PDA

View Full Version : CHP - Letters will be written - video added pg. 6



Pages : [1] 2

a1ngot8r
Jun. 13, 2010, 07:32 PM
Beautiful facility but....poor organization, terrible footing even before cross country, big holes in the main tracks, sub par course, horrendous officiating, cheap prizes....really too bad as it was a great event last year. Letters of complaint will be written. They should have spent more time being organized and less on making sure the parking was policed, that was the least of their problems :-(

RAyers
Jun. 13, 2010, 07:57 PM
Which CHP?

Reed

gully's pilot
Jun. 13, 2010, 08:00 PM
Surely you don't mean Carolina Horse Park? The footing there has always been super.

RAyers
Jun. 13, 2010, 08:06 PM
And the Colorado Horse Park I thought it actually held up pretty good under almost 2" of rain.

Reed

Coppers mom
Jun. 13, 2010, 10:00 PM
If we're talking about the Carolina Horse Park, I've never found the organization terribly well done in the warm up rings, but everywhere else seemed pretty good.

I too am interested in which CHP the OP is talking about.

eventrider
Jun. 13, 2010, 10:00 PM
I am guessing Colorado Horse Park as the poster seems to be a west coast based rider and there hasnt been an event at Carolina Horse Park in about 2 weeks.....Colorado HP ran an event this weekend.

NeverTime
Jun. 13, 2010, 10:09 PM
OP, sounds like your trainer had a bad weekend in the one-star, falling off one horse and getting a 45 penalty on the other -- what do you get 45 points for?
I imagine the folks at the horse park would be open to any constructive criticism, just make sure it sounds that way and not like sour grapes because your crew had a bad weekend (if that's the case, maybe just one person had a not-so-great time)!
I had a friend who ran who thought it was just fabulous. Then again, she finished second in her division, so she didn't have much to complain about! :p

JER
Jun. 13, 2010, 10:23 PM
'Cheap prizes'? :eek:

If you don't like the prizes on offer -- which are almost always listed in the omnibus info -- don't enter.

4Martini
Jun. 13, 2010, 11:07 PM
Wow- all I can say is props to CHP for keeping an event going this weekend! The weather was horrendous.

DH was helping with a kayaking event that nearly got canceled due to the flooding and all of the associated biking and running events were canceled. The only events that didn't get canceled were the kayaking and the doggie cannonball contests.

I am amazed they could run the event! (And that I'm so out of the loop with a new baby that I didn't even know it was this weekend.)

lizajane09
Jun. 13, 2010, 11:33 PM
-- what do you get 45 points for?


You know, I actually sat here a minute and thought about that since it does seem like an odd number. The only thing that came to mind - isn't it possible to get a DR penalty of 25 points assessed, so perhaps that plus a stop?

... I have no idea who the OP, or the OP's trainer, is, but I'm always curious about the ways in which we can acquire various penalties. Plus I like making numbers add up. Just the dork in me, I suppose ;).

Meredith Clark
Jun. 13, 2010, 11:54 PM
You know, I actually sat here a minute and thought about that since it does seem like an odd number. The only thing that came to mind - isn't it possible to get a DR penalty of 25 points assessed, so perhaps that plus a stop?

... I have no idea who the OP, or the OP's trainer, is, but I'm always curious about the ways in which we can acquire various penalties. Plus I like making numbers add up. Just the dork in me, I suppose ;).

From what I see in the rule book the only way to get a x-country penalty score ending in a 5 is to have a DR. So it could be a refusal and a DR, or willful delay and a DR.. something.

RoeVee
Jun. 14, 2010, 12:06 AM
'horrendous officiating' - what caused that? Bad dressage marks?

I was there in the T division - I thought they did a TREMENDOUS job in light of the weather. I don't know of any other venue in our area that could have run in those conditions! That was a ton of water in a very short time. Warm-up got a bit sketchy - but I don't think that should have come as a surprise to anyone - we had *inches* of rain and there were 150+ competitors.....

But definitely an interesting weekend.

Nevertime - on the crazy side - not sure if we are referring to the same trainer or not, but a 'BNT' fell off at an unmarked water on the * star course apparently because a spectator was there and 'caused' her to fall (multiple horses/riders had issues with this non-flagged water). But the 'BNT's followers' were actually complaining LOUDLY for everyone in the stabling to hear, that it shouldn't count as a fall. Bizarre.

SevenDogs
Jun. 14, 2010, 12:14 AM
OP, sounds like your trainer had a bad weekend in the one-star, falling off one horse and getting a 45 penalty on the other -- what do you get 45 points for?
I imagine the folks at the horse park would be open to any constructive criticism, just make sure it sounds that way and not like sour grapes because your crew had a bad weekend (if that's the case, maybe just one person had a not-so-great time)!
I had a friend who ran who thought it was just fabulous. Then again, she finished second in her division, so she didn't have much to complain about! :p

BINGO!!!!

The only way I know that someone can get XC jump penalties (not time penalties) ending in a "5" is if Dangerous riding is assessed (25 penalties).

I am guessing this is the same rider who loudly complained to anyone who would listen at a previous event (and I believe filed a protest of some sort), that a refusal was caused by a foam log "squeaking" when her horse hit it SEVERAL strides before the fence it refused. ....it was RIDICULOUS and spoke volumes.

Hello sportmanship?

Maryalden
Jun. 14, 2010, 01:29 AM
Oh! Do tell. What is a doggie cannonball contest? Sounds like fun! ;-)

saje
Jun. 14, 2010, 04:46 AM
Results look as though they had a successful event despite the weather. Not an inordinate number of errors on XC, not even that many time penalties. Stadium looks like the wet may have had a role, but maybe it was just a clever course designer :)

The OPs post sounds like sour grapes to me...

