cause such a strong reaction, or I might have tried to get some background so I could give you all better context!!
But.
I am pretty sure that at least one of the incidents retread mentioned (rider repeatedly circling through water, then jumping proper jump, then riding like crazy to make up time) happened at our home facility, so...

I have certainly passed along the lively debate (and I think there is a majority opinion here against this rule), and suggest that those of you who have strong opinions keep an eye on how this develops.

I agree with retread, honestly. I don't see why having this be mildly penalized is some kind of terrible blow to horsemanship or the heart of this sport. The fact is that some organizers and officials have seen an increasing use of this tactic (school, school, go like hell afterwards) by professional riders in a clear attempt to paper over a gap in the horse's training and still finish with a "clean record" for sale, etc. Unfortunately we cannot make a rule that only covers this situation.

I do think that it might be worth having a conversation with the folks that want to pass this rule regarding expansion of the definition of DR or unsportsmanlike conduct so that this specific tactic could be penalized, but this leads to additional subjectivity in the sport, which nearly everyone finds objectionable.

Glad I am not in charge of rule-making!!

[Ja Da Dee]

Blyth Tait, "Cross Country with Blyth Tait, World and Olympic Champion":

"Training is the time to teach horses and riders, not to test them - that is the job of competitions, much as an exam is the time to test a student's knowledge and learning. It would be unwise to send a pupil to an exam without first teaching him the answers, formulas, or methods of solving potential problems. The same will apply to competing cross-coutnry. FIRST THE HOMEWORK MUST BE DONE." (my emphasis)

One of the methods of solving potential problems is to keep them confident. Know if they loose confidence, and know how to give them their confidence back. Do you agree?

[tle]

First, someone said along the lines of "I hope they talk to riders before pushing this rule change through." Based on a discussion I had in KY last weekend... don't count on it. From someone "in the know", they are already planning on pushing it through this year.

Second, if your view of a competition is strictly training and you KNOW you're going to have to "school" during your round, then it shouldn't be heartbreaking not to receive a ribbon at the end right? So why not do the accountable/responsible thing and simply enter H.C.? Would save from having to make MORE rules... allow you to do the competition with no pressure and able to school as needed... and yet you can still get the feel for a competition vs strictly a schooling environment.

[bornfreenowexpensive]

Second, if your view of a competition is strictly training and you KNOW you're going to have to "school" during your round, then it shouldn't be heartbreaking not to receive a ribbon at the end right? So why not do the accountable/responsible thing and simply enter H.C.? Would save from having to make MORE rules... allow you to do the competition with no pressure and able to school as needed... and yet you can still get the feel for a competition vs strictly a schooling environment.


Even many of us who view competition as PART of a horse's training DO NOT head into a competition unprepared....or thinking that I'm going to school a fence first. OF COURSE you do your homework....but we are not mind readers. If you get to the competition and the CD has thrown an unusual question. Or you find the course BAD....Footing BAD...or someother reason (horse more backed off or sticky than expected...spooking at spectators or JJs etc). Sometimes you scratch....I've done that. It wasn't worth scaring a green horse. Othertimes, you look at the course....and you see if there is a way you can still complete the course without affecting your horse's confidence or having set backs so that the competition does what it is SUPPOSE to do, test your horse....but ALSO further their education....not set it back several months.

Or if you have a problem on the course...as many examples have been shown...and you then need to take actions not exactly planned for but to further you horses education.

Again....many of us will have to agree to disagree. But this "RULE" is stupid and unnecessary in my book. If there are riders who are going at HIGH rates of speed to make time in order to "school" their horses....we already have rules in place to address this. Hit them with a DR. You shouldn't be going Intermediate speeds on a novice course even if you are in "control".... But again...here we go with groups of people attempting to legislate rider responsibility and good horsemanship.

If a pro is doing this consistently to give a sale horses a "clean" record....then talk to that PRO...and say if you continue to see them run their horses' legs off they will get a DR or don't we have that "committee" now that is supposed to catch this kind of pattern of irresponible riding? Isn't that ALREADY a rule.... And honestly...rules should not be made to protect the buyers anyway....what next, penalize Phillip and others who can get around a green horse clean much easier than us mere mortals because it gives that horse a deceptive record?


I see no need for this rule other than people are rule happy....and that IS destroying this sport and taking the focus and energy away from much more important issues.....LIKE perhaps the course design has gotten out of hand so that courses are NO LONGER presenting fair for the level questions and questions fair to ask of horses. Instead it is all about tricking/trapping the horse and rider into making an error with mulitple combinations and skinnies every third fence....instead of galloping and jumping.

[gjump]

I think it probably comes down to how you view competitions: if you see them as part of the horse's training or if you view them as tests to the horse's training. I really don't care how anyone else rides the course. I don't care if they have a different plan for the course or goals for the event to fulfill than I do. I want to have a positive learning experience for myself and for my horse. If that means I win, fantastic. If that means I finish last, so be it. I think we are going to have to agree to disagree.

I also agree....

I am ONLY thinking of my horse's best interst - even if it is a test - and I'd rather have him be happy and confident.

I could school a horse a thousand times over water and and he STILL might be sticky and I would STILL make the same decision.

I did event in the 80's on a WARMBLOOD!! And I did see numerous DR's back then and horses DID die on course and there were rotational falls as well.

If it meant that I would be Eliminated if I did 'school' the water first - so be it - I would still make the same decision because its in the best interest of the horse.

Isn't this sport supposed to be fun???? Not everyone is out to win.

[SevenDogs]

I disagree with this proposed rule change but at the end of the day, it doesn't affect me (I have never schooled or jumped any obstacle not marked for my level except one time by accident). I could repeat a lot of BFNE"s last post (because I believe it is RIGHT ON THE MARK -- right down to the comments on Course Design and discussion of sale horses), but I won't. If this becomes a rule, I will shake my head in disagreement but...whatever...I am unfortunately not surprised.

However, what does concern me GREATLY,, and was touched on by another poster, is the fact that we are focusing on the wrong stuff. We have MUCH BIGGER FISH TO FRY (and NOT at the Lower Levels).

It has been an ongoing concern of mine (that has been expressed in writing several times to USEA and USEF), that we not spend our energy making rules at the lower levels so that it looks like we are doing something. We can rule and regulate the lower levels to death and not get anywhere. I have now spent an enormous amount of time arguing on this board against silly rules that have no chance of creating serious change.

The last few times we have had a rash of accidents in the sport, we got the mandatory armband and time faults for going too fast at the lower levels, among other rules that did NOTHING substantial to improve safety. It will ALWAYS be easier to pass rules like this than to address the real problem. Addressing the real problems is going to be really, really hard and is likely to piss off people that currently hold a lot of power.

My question is: are we going to make real changes or are we going make a bunch of little rules that make sure someone doesn't miss out on a ribbon, make the officials jobs easier, and have no real effect on the problems we face today? I continue to fear that it is the latter, and as long as we can get everyone fully engaged in debating XC schooling or raising minimum ages for competitors, maybe no one notices that we haven't done anything to address the real challenges. It is a time honored political strategy that will likely work here too... at least until the next horse and/or rider is seriously injured or killed.

[GotSpots]

It has been an ongoing concern of mine (that has been expressed in writing several times to USEA and USEF), that we not spend our energy making rules at the lower levels so that it looks like we are doing something. We can rule and regulate the lower levels to death and not get anywhere. It's not USEA making (or suggesting) these rules . . .

[SevenDogs]

It's not USEA making (or suggesting) these rules . . .

Which is why I send all correspondence to both USEA and USEF. I recognize that all rules are made by USEF, but I believe USEA has committees that proposes some of the changes and usually has input. :)

[FlightCheck]

~this year I will announce/control over 30 Recognized Events. Some of those have 550+ entries, some have 225. Let's say the average is 300. From where I announce, I can see an AVERAGE of 6 fences (I can see almost ALL of FHP and only about 3 fences at Greenwood, for example). So, 300x30x6 = 54,000 jumping efforts this year (let's not even talk about SJ)~

This is from a CONTROL point of view, not my view as a competitor. When I compete I don't care what someone else does as well as they are not in my way :)

But, as someone responsible for safety coordination, those who school on XC at a competition are a PITA.

Why? We'll discuss the water first.

1. Most of the schooling DOES go on at N and BN, and usually by more experienced riders on green horses.
2. Riders go out at 2 minutes. Rider #1 chooses to school the water. Fine. Now, I have to worry about (a) making sure the fence judges know (via the td) that schooling is fine, while worrying about the oncoming horse and rider combination that may overtake Rider #1.

3. USUALLY rider #1 canters through water, correctly presents, and goes away. GREAT.

4. However, the following have all happened during the last year (separate incidents)
a. First rider tears up ground around "schooling area"
b. First rider WILL NOT LISTEN to the fence judges and won't move OUT OF THE WATER for the oncoming horse and rider.
c. First rider confuses fence judge, who then stops the ONCOMING rider, creating a MESS.
d. BOTH riders fall off and horses run away
...enough of those

ROPING: roping is a great idea in theory. BUT - that is one more thing that has to change BETWEEN LEVELS of XC while we are trying to move fence judges and move the portables out of the way of the next level (or moving them into place). And roping in a small space scares me, as lower level riders/horses are not used to this.

TIME PENALTIES: Honestly, at BN and N the experienced rider on the horse that just schooled can usually make the time. And when these people are in the same group as the "regular" people who do NOT school the water and have an honest stop, it just irritates me to watch it all day long. Riders should come to COMPETE.

SCHOOLING OTHER OBSTACLES:
This to me is actually more scary. Why? Because there isn't anyone AT those obstacles.
1. "Rider #1 is heading the wrong way into the woods". Is the rider lost? Getting run away with?
2. If a rider/horse gets into trouble (falls, stuck in fence), time is of the essence. For example, if Rider #1 decides to school the Novice ditch in the woods before attempting the Training one, and Rider #1 falls OFF, all I see is a loose horse without knowing where the rider IS or what condition they are in.

Now, I have been at events where a rider IN ADVANCE OF THEIR RIDE has notified the TD that they are planning to jump several P fences while going T (as they are planning on moving up), we have alerted those fence judges within sight of this, and all was well.


So, my 2cents: as a competitor, I don't care. As an Announcer/Controller, it makes MY job easier - sort of like the 1 fall rule.

[SevenDogs]

~
So, my 2cents: as a competitor, I don't care. As an Announcer/Controller, it makes MY job easier - sort of like the 1 fall rule.