LisaB
Jun. 14, 2010, 07:16 AM
Is this the type of person I'm going to look forward to???
REED! Help me! I don't wanna go if this person events!

Equibrit
Jun. 14, 2010, 07:25 AM
I was gobsmacked that somebody goes eventing for the prizes.
The best one I ever got was a bucket, awarded for the neatest entry.

glfprncs
Jun. 14, 2010, 07:39 AM
Oh! Do tell. What is a doggie cannonball contest? Sounds like fun! ;-)

Maryalden...this is what I believe they were referring to:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QS7gd6enjE

3dazey
Jun. 14, 2010, 07:45 AM
Nevertime - on the crazy side - not sure if we are referring to the same trainer or not, but a 'BNT' fell off at an unmarked water on the * star course apparently because a spectator was there and 'caused' her to fall (multiple horses/riders had issues with this non-flagged water). But the 'BNT's followers' were actually complaining LOUDLY for everyone in the stabling to hear, that it shouldn't count as a fall. Bizarre.

Confusing! Did the "BNT" get an RF (or an E) for falling at an unmarked water? That shouldn't have caused any penalty other than probably time and injured pride. Not familiar with the venue, the course or the situation but it all sounds pretty strange.

Calling Duck
Jun. 14, 2010, 07:48 AM
BEST prize I ever won was at an unrecognized HT at Fair Hill...years ago...John Nunn of Bit of Britian donated items. I won a yellow plastic sweat scraper and sponge and shampoo. And because it was a prize I won on a horse with "left leads are optional" problems, given to me as a project when everyone else gave up...well, it was a fun way to remember a great personal accomplishment. That yellow sweat scraper went to a lot more comptetitions in the years to follow. All good efforts.

Back in the day, I groomed at Essex, Radnor, Chesterland, you name it. Saw lots and lots of prizes come and go. But man, that yellow sweat scraper for an unrecognized novice horse trial was the BEST.

It is not the prize, but what it represents.

DLee
Jun. 14, 2010, 07:59 AM
Confusing! Did the "BNT" get an RF (or an E) for falling at an unmarked water? That shouldn't have caused any penalty other than probably time and injured pride. Not familiar with the venue, the course or the situation but it all sounds pretty strange.

Isn't a fall anywhere an E?

saje
Jun. 14, 2010, 08:05 AM
I think it depends on whether it's an FEI division or not. I believe that in FEI divisions a fall *anywhere* is an E (well, a RF) but in USEF/USEA divisions only a fall directly associated with a flagged obstacle is an E/RF.

(Or do I have that backwards...?)



Also there was a question earlier about incurring 25 penalties. DR will get you 25, but also if you break a frangible jump you get 25 penalties.



Breaking a frangible obstacle/device- -- 25 penalties*

*Ground Juries have the discretion to decide if the 25 penalties* apply, when such device, deformable structure or any obstacle breaks (without a fall of horse & rider). As a reminder, Appeals are not admissible against decisions by the Ground Jury in relation to dangerous riding.

Dr. Doolittle
Jun. 14, 2010, 08:09 AM
Isn't a fall anywhere an E?

A (rider) fall has to be "related to a jump" in order to count as a fall, in which case it's an "E". (If the fall occurs somewhere on course *not* near--or caused by--a flagged obstacle, the rider can remount and continue...)

RAyers
Jun. 14, 2010, 08:47 AM
Confusing! Did the "BNT" get an RF (or an E) for falling at an unmarked water? That shouldn't have caused any penalty other than probably time and injured pride. Not familiar with the venue, the course or the situation but it all sounds pretty strange.


If this is who I think it is, the fall was actually caused by spectators "hiding" (jumping in or out?) in the bushes near the water. I don't blame the rider for being angry.

3dazy, this water crossing is where the old double banks down into the pool and then a brush out used to be. I still remember when you did it in classic "cowboy" fashion. Gorgeous.

Gry2Yng
Jun. 14, 2010, 08:49 AM
Until the penalty for breaking jump was added, DR was the only way to get a 5 in your xc score. By design?????

RunForIt
Jun. 14, 2010, 08:52 AM
If this is who I think it is, the fall was actually caused by spectators "hiding" (jumping in or out?) in the bushes near the water. I don't blame the rider for being angry.

3dazy, this water crossing is where the old double banks down into the pool and then a brush out used to be. I still remember when you did it in classic "cowboy" fashion. Gorgeous.

awww...super compliment for a super eventer! italics and bolded text added by me! :cool:

RAyers
Jun. 14, 2010, 08:52 AM
Is this the type of person I'm going to look forward to???
REED! Help me! I don't wanna go if this person events!

I am not positive who it is, however when the BNT who fell off at the unmarked water spoke, she did not sound too bitter to me. She sounded frustrated, like any rider would had it happened to them. I am not sure who this poster is.

Like every where else there are always a few disappointed folks.

FLeckenAwesome
Jun. 14, 2010, 09:56 AM
So...sorta an aside, but I love the cannonball contest!!! How fun!!!
I laughed though because that is exactly how Fleck used to jump the banks into water! Whhhheeeeeee!!! Cannonball!

cohorsin
Jun. 14, 2010, 10:25 AM
I have to say BRAVO to the riders, volunteers, organizers, that participated in the horse trial over the weekend. What a challenge it must have been! I was there on Saturday and I noticed 4 or 5 people fell off at the un-marked water- amazing.

LisaB
Jun. 14, 2010, 11:30 AM
I'm just not liking the fact that someone posts on the internet as an alter bashing an event without giving facts and specifics. Nor, going through the channels first. Just pitchfork and torching. I don't like that mentality at all.

riderboy
Jun. 14, 2010, 11:31 AM
I have to say BRAVO to the riders, volunteers, organizers, that participated in the horse trial over the weekend. What a challenge it must have been! I was there on Saturday and I noticed 4 or 5 people fell off at the un-marked water- amazing.