I'm gonna keep asking the same question (with no disrespect intended to any officials). SHOULD we be making rules in order to make the jobs of the officials, announcers, etc., easier? My answer is NO. I believe the priority should be on the competitors, first and foremost.

We really need to keep our eye on the ball.

[fooler]

I'm gonna keep asking the same question (with no disrespect intended to any officials). SHOULD we be making rules in order to make the jobs of the officials, announcers, etc., easier? My answer is NO. I believe the priority should be on the competitors, first and foremost.

We really need to keep our eye on the ball.

Actually SevenDogs the competitors are driving this. Look at the examples listed by Retread, FlightCheck & others. More competitors are choosing to 'school' a fence, either after watching another competitor or on their instructor's orders. The more that school, the more opportunities for rider/horse mistakes, as not yielding for the oncoming competitor.

The pro's, who compete constantly, understand the rules and how to handle hic-cups on course. The amateur (raising my hand here) is not practiced at this and so is more likely cause problems if things don't go as planned.

[SevenDogs]

Actually SevenDogs the competitors are driving this. Look at the examples listed by Retread, FlightCheck & others. More competitors are choosing to 'school' a fence, either after watching another competitor or on their instructor's orders. The more that school, the more opportunities for rider/horse mistakes, as not yielding for the oncoming competitor.

The pro's, who compete constantly, understand the rules and how to handle hic-cups on course. The amateur (raising my hand here) is not practiced at this and so is more likely cause problems if things don't go as planned.

Again Fooler, not trying to be adversarial here but SOME competitors are driving this and the ones you named have other roles as well. Flightcheck said she didn't care as a competitor but supported the rule as an announcer and XC Controller. Retread made specific references to her Course Design work and you are a TD. I respect that all of these folks are ALSO riders who may support it from that perspective as well, but unless the entire membership is allowed to weigh in, it isn't really fair to say that the rule is rider driven. From what I am reading, it sounds like it is more official driven (and many of those officials are riders too).

I'm not saying that proponents don't have some good arguments. I do recognize several of your arguments in favor of the rule as valid --

- More people (and less experienced folks) doing it and potentially causing problems. The person that started the spin-off thread "How do I get my Horse's Feet Wet" certainly substantiates your argument here. They saw this thread and got ideas. Still, if they do it dangerously, they should be assessed a DR penalty;

- The whole "I can't let my sale horse have a stop" (you really got me with that one! :)). What an annoying thing to deal with as a TD and not in the spirit of the sport, for sure. I totally agreed with your assessment of what buyers should be looking for in a sale horse. I do tend to forget how much our sport is now "Business Model Driven". Ick.

But, I still feel like we have the rules in place to deal with it and don't need new rules. I hate taking away options from good riders and good horsemen/women because of a few idiots out there. I don't like punishing everyone for the few (never been a fan of zero tolerance for anything). I have a ton of faith in our TD's and Officials that they CAN identify and penalize the idiots with the tools in place.

Again, I don't school -- never had, probably never will (frankly, I want to jump my jumps and nothing more -- nothing more beautiful than the sight of those finish flags! :lol:). I don't even know anyone in my circle that has done it. It isn't going to affect me in the least if it passes (it might even work to my advantage if I cared about ribbon color -- which I don't).

Maybe I am worrying unnecessarily about rules such as this taking precedence over the much more serious conversations that need to be had.... but I don't think I am. Unfortunately, I tend to have a very accurate "worry meter". :(

[bornfreenowexpensive]

Maybe I am worrying unnecessarily about rules such as this taking precedence over the much more serious conversations that need to be had.... but I don't think I am. Unfortunately, I tend to have a very accurate "worry meter". :(


And for me the rule probably would have no impact personally...as I have access to top knotch trainers (should be a hell of a lot better rider) and facilities (including lots of xc schooling)....but am worried about unintended consequences...and see this rule has having a much more significant impact than expected when the problematic riders could already be addressed under the existing rules. Sorry but purposely not getting out of the way of an on coming horse....or ignoring the JJ should be an automatic no brainer of a DR penalty.

[SevenDogs]

...as I have access to top knotch trainers (should be a hell of a lot better rider)

Hilarious! Me too! :winkgrin:

As I like to say... it takes a village just for me to be this crappy!

[fooler]

...but am worried about unintended consequences...and see this rule has having a much more significant impact than expected when the problematic riders could already be addressed under the existing rules. Sorry but purposely not getting out of the way of an on coming horse....or ignoring the JJ should be an automatic no brainer of a DR penalty.

You know in alot of ways you, SevenDogs and I completely agree. I would prefer not to consider such a rule. But the competitors will know going in they will accessed X points if they school if we set a standard penalty. If the only possible penalty is for DR, then folks are more inclined to try it themselves or be coached to do it. Kinda' like going over the speed limit, most of the time you are ok 5 mph over the posted interstate speed limit. But sometimes law enforcement does a crack down on everyone. Ask me how I know ;)

[bornfreenowexpensive]

You know in alot of ways you, SevenDogs and I completely agree. I would prefer not to consider such a rule. But the competitors will know going in they will accessed X points if they school if we set a standard penalty. If the only possible penalty is for DR, then folks are more inclined to try it themselves or be coached to do it. Kinda' like going over the speed limit, most of the time you are ok 5 mph over the posted interstate speed limit. But sometimes law enforcement does a crack down on everyone. Ask me how I know ;)


yes...but if riders are encouraged to THINK...and exercise rider responsibility...wouldn't that be a good thing? In a way...to me it is use at your own risk...if you are stupid, we are going to nail you. If you exercise the traits that we all appreciate in good horsepeople and use good judgment...then you should be fine.