I'm just reading this from afar, but why would there be so many falls at an unmarked water? The spectators in the bushes thing, well, that is more than enough reason to get your knickers in a twist.

StrawberryFields
Jun. 14, 2010, 11:47 AM
that video was funny...i know (off topic).

Tamara in TN
Jun. 14, 2010, 11:48 AM
Just pitchfork and torching. I don't like that mentality at all.

but pitchforking and torching is so much more colorful and lends itself later to hotdogs,marshmallows and rousing SUI choruses of "kumbya"

:)

Tamara in TN

cohorsin
Jun. 14, 2010, 12:37 PM
Riderboy I spoke with our trainer who rode two horses that day and she said that her Training ride put the brakes on at that water and surprised her and she almost fell off. The horses had already gone through two waters and it was at the end of the course. There were alot of people crossing through the water there and I guess it's possible that the people in bushes could have spooked some horses. Very unfortunate for those that had a clean round up until that point.

bambam
Jun. 14, 2010, 12:42 PM
who says it is an alter?
I was less put off by the OP than I was by the ganging up that was starting to happen here based on no information and negative assumptions :no:

nature
Jun. 14, 2010, 01:08 PM
www.evententries.com has the scores in detail You can see you got 45 on cross country a dn what everybody else got too!!

RAyers
Jun. 14, 2010, 01:11 PM
I'm just reading this from afar, but why would there be so many falls at an unmarked water? The spectators in the bushes thing, well, that is more than enough reason to get your knickers in a twist.

Had we NOT had 2" of rain in 2 days (that is more than 15% of our TOTAL annual precipitation), that "unmarked" water would not have existed. It is actually a steam crossing and the depression there results in a nice pool, just like any place where ponies cross a stream.

While I understand the idea behind the OP, I think that CHP did a tremendous job and the footing held up better than I ever saw over the 15 years I have run horses there.

Reed

LisaB
Jun. 14, 2010, 01:38 PM
Cripes, the OP should run at Rubicon then. I had 3 unmarked stream crossings.
FOR SHAME! :D
And Tamara, I'll bring the marshmallows then!

4Martini
Jun. 14, 2010, 03:09 PM
Sorry for the off topic.

Here is an article on the competition from last year:
http://www.elevationoutdoors.com/index.php/it%E2%80%99s-a-dog%E2%80%99s-life-the-lyons-outdoors-games-canine-cannonball/

It was a blast. The top two dogs were absolutely amazing (I'm pretty sure it's the winner in the first photo.) Our dog got I think 4th in her first competition. (Picture me with baby in one hand, dog by the collar in the other while DH launches the tennis ball and I try to let go right as it reaches the highest part of it's trajectory.)

We could use any tips on improving her form to make her jump higher rather than just out.

a1ngot8r
Jun. 14, 2010, 04:30 PM
OK, I aplogize and retract the cheap prizes remark. That was uncalled for and more of a general frustration. I now realize that making that kind of remark on here gets everyone excited quickly.

On to the main topics:

I am talking about footing before the CC started. There were big holes in the main tracks on the course, that we did report. We marked them where possible. Someone came through and had filled a few of them with some spiney cactus material......glad no one fell there...ouch!

BNT was not happy about horse being spooked, she was frustrated as anyone would be but.....that stuff happens. A ditch on course that looked half built. There was more, but I guess that really doesn't matter.

However, and everyone who was there agrees, other BNT's, other officials, that getting a DR for backing up and trotting a small log jump was absolutely ridiculous. On what planet does that qualify as DR? Not written in any rule book that USEF, USEA, FEI or any other governing body has written.

This rider was totally underserving of a DR, there were some in other divisions that were talked to about DR but were not assigned the penalty. This person is dedicated to our sport and devotes much of extra time and energy to helping people and supporting young riders. To assign a DR penalty where one was not deserved was uncalled for and only in my opinion counter productive and with questionable intent.

In addition, during stadium, having a malfuntioning timer that went off not only during the Training division, but also during the 1*

What is it people say on this board? "flamesuit on!" (Do I wear that over or under my inflatable vest)

Good Intentions
Jun. 14, 2010, 08:36 PM
We all Thank Colorado Horse Park for an outstanding job running a FEI and HT event this weekend....especially under the weather conditions. As with any event there are places that can be improved if we get nit picky....however for the most part the organizers and course builder did a fantastic job!

To clear the air......I was the BNT that had a RF on one horse as well as a DR on another. I was not happy with the unfortunant spook of my horse which resulted in him doing a 180 in one stride which then resulted in my falling off. However, that is eventing and the young talented horse needs some education on scary people hiding in bushes. I was frustrated as it is a huge expense and a long drive to not get a qualifing result. The person that spooked my horse had chocolates and flowers at my stall before I had even returned....apologizing for the incident. It's called stuff happens.

As far as my DR, I do believe in my opinion, it was unfair. I was approaching a vertical log that measured 3'4 and my horse stopped. I did a simple rein back......as if I were in a dressage test.....I did not use a rough hand....I simply went backwards....enough to canter 4 to 5 very collected canter strides jumping the log and continuing on in the course. The PGJ stated it was "inappropriate" and instead of giving me a yellow card gave me a DR penalty.

The OP is the owner of the horse I was riding and is as I am frustrated with the actions of the PGJ. I spoke to her in length several times to resolve the misunderstanding. She specifically stated that I did not have a ride that would be classified as a DR, however she felt the action of backing the horse up was "inappropriate". Respectively she is the PGJ and has the final say of what is appropriate and inappropriate. I disagreed and still beleive it was unfair.

My weekend was not one I would like to remember as one of my finest, however I have several positive things that came from the weekend. . . . .
My students rode great! My young horse won his first event with me, I got to see my best friend and lots of other good friends, and I'm glad I was riding in my hit air vest because the only bruise I have is one on the tip of my thumb.