[Gry2Yng]

~this year I will announce/control over 30 Recognized Events. Some of those have 550+ entries, some have 225. Let's say the average is 300. From where I announce, I can see an AVERAGE of 6 fences (I can see almost ALL of FHP and only about 3 fences at Greenwood, for example). So, 300x30x6 = 54,000 jumping efforts this year (let's not even talk about SJ)~

This is from a CONTROL point of view, not my view as a competitor. When I compete I don't care what someone else does as well as they are not in my way :)

But, as someone responsible for safety coordination, those who school on XC at a competition are a PITA.

Why? We'll discuss the water first.

1. Most of the schooling DOES go on at N and BN, and usually by more experienced riders on green horses.
2. Riders go out at 2 minutes. Rider #1 chooses to school the water. Fine. Now, I have to worry about (a) making sure the fence judges know (via the td) that schooling is fine, while worrying about the oncoming horse and rider combination that may overtake Rider #1.

3. USUALLY rider #1 canters through water, correctly presents, and goes away. GREAT.

4. However, the following have all happened during the last year (separate incidents)
a. First rider tears up ground around "schooling area"
b. First rider WILL NOT LISTEN to the fence judges and won't move OUT OF THE WATER for the oncoming horse and rider.
c. First rider confuses fence judge, who then stops the ONCOMING rider, creating a MESS.
d. BOTH riders fall off and horses run away
...enough of those

ROPING: roping is a great idea in theory. BUT - that is one more thing that has to change BETWEEN LEVELS of XC while we are trying to move fence judges and move the portables out of the way of the next level (or moving them into place). And roping in a small space scares me, as lower level riders/horses are not used to this.

TIME PENALTIES: Honestly, at BN and N the experienced rider on the horse that just schooled can usually make the time. And when these people are in the same group as the "regular" people who do NOT school the water and have an honest stop, it just irritates me to watch it all day long. Riders should come to COMPETE.

SCHOOLING OTHER OBSTACLES:
This to me is actually more scary. Why? Because there isn't anyone AT those obstacles.
1. "Rider #1 is heading the wrong way into the woods". Is the rider lost? Getting run away with?
2. If a rider/horse gets into trouble (falls, stuck in fence), time is of the essence. For example, if Rider #1 decides to school the Novice ditch in the woods before attempting the Training one, and Rider #1 falls OFF, all I see is a loose horse without knowing where the rider IS or what condition they are in.

Now, I have been at events where a rider IN ADVANCE OF THEIR RIDE has notified the TD that they are planning to jump several P fences while going T (as they are planning on moving up), we have alerted those fence judges within sight of this, and all was well.


So, my 2cents: as a competitor, I don't care. As an Announcer/Controller, it makes MY job easier - sort of like the 1 fall rule.


This is the first post that has made me consider the other side of instituting this rule. On the whole I am against rules. Flightcheck makes excellent points, however. I also do not have an issue with making rules for the benefit of officials. As I competitor, I couldn't care less from a placing standpoint. I do care from a safety standpoint.

I do not want to ride up behind BNT and find him schooling the water as I am trying to jump in - especially if I am on my greenie who doesn't need to school the water.

ETA: I don't care what someone else does during their ride as long as it is within the rules. I do care to the extent they screw up my ride. Pretty self centered, I know.

[GotSpots]

I do not want to ride up behind BNT and find him schooling the water as I am trying to jump in - especially if I am on my greenie who doesn't need to school the water. I don't disagree that FlightChecks makes some good points, but I guess where I come down on this is that we already have rules to contend with this situation - if BNT is taking an extra pass through the water as you are approaching, either BNT gets out of the way following the rules for overtaking riders, and if he doesn't, the Ground Jury can - and should - issue a DR. (Or I suspect there may be a way to go for a harsher penalty - disqualifing someone maybe for not following officials' orders? Elimination? Something?) The vast majority of the time, I suspect that such "schooling" wouldn't take 2 full minutes, and, even if it did, I suspect the vast majority of riders would be smart enough to get out of the way or get pulled off the course and would, regardless, have a heap of time (you're not going to make up 2+ minutes, even on a BN course). Not a fan of legislating for the outlyers.

If the issue is that the GJ isn't applying the rules they've got at their disposal, that's a different problem, but I don't think we need to keep adding more rules.

[Janet]

ROPING: roping is a great idea in theory. BUT - that is one more thing that has to change BETWEEN LEVELS of XC while we are trying to move fence judges and move the portables out of the way of the next level (or moving them into place). And roping in a small space scares me, as lower level riders/horses are not used to this.
Roping doesn't work, even in theory. Consider a water jump for BN or N which is effectively a "big puddle" with flags at eithe side, aroughly in the middle. You CAN'T rope off the exit side of the puddle, as every rider will go through there when they go through correctly. But, without any obstruction, there is nothing to prevent the "schooler" from circling round to the "backside" of the fence, and getting the horse's feet wet at the exit, then circling round to take it the correct way.

I am beginning to think that maybe what we need is some method for the organizer and/or course designer to designate "no go" zones. Then it would be up to the course designer to decide whether he/she wanted to permit such schooling.

[clm08]

I've seen riders "schooling" their horses in the water on 3 occasions, and none of them caused the next rider to catch up with them. It doesn't take 2 minutes, I suspect not even 1 minute.

I have seen riders been overtaken, but never in the situations being discussed here.

I'd be curious to know what percentage of riders being overtaken are caused by riders "schooling" a jump or taking a detour in their normal path vs. all other more "accepted' causes (i.e., horse underconfident and stopping or running out, rider insecure and opting to trot instead of canter, etc).

So what exactly is the new proposed rule trying to achieve? Is it safety related? Is it to make sure a rider who takes a detour cannot place better than those who went on a straight line? Is it to protect the spectators? Make life easier for officials? Preserve parts of the course that were not meant to be galloped by the CD's design?

Do any of the existing rules not address all of these issues already?

[SevenDogs]

You know in alot of ways you, SevenDogs and I completely agree.

Thanks for saying this, Fooler! I'm sure we aren't all that different on our views -- just what we should do with those that ruin it for everyone else.

Warning -- tongue firmly in cheek ahead!

I say we just issue all of the TD's and other officials electric cattle prods and they just shock the heck out of the riders doing stupid things. Problem solved and it would definitely make an impact! :lol:

[fooler]

Thanks for saying this, Fooler! I'm sure we aren't all that different on our views -- just what we should do with those that ruin it for everyone else.

Warning -- tongue firmly in cheek ahead!

I say we just issue all of the TD's and other officials electric cattle prods and they just shock the heck out of the riders doing stupid things. Problem solved and it would definitely make an impact! :lol:

ROLF - actually the thought has flashed thru the brain of how one could 'offer encouragement without it being unauthorized assistance. . . :D

[Jazzy Lady]

What's worse? A rider who knows their horse is sticky so goes in first and then turns around and comes in and presents, or a rider who presents and their horse is sticking at the edge of the water jump when the next rider is presenting?

I see the latter taking more time than the former.

[gardenie]

"It has been an ongoing concern of mine (that has been expressed in writing several times to USEA and USEF), that we not spend our energy making rules at the lower levels so that it looks like we are doing something. We can rule and regulate the lower levels to death and not get anywhere. I have now spent an enormous amount of time arguing on this board against silly rules that have no chance of creating serious change."

For me, I am getting so tired of rules, expense, and the real lack of joy that is coming into the sport I love(d?). Why are we so worried about what EVERYONE ELSE is doing? I fear we are losing track of what is good about our sport in looking at the little PIA's that just are. So what if someone gets his horse's feet wet, and then jumps in the water jump? I'm one of those folks who occasionally jumps other fences on course for various reasons. I jumped a BN fence on my prelim course as it was in the way. I should be burned at the stake.

Lately when I fork out entry fees, I wonder "why?" And if I'm wondering, then how many people who just are entering the sport are saying after their first competition "Never again!"

[3dazey]

A question for any/all TDs, TD wannabes, rules gurus or rules interpreters: if someone is "schooling" the water and, say, passes behind the entry-point flags or flagged obstacle...and in so doing, falls in the water. How would YOU handle it? What should happen?

[bornfreenowexpensive]

A question for any/all TDs, TD wannabes, rules gurus or rules interpreters: if someone is "schooling" the water and, say, passes behind the entry-point flags or flagged obstacle...and in so doing, falls in the water. How would YOU handle it? What should happen?


Under the existing rules....they have the authority to pull that rider off the course and DQ them. Just as they have the authority to stop a rider who looks out of control in warm up...stadium...or dressage. So my guess would be it would depend on the fall.....but given today's current climate...most officials would probably yank them off the course. Again...do not need a new rule to do any of this...just use what is already existing.

[asterix]

I'm one of those folks who occasionally jumps other fences on course for various reasons. I jumped a BN fence on my prelim course as it was in the way. I should be burned at the stake.


Look, people, I really don't think this proposal is _intended_ to demonize the average eventer who may occasionally choose to school the water or jump a coop on the way to something else. It has come about because a number of organizers, officials, and volunteer coordinators (and I've heard from several folks via PM on this too) are seeing an increasing use of this by a small number of people in a way that presents problems for the volunteers and/or officials, and is not, frankly, sportsmanlike. They are wrestling with HOW to address this problem.

I know you don't like to the notion that we make a rule to "make officials' lives easier" but in my experience, most officials, organizers, and volunteers do this because they love the sport and want to run good competitions. Sure, if someone chooses a different route to school the water, or jumps a T fence on the P line, and they do it in an unsafe way and nearly run down a spectator, they could and should get a DR.

But, think about that -- now you've had incident where someone nearly got run over. You've got a jump judge now worried about keeping some whole OTHER area besides her own jump clear. You've got a TD who had to run around with her hair on fire sorting this out.

Trust me, a couple of those over a weekend makes for frazzled folks and a sense that the competition wasn't well run or smooth or fun.

If a 5 pt penalty offered a modest disincentive to do that, that might be a great solution. If you are an amateur just out to have a good, educational go, have at it. 5 pts is not a big deal. If you are there to be competitive or show that your horse is really a training horse (and justifies a training price tag), well, then, let's not be coy about it. do your prep or take the penalty.