Hopefully that helps clear the air and thanks CHP for putting on another West Coast FEI competition! :)

Gry2Yng
Jun. 14, 2010, 08:55 PM
As far as my DR, I do believe in my opinion, it was unfair. I was approaching a vertical log that measured 3'4 and my horse stopped. I did a simple rein back......as if I were in a dressage test.....I did not use a rough hand....I simply went backwards....enough to canter 4 to 5 very collected canter strides jumping the log and continuing on in the course. The PGJ stated it was "inappropriate" and instead of giving me a yellow card gave me a DR penalty.



IMVHO, this is the discussion that needs to be had. Appropriate or inappropriate? You, as a rider, thought it was appropriate. The official did not. No rule. So, we should hash it out in some way, because if it was as you say. Others may do the same and get DR'd for it.

Good Intentions
Jun. 14, 2010, 09:00 PM
My advise would be not to rein back at all after a refusal unless you plan on risking a DR penalty.

FlightCheck
Jun. 14, 2010, 09:16 PM
there are always 3 sides to any story.

I was there, saw the problem that got the Dr, and the subsequent fallout.

No comment.

Good Intentions
Jun. 14, 2010, 09:22 PM
I will post the video when I receive it....I think this should be turned into an educational lesson

a1ngot8r
Jun. 14, 2010, 09:26 PM
I am the OP. Just to clarify, In no way do my comments reflect any opinions or comments made by my trainer. These comments I have made are just that, MY opinions and comments.

HappyRiding
Jun. 14, 2010, 09:30 PM
I thought the only problem was their announcements about arena changes(they had the dressage arenas wrong in the program and did T-2** in the grand prix not derby), when sj could be walked saturday, and the very late update on where the competitors party would be and left out you needing to bring your number.

XC warmup footing wasnt the best but the course held up very nicely and the footing in stadium was nice enough even with the lakes in the arenas!

Meredith Clark
Jun. 14, 2010, 10:03 PM
That's a shame you got a DR if you feel you didn't deserve it.

I think the DR penalty is a very important penalty to have in eventing for the safety of riders and horses but its subjective nature makes it very difficult.

I look forward to the video as a learning experience and thank you in advance for sharing it. :yes:

Coppers mom
Jun. 14, 2010, 10:41 PM
Why would you rein back after a stop? Especially far enough for 4-5 canter strides, even very collected ones? Why not just turn around?

Beam Me Up
Jun. 14, 2010, 10:52 PM
I think DR penalties are always subjective.
And I doubt anyone who has received a DR felt they deserved it.

The good (correct penalties, that take dangerous pairs off the courses) may outweigh the bad (incorrectly applied penalties), but no question there is a lot of gray area.

Especially in the cases of singe incidents (1 bad fence, vs. scary the whole way around).

I too thank you in advance for the video, and for allowing this to be a learning/discussion opportunity for all of us.

JER
Jun. 14, 2010, 11:08 PM
I will post the video when I receive it....I think this should be turned into an educational lesson

Bravo! :yes:

Good Intentions, thanks in advance. Your openness and willingness to put yourself out there for discussion is quite admirable. :)

Good Intentions
Jun. 14, 2010, 11:09 PM
Coppers Mom.....I backed up because that particular horse roots his head to the ground and runs away....so repremanding him has been tricky. I felt it would be unsafe to turn into a unmowed field with all the rain.

3dazey
Jun. 15, 2010, 07:05 AM
Not judging, just seeking clarity...:cool:

I'm wondering if the rider was concerned about the ruling on that much backing up (which would have to have been considerable to equal four or five canter strides). Did you worry you might be given more than one stop for that, or at that point was it more about schooling the horse and you weren't worried about further jumping penalties?

I jump judge pretty often and if I had been jj'ing at your fence, I would certainly have needed to call the TD in for an opinion on how to score that. Any lurking rules mavens or officials care to comment on that part?

I appreciate your willingness to turn this into a "teachable moment". :yes:

riderboy
Jun. 15, 2010, 07:26 AM
That's always going to be a problem with a subjective rule- who defines dangerous riding. I greatly appreciate all of the volunteers who jump judge and the people who run and work the shows. Without them we would have no sport. And I can understand the frustration of all of that hard work, time and money lost. But it seems like, just my opinion here, this has the potential to be a rule that is easily abused. Obviously I can't say that here, and even if I had seen what happened would my definition of "dangerous riding" be the same as the rider's on this particular horse or the judge's?

tle
Jun. 15, 2010, 09:31 AM
I jump judge pretty often and if I had been jj'ing at your fence, I would certainly have needed to call the TD in for an opinion on how to score that. Any lurking rules mavens or officials care to comment on that part?

Since you must "present" to the fence for it to be considered a refusal and I would guess (looking forward to teh video) that the rider in question continued to reinback and NOT represent to the fence, that no additional jump penalties beyond the original stop would be awarded.

purplnurpl
Jun. 15, 2010, 09:41 AM
Why would you rein back after a stop? Especially far enough for 4-5 canter strides, even very collected ones? Why not just turn around?

this is something the Fredericks teach.

To keep the horse's attention on the task--not to turn away from the issue.

Not sure I would practice it at a show though. Subjectivity.

Meredith Clark
Jun. 15, 2010, 12:08 PM
this is something the Fredericks teach.

To keep the horse's attention on the task--not to turn away from the issue.

Not sure I would practice it at a show though. Subjectivity.

I know you're not supporting or disagreeing with the theory so this isn't directed at you..

but what is the difference in turning the horse around and representing or making the horse back away from the jump? In both situations the horse is moving away from the jump instead of going over it.