It is not an evil plot to take away the sport you love.

[fooler]

Look, people, I really don't think this proposal is _intended_ to demonize the average eventer who may occasionally choose to school the water or jump a coop on the way to something else. It has come about because a number of organizers, officials, and volunteer coordinators (and I've heard from several folks via PM on this too) are seeing an increasing use of this by a small number of people in a way that presents problems for the volunteers and/or officials, and is not, frankly, sportsmanlike. They are wrestling with HOW to address this problem.

I know you don't like to the notion that we make a rule to "make officials' lives easier" but in my experience, most officials, organizers, and volunteers do this because they love the sport and want to run good competitions. Sure, if someone chooses a different route to school the water, or jumps a T fence on the P line, and they do it in an unsafe way and nearly run down a spectator, they could and should get a DR.

But, think about that -- now you've had incident where someone nearly got run over. You've got a jump judge now worried about keeping some whole OTHER area besides her own jump clear. You've got a TD who had to run around with her hair on fire sorting this out.

Trust me, a couple of those over a weekend makes for frazzled folks and a sense that the competition wasn't well run or smooth or fun.

If a 5 pt penalty offered a modest disincentive to do that, that might be a great solution. If you are an amateur just out to have a good, educational go, have at it. 5 pts is not a big deal. If you are there to be competitive or show that your horse is really a training horse (and justifies a training price tag), well, then, let's not be coy about it. do your prep or take the penalty.

It is not an evil plot to take away the sport you love.

Well Stated!

[Ja Da Dee]

So, will organizers have judges assigned to all the jumps on course so they can assess the penalty if someone jumps one not flagged for their level?

I don't have any problem with rules to make life easier for the organizer and officials.
I happen to believe that for safety sake, sometimes it's better to jump the smaller jump - could be for the horse or the rider- before jumping the bigger jump. In tle's ditch example, having an "interesting" jump over the novice jump, then going to the training jump; couldn't it have potentially have been down right dangerous for that pair to have tried the training ditch first?

[bornfreenowexpensive]

Trust me, a couple of those over a weekend makes for frazzled folks and a sense that the competition wasn't well run or smooth or fun.




and they will still be frazzled if they have to deal with a horse stopping, another quicker horse overtaking a competitior....scary looking jumping, falls and all of the other similar issues that can arise whether or not someone is "schooling" at an event.

This "rule" is being made as a result of small group of individuals....don't like that.

The ones really causing issues can already be addressed under the existing rules....instead you will now have to instruct JJs on a new rule to remember and a notation to make on their score sheets. It is open to interpretation and will likely have unanticipated effects.


Sorry...still not seeing a good reason for this rule other than the very very very limited one of someone trying to make their horse's record look better than it should....which honestly isn't a good enough reason for a rule in my mind.

This is making officials jobs easier by taking away their discretionary power to enforce rules they already have.....it worked oh so well with our justice system;) I'd rather officials just used their discretion. And I'd rather not punish the majority of the good riders who take these sorts of actions for the benefit/interest of their horse.....fostering riders thinking of their horse first and not punishing someone who does.

And how is it making JJ less frazzled when now a rider can school....creating the same issues...just now the JJ has to note the penalty? Riders might now go even faster to make sure that they come well under the time...... Who knows what "incentive" this might create.

[SevenDogs]

Look, people, I really don't think this proposal is _intended_ to demonize the average eventer who may occasionally choose to school the water or jump a coop on the way to something else. It has come about because a number of organizers, officials, and volunteer coordinators (and I've heard from several folks via PM on this too) are seeing an increasing use of this by a small number of people in a way that presents problems for the volunteers and/or officials, and is not, frankly, sportsmanlike. They are wrestling with HOW to address this problem.

I know you don't like to the notion that we make a rule to "make officials' lives easier" but in my experience, most officials, organizers, and volunteers do this because they love the sport and want to run good competitions. Sure, if someone chooses a different route to school the water, or jumps a T fence on the P line, and they do it in an unsafe way and nearly run down a spectator, they could and should get a DR.

But, think about that -- now you've had incident where someone nearly got run over. You've got a jump judge now worried about keeping some whole OTHER area besides her own jump clear. You've got a TD who had to run around with her hair on fire sorting this out.

Trust me, a couple of those over a weekend makes for frazzled folks and a sense that the competition wasn't well run or smooth or fun.

If a 5 pt penalty offered a modest disincentive to do that, that might be a great solution. If you are an amateur just out to have a good, educational go, have at it. 5 pts is not a big deal. If you are there to be competitive or show that your horse is really a training horse (and justifies a training price tag), well, then, let's not be coy about it. do your prep or take the penalty.

It is not an evil plot to take away the sport you love.

So basically Asterix, when you asked our input on this thread, you really didn't want it unless we agreed with the proposed rule change.

[asterix]

SevenDogs, why don't you please READ my original post?

My coach sent this question to me -- I simply posted it AS IS. What she sent me was a note saying the intention was to penalize schooling, and the question posed was HOW should this be done, if it is to be done.

I had never thought about this issue, and I had no idea the rule was being proposed. I simply passed along her request for feedback.