NeverTime
Jun. 15, 2010, 03:54 PM
A bit late coming to say this, but... I feel badly for dragging Good Intentions into this in my first post on the topic. The OP sounded like sour grapes to me and I brought GI's CCI* results into it to make a point about not playing out the sour grapes thing, not to make GI the topic of discussion. My apologies to Good Intentions.
There may be a valid and educational topic for discussion here, but I shouldn't have brought it up with the BB equivalent of a drive-by shooting.

gardenie
Jun. 15, 2010, 04:12 PM
Now this is the type of situation that is well worth discussion in that someone can make this kind of decision to give a penalty that will follow someone forever.

It is exactly the type of penalty that the subjectiveness of the rule allows a person not riding to dictate a solution to a problem that is a rider's/trainer's decision. I am looking forward to the video.

Buck Davidson trains horses to jump narrows with a gallop strongly up to narrow and stop, then back up, and repeat a few times. The horse learns the only way out is to jump the narrow, and when you come to the jump in a powerful canter the horse jumps round the narrow obstacle. By backing a horse well, you get the horse on its hocks and create a BETTER canter. It is not dangerous if done well. And its a tool that many people use.

blackwly
Jun. 15, 2010, 04:29 PM
Yeah, it is an unusual technique but I have employed it once with tremendous success. Had an OTTB that I restarted myself who for some reason started off as quite the stopper. Like, stopping at poles on the ground. He would try to spin and root for the ground. If you turned him away, he just wouldn't even come back as close the next time. (needless to say I was hoping to get him going and sell!)

Thought we had resolved the issue thru my usual methods and took him to his first BN event where we never made it over the first XC fence. Back home, my coach (a well-respected BNT) had me start backing him up when he stopped. We'd just back up until he didn't want to back up anymore and would just relax and drop his head. Then we'd go on to the fence from there (these were small fences - 3ft or less.) Did this for about 2 months, then tried an event again. Came out of the start box, didn't present to the first jump, circled BEHIND it (no where near jump) stopped, did a quiet rein back, finished circle, presented to jump, and horse popped over nicely. Jumped around clean. Did the same thing at the next event, then went back to a typical start. I competed the horse up to intermediate, and he never had another penalty on XC again.

If he ever did stop in schooling, we repeated the rein back exercise and it always got him right back on track. I have no idea why it worked but it certainly did!

That said, any time you employ an "unusual" technique in competition you have to be prepared for possible confusion. When I did my circle/reinback thing, I actually talked to the TD in advance and informed them of my plan, in case the JJ became confused and considered it a stop. I also clearly said, "not presenting!" several times after I left the box. And, ultimately, if they gave me a 20 I would have shrugged and accepted it as worth it for the schooling.

Badger
Jun. 15, 2010, 06:40 PM
As I understand it, the yellow card is something a rider has to sign to "accept." Sort of like pleading guilt, not-guilty, or no-contest on a parking ticket, if you sign off on the yellow card you are acknowledging guilt and have no recourse to protest. And if a rider truly believes they do not deserve the yellow card, they can refuse to sign. Not sure of the resulting consequences, probably legal representation to the governing body in the form of official protest of the event official's opinion. FYI, the situation I heard about from an official describing a yellow card that was not signed was an FEI event outside the U.S.

So...is the DR penalty different, in that it either is or is not accessed based solely on the final decision of the PGJ with no recourse for the competitor?

Another question, is the yellow card the FEI version of the dangerous riding coin, and applied to CCI and CIC competitions whilst the DR penalty is the national version? Or do officials choose between the two reprimands on each occurrence, and if so, what are the parameters for applying one rather than the other?

Gry2Yng
Jun. 15, 2010, 08:30 PM
I know you're not supporting or disagreeing with the theory so this isn't directed at you..

but what is the difference in turning the horse around and representing or making the horse back away from the jump? In both situations the horse is moving away from the jump instead of going over it.

I can tell you that in jumper land, they believe there is a difference and it is accepted practice to rein back until you can get 4 or 5 strides to the fence.

Badger
Jun. 15, 2010, 08:47 PM
I just answered one of my own questions by looking up the current FEI sanctions list (http://www.fei.org/sites/default/files/file/OFFICIALS%20%26%20ORGANISERS/Warning_Cards/Rider%27s%20Sanction%20List_1.pdf). Officials can deliver the following sanctions: yellow cards AND/OR verbal warnings, 25 penalties, disqualifications, eliminations, fines.

Surprised to see an American rider's mother was given a yellow card at Rolex for "Incorrect behavior towards an officials" (SIC). What on earth was that about?

JER
Jun. 15, 2010, 08:54 PM
So what would have happened if we didn't have the DR rule?

1. Nothing.

2. FEI Yellow card -- but per Badger's post, the rider would have to be presented with it and sign for it.

3. The GJ would have had a discussion with the rider about what she did, why she did it and whether/why they thought it was inappropriate or dangerous.

Because the GJ at the event did show concern, let's take #1 off the table.

Because the GJ declined to book the rider with a yellow card, let's cancel that one, too. (I'm curious about this decision, however -- why a DR and no yellow?)

So the question is, would option #3 lead to a more positive outcome than the DR? From what others have said on this thread, it was not the most harmonious of situations between the aggrieved parties and the GJ. I'm doing a bit of projecting here but life experience would suggest that the rider gets frustrated/defensive, the GJ gets emphatic/defensive and no one leaves the table with any beneficial insight or greater understanding.

DR is, by nature, subjective. Like pornography, you know it when you see it but not everyone agrees with you. When we bring the subjective to a format -- XC -- that is supposed to be objective, we're opening a big can of worms. The best example of this is Hilda Donahue getting the hook at Pau last year near the end of the course because the GJ 'didn't like' the way her horse jumped. Never mind that Hilda and said horse were clear to that point.

Clearly, we won't all agree on the best way to train a horse and represent to a fence, mostly because there is no one best way or one-suits-all fix. Horses are different; riders have different methods and capabilities.

DRs are not dispensed like 5s in dressage. They're few and far between and my question is whether applying the rule really does serve its long-range goal of safer riding, especially if you see the road to safety as educational rather than punitive. An adult, non-defensive, no-hackles discussion between the rider and the GJ might be more effective in accomplishing that goal.

SevenDogs
Jun. 15, 2010, 09:28 PM
I can tell you that in jumper land, they believe there is a difference and it is accepted practice to rein back until you can get 4 or 5 strides to the fence.

But is there a difference (for safety reasons) of using that tool at a preliminary level XC fence that won't come down if something goes wrong?

I have seen trainers that I respect use that training tool, but never at a XC fence. I have never discussed it with them -- I am only going on observation and asking the question.

lizajane09
Jun. 15, 2010, 09:49 PM
I just answered one of my own questions by looking up the current FEI sanctions list (http://www.fei.org/sites/default/files/file/OFFICIALS%20%26%20ORGANISERS/Warning_Cards/Rider%27s%20Sanction%20List_1.pdf). Officials can deliver the following sanctions: yellow cards AND/OR verbal warnings, 25 penalties, disqualifications, eliminations, fines.

Surprised to see an American rider's mother was given a yellow card at Rolex for "Incorrect behavior towards an officials" (SIC). What on earth was that about?

That was a very educational list. It really drives home how subjective these penalties are to see that infractions such as "abuse of horse" or "dangerous riding/remounting and jumping obstacle after a fall" can result in only verbal warnings while those such as "incorrect behavior" or being 10 minutes late to a horse inspection can result in a yellow card at different events. Obviously, the latter two aren't desirable behaviors, but do the officials really think that they are worse than the first two?

Gry2Yng
Jun. 15, 2010, 09:51 PM
I think blackwly's post explains it best. A good prelim horse should be able to trot any *single* fence on the course. Picking up the canter from a rein back 5 strides out shouldn't be an issue. (I am not saying this is an advisable tactic for the coffin at Rolex, tho for some it might be.) The fact that the GJ has not seen this before doesn't make it dangerous in and of itself. I've seen riders back up and jump a 4'6" oxer with 4 strides of canter. In fact, it generally produces a VERY powerful canter. Does the fact that our fences are solid make a difference, not in my mind. Not a trick for the inexperienced, I wouldn't want to get there on a bad stride, but not DR in the right hands.

Ghazzu
Jun. 15, 2010, 09:57 PM
I just answered one of my own questions by looking up the current FEI sanctions list (http://www.fei.org/sites/default/files/file/OFFICIALS%20%26%20ORGANISERS/Warning_Cards/Rider%27s%20Sanction%20List_1.pdf). Officials can deliver the following sanctions: yellow cards AND/OR verbal warnings, 25 penalties, disqualifications, eliminations, fines.

Surprised to see an American rider's mother was given a yellow card at Rolex for "Incorrect behavior towards an officials" (SIC). What on earth was that about?

Dunno what it was about, but I was amused that I guessed who it was before following the link :D

lizajane09
Jun. 15, 2010, 09:59 PM
Dunno what it was about, but I was amused that I guessed who it was before following the link :D

I'd bet money that you and I aren't the only ones who did, either. ;)

adamsmom
Jun. 15, 2010, 10:20 PM
I'd bet money that you and I aren't the only ones who did, either. ;)

Yep, I got it too.
Would LOVE to know what that was about!
:winkgrin:

fooler
Jun. 16, 2010, 01:22 AM
So what would have happened if we didn't have the DR rule?

1. Nothing.

2. FEI Yellow card -- but per Badger's post, the rider would have to be presented with it and sign for it.

3. The GJ would have had a discussion with the rider about what she did, why she did it and whether/why they thought it was inappropriate or dangerous.

Because the GJ at the event did show concern, let's take #1 off the table.

Because the GJ declined to book the rider with a yellow card, let's cancel that one, too. (I'm curious about this decision, however -- why a DR and no yellow?)

So the question is, would option #3 lead to a more positive outcome than the DR? From what others have said on this thread, it was not the harmonious of situations between the aggrieved parties and the GJ. I'm doing a bit of projecting here but life experience would suggest that the rider gets frustrated/defensive, the GJ gets emphatic/defensive and no one leaves the table with any beneficial insight or greater understanding.

DR is, by nature, subjective. Like pornography, you know it when you see it but not everyone agrees with you. When we bring the subjective to a format -- XC -- that is supposed to be objective, we're opening a big can of worms. The best example of this is Hilda Donahue getting the hook at Pau last year near the end of the course because the GJ 'didn't like' the way her horse jumped. Never mind that Hilda and said horse was clear to that point.

Clearly, we won't all agree on the best way to train a horse and represent to a fence, mostly because there is no one best way or one-suits-all fix. Horses are different; riders have different methods and capabilities.

DRs are not dispensed like 5s in dressage. They're few and far between and my question is whether applying the rule really does serve its long-range goal of safer riding, especially if you see the road to safety as an educational rather than punitive. An adult, non-defensive, no-hackles discussion between the rider and the GJ might be more effective in accomplishing that goal.

Very thoughtful post!

EiRide
Jun. 16, 2010, 09:09 AM
We got rid of jumping from a standstill to prevent rotational falls, which happened more frequently when horses tried to jump XC fences from the base, correct? That's why a hesitation without stepping back is OK at fences without height, but you have to represent to the fence with height, yes?

Ok, so turning away and cantering back to the fence is clearly going to get you enough time to have some momentum when you get to the fence again. Backing up, depending on the rider in the heat of the moment, might not get you enough room to really develop a true canter to the fence. So perhaps this is the logic going with the 'don't back up to represent a XC fence.'

Just guessing here, and not applying it so specifically to the situation of the specific ride which raised the DR flag, just the logic of why the powers that be might want to hand out a DR for this type of riding.