If you read the thread, you will see that as time went on, I saw that what happened was that mostly people posted about how they didn't agree with the proposed rule itself; I had no idea this would happen. I tried at least once to get people to consider HOW the rule would work IF it were passed, since this is what I was asked to gather input on

But the thread went its own direction, as they so often do. I posted again more than once to assure everyone that I have passed along both the substance and the quantity of objection to the rule itself to my coach. As the discussion evolved I thought about the issue myself and have an opinion, which I have expressed, just like everyone else.

I know you disagree with me, and that's absolutely fine; good arguments have been raised on the other side of this issue.

But I take some offense, I have to say, at the notion that I came on here to get opinions I agree with. That's simply not true, and if you take the time to go back to the beginning, you will see so.

[purplnurpl]

If a 5 pt penalty offered a modest disincentive to do that, that might be a great solution. If you are an amateur just out to have a good, educational go, have at it. 5 pts is not a big deal. If you are there to be competitive or show that your horse is really a training horse (and justifies a training price tag), well, then, let's not be coy about it. do your prep or take the penalty.

It is not an evil plot to take away the sport you love.

Or, If the rider would have had to'uv gotten the OK from the PGJ before hand so that they know what is going on. My guess is actually asking the authorities would cut down on 90% of the stupids out there. If there is no OK, then DR penalty points are issued.

Honestly, I think it is just common courtesy to let the officials know before hand anyhow.

[SevenDogs]

SevenDogs, why don't you please READ my original post?

My coach sent this question to me -- I simply posted it AS IS. What she sent me was a note saying the intention was to penalize schooling, and the question posed was HOW should this be done, if it is to be done.

I had never thought about this issue, and I had no idea the rule was being proposed. I simply passed along her request for feedback.

If you read the thread, you will see that as time went on, I saw that what happened was that mostly people posted about how they didn't agree with the proposed rule itself; I had no idea this would happen. I tried at least once to get people to consider HOW the rule would work IF it were passed, since this is what I was asked to gather input on

But the thread went its own direction, as they so often do. I posted again more than once to assure everyone that I have passed along both the substance and the quantity of objection to the rule itself to my coach. As the discussion evolved I thought about the issue myself and have an opinion, which I have expressed, just like everyone else.

I know you disagree with me, and that's absolutely fine; good arguments have been raised on the other side of this issue.

But I take some offense, I have to say, at the notion that I came on here to get opinions I agree with. That's simply not true, and if you take the time to go back to the beginning, you will see so.

I have read all of the posts thoroughly. Since your original post ended with "Have at it", you must have realized this would be controversial. When your recent post started "Look people", it sounded exasperated that others were not agreeing to the change post had a tone that those in disagreement with the rules just didn't understand. We do, believe me... we understand. We just don't think it is a good idea. I am also with BFNE, that the whole thing smacks of being pushed through by a small group who are not looking out for the best interest of the competitors.

[Lori T]

As someone who's background was competing jumpers and then hunters, before converting to the dark side, you can bet this is something you would never see in another discipline. I find it just plain wrong! If the rest of us can make the time to travel somewhere to school, or stay after the event to school, then so can those who feel the need to "school" during a competition. I see too many complications, as Flightcheck has pointed out.

[asterix]

No, I didn't realize that the RULE would be controversial. I anticipated a lively discussion about HOW to frame it, which is what I asked for. I figured people would talk about should it be just the water, should it actually be penalties vs. maybe a time addition, etc etc.

I know you don't know me, and I'm trying not to take this personally. But I am a straight up kind of person. I was not trying to create a problem.

As I said, I have read the responses and have passed them along. What did start to get on my nerves, which is why I posted that last post you refer to, is the theme emerging that people should get to do whatever they want on cross country and shouldn't be hemmed in by a lot of stupid rules. I know several organizers and officials, and they work extremely hard to prep the courses for competitors and to make sure they are going to have a good go. They don't always get it right, but they are NOT trying to take away people's fun. Sometimes they mow a path in the field because there is bad footing in another pathway -- one local HT puts goose decoys along one area to discourage shortcuts, in part because the ground isn't very good there.

So while the actual arguments everyone has advanced about why the rule isn't a good idea seem sensible to me, the tone that those bad officials are just narrow minded killjoys was getting on my nerves.
I'm sorry I let that get to me.

I suspect (but do not know) that this rule change DOES come from a small group of people; perhaps I am naive, but I would guess this is true of many rule changes.

What I can say is that this thread has provided a much bigger window into how many folks outside that small group feel about this, and I promise you I have and will continue to make that known back to my coach (presumably part of the small group). I would think that would be a good thing for those who think this rule is misguided.

I have been nothing but honest and straightforward on this thread. I am sorry if you have misread my intentions and I guess I should have stayed completely out of the (technically OT) discussion that ensued.

[bambam]

maybe she is exasperated that after 10 pages of this, almost no one has addressed the questions she actually asked. Not uncommon on COTH and the thread can go where the thread goes, but that does not mean it is not exasperating to the OP who was actually seeking an answer/information/input on the question asked - shrug
I suspect the casting negative aspersions on the motives of those who support the rule was somewhat troublesome too
I understand that you feel strongly on this subject sevendogs and that is great but there is no reason to get snarky to the OP about it

[Ja Da Dee]

As someone who's background was competing jumpers and then hunters, before converting to the dark side, you can bet this is something you would never see in another discipline. I find it just plain wrong! If the rest of us can make the time to travel somewhere to school, or stay after the event to school, then so can those who feel the need to "school" during a competition. I see too many complications, as Flightcheck has pointed out.