LAZ
Jun. 16, 2010, 09:19 AM
this is something the Fredericks teach.

To keep the horse's attention on the task--not to turn away from the issue.

Not sure I would practice it at a show though. Subjectivity.

Yes, I teach this as well--if the horse doesn't turn away it's still presented with the issue it has to solve. Backing up gives you enough room to trot and pop over the fence. The rein back (done properly) gives more push from the hindquarters than whipping around a small circle & representing in canter. I do the same thing with most aspects of horses, from trailer loading to hacking out--keep them pointed in the direction I want them to go.

Gry2Yng
Jun. 16, 2010, 09:31 AM
Ok, so turning away and cantering back to the fence is clearly going to get you enough time to have some momentum when you get to the fence again. Backing up, depending on the rider in the heat of the moment, might not get you enough room to really develop a true canter to the fence. So perhaps this is the logic going with the 'don't back up to represent a XC fence.'


Yes, but we have all seen riders turn away from a fence and re-approach without enough momentum or focus and without developing a good canter to the fence. You know 5 strides out, as the horse is half trotting half cantering there is NO WAY that horse is leaving the ground. Mostly, I think you see this when the rider doesn't take time to reorganize. So really, a bad representation can happen either way, but turning away is more common and we tend to "forgive" the bad riding when it is done this way. Am I making sense? I am not necessarily advocating backing up as a method of representation on xc, and I am sure the original situation amounts to more than simply this, but I am interested in the discussion.

lcw579
Jun. 16, 2010, 09:45 AM
I think blackwly's post explains it best. A good prelim horse should be able to trot any *single* fence on the course. Picking up the canter from a rein back 5 strides out shouldn't be an issue. (I am not saying this is an advisable tactic for the coffin at Rolex, tho for some it might be.) The fact that the GJ has not seen this before doesn't make it dangerous in and of itself. I've seen riders back up and jump a 4'6" oxer with 4 strides of canter. In fact, it generally produces a VERY powerful canter. Does the fact that our fences are solid make a difference, not in my mind. Not a trick for the inexperienced, I wouldn't want to get there on a bad stride, but not DR in the right hands.


Yes, I teach this as well--if the horse doesn't turn away it's still presented with the issue it has to solve. Backing up gives you enough room to trot and pop over the fence. The rein back (done properly) gives more push from the hindquarters than whipping around a small circle & representing in canter. I do the same thing with most aspects of horses, from trailer loading to hacking out--keep them pointed in the direction I want them to go.

I agree with these two posts. I'm a bit surprised about the DR penalty and would definitely have protested it. I was taught as a child not to turn away from the fence if the horse refused. Keep him pointed where you ultimately want him to go and keep his mind on the issue at hand.

tuppysmom
Jun. 16, 2010, 10:00 AM
The video will answer many questions.

Did the rider see that he/she was 5 strides away and the offcial see that he/she was 5 steps away?

Did the horse then jump with his/he knees up, or knees down.. one leg back.. drag himself/herself over the solid 3'4" fence?

What a rider feels and what an official sees are often very different.

Good Intentions
Jun. 16, 2010, 10:56 AM
But is there a difference (for safety reasons) of using that tool at a preliminary level XC fence that won't come down if something goes wrong?

I have seen trainers that I respect use that training tool, but never at a XC fence. I have never discussed it with them -- I am only going on observation and asking the question.

Sevendogs,

The fence was a 3'4 double log.....not a Preliminary XC size fence. It actually measured lower, however with the way they measure fences based on the ground the official measurement was 3'4.
Clearly you have some under lying issues with the BNT based on your previous posts. Could you reply to the PM sent to you? Or will you just avoid it and hide behind your signin name?
Wonder if anyone knows who Sevendogs is?????
HMMM

SevenDogs
Jun. 16, 2010, 11:20 AM
GI:

I simply stated that the rein back technique may be viewed differently at a XC fence than a stadium fence by officials, in regard to safety. Obviously, there was a difference of opinion between the officials and you, and perhaps that was the reason. Perhaps not. It is certainly a plausible scenario.

I look forward to viewing the video you are planning on posting.

soloudinhere
Jun. 16, 2010, 11:24 AM
No need to start something, Good Intentions. I don't see Sevendogs attacking you, I see him/her honestly asking about something which is rarely seen. You could answer the question rather than insinuating that you are trying to start something with them by private message.

For the record, you yourself are also using a sign in name as are all of us. Nobody is "hiding" behind one they are how we choose to represent ourselves online and Sevendogs hasn't said anything that remotely implies that they are using a sign in name to sling some dirt. Ironically, however, that is what the OP did and was caught doing...

RAyers
Jun. 16, 2010, 01:03 PM
For the record, you yourself are also using a sign in name as are all of us...

Speak for yourself! ;) My sign in name is my name. There is no point in hiding on this BB. The eventing world is too small. And there have been times where others have approached me in public willing to discuss a post or comment I made. I appreciate that.

Reed

wanderlust
Jun. 16, 2010, 01:28 PM
Sevendogs,

The fence was a 3'4 double log.....not a Preliminary XC size fence. It actually measured lower, however with the way they measure fences based on the ground the official measurement was 3'4.
Clearly you have some under lying issues with the BNT based on your previous posts. Could you reply to the PM sent to you? Or will you just avoid it and hide behind your signin name?
Wonder if anyone knows who Sevendogs is?????
HMMM

You know, this thread came about because your client came on here strongly bashing an event that many people put a lot of effort into producing under some very adverse circumstances.

I'm not sure that the attempt to reveal the real-life identity of a poster on an internet bulletin board, where the majority of posters choose to remain anonymous (Rayers being an exception) is remotely relevant to the topic at hand, nor is it going to engender you to the folks here.

tle
Jun. 16, 2010, 03:00 PM
We got rid of jumping from a standstill to prevent rotational falls, which happened more frequently when horses tried to jump XC fences from the base, correct? That's why a hesitation without stepping back is OK at fences without height, but you have to represent to the fence with height, yes?