I find coaching during the acutal competition and trainers riding students horses during the competition just plain wrong too, doesn't mean I go there and advocate for rule changes.

[Ja Da Dee]

maybe she is exasperated that after 10 pages of this, almost no one has addressed the questions she actually asked. Not uncommon on COTH and the thread can go where the thread goes, but that does not mean it is not exasperating to the OP who was actually seeking an answer/information/input on the question asked - shrug
I suspect the casting negative aspersions on the motives of those who support the rule was somewhat troublesome too
I understand that you feel strongly on this subject sevendogs and that is great but there is no reason to get snarky to the OP about it

Many of us believe the best way to handle it is to not impliment the rule. Offering options for penaltys often makes people believe everyone agrees with the rule proposal

[SevenDogs]

maybe she is exasperated that after 10 pages of this, almost no one has addressed the questions she actually asked. Not uncommon on COTH and the thread can go where the thread goes, but that does not mean it is not exasperating to the OP who was actually seeking an answer/information/input on the question asked - shrug
I suspect the casting negative aspersions on the motives of those who support the rule was somewhat troublesome too
I understand that you feel strongly on this subject sevendogs and that is great but there is no reason to get snarky to the OP about it

Not being snarky at all. If you put the questions out there, be prepared for answers you may not want. Again, her "Have at it" last line of the OP clearly shows she knew there might be controversy.

[bornfreenowexpensive]

As someone who's background was competing jumpers and then hunters, before converting to the dark side, you can bet this is something you would never see in another discipline.


In both hunters and jumpers ....you can school in the ring during the schooling/warm up classes, and there are other classes that you can enter in prep for a big class....and why they have those prep classes. Eventing is one of the only disciplines that you both don't get another shot at a course (only one "class" per HT) and you often can never school over the xc course except for the few courses that open for schooling.

And you can get coached/have your trainer school your horse. Sports are just different.

[bambam]

she likely thought there would be differences of opinion on what the penalty could be and how it could be structured to achieve its purpose but not have unintended and negative consequences- and no I am not a mind reader, I think she actually said that. I guess she is hiding her real intentions :winkgrin::winkgrin:
The comment about guessing the OP did not want anyone to post unless they agreed with her was not snarky? I guess we have different standards for respectfully disagreeing and constructive debate :);)

[bambam]

Many of us believe the best way to handle it is to not impliment the rule. Offering options for penaltys often makes people believe everyone agrees with the rule proposal
good point

[SevenDogs]

she likely thought there would be differences of opinion on what the penalty could be and how it could be structured to achieve its purpose but not have unintended and negative consequences- and no I am not a mind reader, I think she actually said that. I guess she is hiding her real intentions :winkgrin::winkgrin:
The comment about guessing the OP did not want anyone to post unless they agreed with her was not snarky? I guess we have different standards for respectfully disagreeing and constructive debate :);)

Joke ahead alert!

Sort of like starting a thread on what method the death penalty should use and not expecting a debate of the death penalty itself? :) ;)

Seriously, I don't mean disrespect to anyone but her exasperation was palpable that there was so much opposition to the rule itself (hint: you might not want to start a post with "look people", if you don't want to be taken the wrong way). My apologies if I seemed snarky.

[asterix]

Sigh. I have already explained why I said "have at it". Sorry you don't believe me.
We all know the death penalty is controversial. I did not think that this would be; I had never thought much about it and was just passing it along. Stupid? Apparently. Disingenuous? No.

I'm done with this. As I have repeatedly said, I will make sure the reactions here are heard.

[SevenDogs]

Sigh. I have already explained why I said "have at it". Sorry you don't believe me.
We all know the death penalty is controversial. I did not think that this would be; I had never thought much about it and was just passing it along. Stupid? Apparently. Disingenuous? No.

I'm done with this. As I have repeatedly said, I will make sure the reactions here are heard.

Asterix: I don't think you are stupid or disingenuous. I think your intentions were good -- it was a more controversial topic than you thought it would be -- that's all. People have strong feelings on both sides. Let's put this part of the thread aside and go forward from here. OK?

[flea]

Maybe I am confused. Was the OP saying the organizers wanted to implement a rule at a recognized or schooling show? Or were they just putting out ideas. They can't put in the rule at a recognized event as you have to follow established rules right? Maybe its the Miller Light...I am missing something. I like Coors better anyway.

[Janet]

Maybe I am confused. Was the OP saying the organizers wanted to implement a rule at a recognized or schooling show? Or were they just putting out ideas. They can't put in the rule at a recognized event as you have to follow established rules right? Maybe its the Miller Light...I am missing something. I like Coors better anyway.
They want to make a rule change proposal to the USEF.

[frugalannie]

I'll say once again that I think a 6 or 8 point penalty should be assessed at Prelim and above where horses should know how to get their feet wet on the first try or jump a ditch or whatever.

The practice should be allowed at Training and lower with the only penalty being accrued time. However, on reading the above posts, I would add that the rider should be required to review their planned course with an official (TD or PGJ) so that any safety concerns can be addressed, and if the officials say "no", it's a no go.

Just my two cents.