Ok, so turning away and cantering back to the fence is clearly going to get you enough time to have some momentum when you get to the fence again. Backing up, depending on the rider in the heat of the moment, might not get you enough room to really develop a true canter to the fence. So perhaps this is the logic going with the 'don't back up to represent a XC fence.'

Just guessing here, and not applying it so specifically to the situation of the specific ride which raised the DR flag, just the logic of why the powers that be might want to hand out a DR for this type of riding.

(emphasis above is mine)
This may have already been answered but... who said you had to CANTER a fence? The first clinic I ever audited (before I'd ridden in an event or in a clniic myself) was with Bruce and he had even the novice horses WALKING to a fence, taking 1 and only 1 trot stride and jumping it willingly because "a horse needs know that they do NOT need speed to jump a fence willingly and correctly". The fence in question was a stadium rail but OMG -- it was a bright white telephone pole in size and for the novice group set at novice height, in reality the top of that rail was above training height.

GiGi
Jun. 16, 2010, 03:04 PM
Equibrit I totally agree with you. What a good way to put it!!

a1ngot8r
Jun. 16, 2010, 03:19 PM
No need to start something, Good Intentions. I don't see Sevendogs attacking you, I see him/her honestly asking about something which is rarely seen. You could answer the question rather than insinuating that you are trying to start something with them by private message.

For the record, you yourself are also using a sign in name as are all of us. Nobody is "hiding" behind one they are how we choose to represent ourselves online and Sevendogs hasn't said anything that remotely implies that they are using a sign in name to sling some dirt. Ironically, however, that is what the OP did and was caught doing...

I am the OP and I was not "caught" doing anything. I have clearly been identified as the horse's owner and I have no problem with that. I am not going to list the many issues that came up during the recent competition. There were many, the uncalled for and undeserved DR being the final straw. I support the sport emotionally and monetarily. Anytime anyone makes comments on this board with regards to organization of an event, you open yourself up to an immediate bashing. Again, flame on!!!

Good Intentions
Jun. 16, 2010, 08:56 PM
BINGO!!!!

I am guessing this is the same rider who loudly complained to anyone who would listen at a previous event (and I believe filed a protest of some sort), that a refusal was caused by a foam log "squeaking" when her horse hit it SEVERAL strides before the fence it refused. ....it was RIDICULOUS and spoke volumes.

Hello sportmanship?

I was referring to the above post SevenDogs made. They have also made a few other posts that were not well received.

I understand these are posts that are ananoymous.....however they dont have to be and I have clearly stated who I was.....someone actually created my login for me because I wasn't savy about the process.

I was simply trying to figure out why SevenDogs would make a statement about me that was untrue.

So I sent a PM which has not been replied to.....I guess I wanted to clear the air about what I must have done to deserve the false accusations from SevenDogs....and not just on this post....others as well.

Ultimately it doesnt really matter......what matters is that we define what DR is and or the issuance of a Yellow Card.

Meredith Clark
Jun. 16, 2010, 10:10 PM
is there a video yet?

Good Intentions
Jun. 16, 2010, 11:03 PM
Just waiting for the video guy to post the clip on youtube

SevenDogs
Jun. 16, 2010, 11:55 PM
I was simply trying to figure out why SevenDogs would make a statement about me that was untrue.



Um.... not sure what you are referring to as being untrue but there was indeed a claim made that a refusal was caused by the foam log squeaking on a prior fence (with several strides in between) and quite a bit of complaining was done. It was even mentioned on another thread by one of the officials at the show (Post #8):

http://www.chronofhorse.com/forum/showthread.php?t=198236


On the lighter side, the only problem with the foam logs is that they allegedly make a "funny, squeaky noise" if your horse gives them a good rub and that noise will frighten your horse so that it runs out at the next element of the combination. Seriously put forward by a rider last week.


I have nothing personal against you, but certainly consider past behavior when someone is claiming they have been unfairly treated by the officials. I do look forward to seeing the video of your recent ride, with an open mind. I think it is generous of you to post it and allow open discussion. DR penalties are fairly new and certainly worth discussing.

Good Intentions
Jun. 17, 2010, 01:47 AM
SevenDogs,

I appreciate you explaining your position.....to set the record straight...."people I knew" stated that I had a stop after hitting the log due to the squeak....however I never and would never state that. I have never protested at a competition until this past weekend (although it was more of a discussion because you are not allowed to inquire/protest in a FEI event). The official is mistaken.....only because someone told him the information he received....not because I did nor did I say it to an official. I spoke to the course builder and course designer. The log was not supposed to squeak, and since that incident they have figured a way to make sure the log doesn't make that horendous noise....since then I have hit the log on a different horse and it didn't make a noise.
I was just a bit shocked at the statement you made about Sportsmanship....only because I take those comments pretty seriously.

No need to continue the discussion other than I am really interested in seeing the video to try and some how make sense of how I was issued a DR.
It will be interesting what it looks like because how it felt was something so far from DR I can't even tell you.

Cheers- T

imjustjoking22
Jun. 17, 2010, 02:37 AM
I think blackwly's post explains it best. A good prelim horse should be able to trot any *single* fence on the course. Picking up the canter from a rein back 5 strides out shouldn't be an issue. (I am not saying this is an advisable tactic for the coffin at Rolex, tho for some it might be.) The fact that the GJ has not seen this before doesn't make it dangerous in and of itself. I've seen riders back up and jump a 4'6" oxer with 4 strides of canter. In fact, it generally produces a VERY powerful canter. Does the fact that our fences are solid make a difference, not in my mind. Not a trick for the inexperienced, I wouldn't want to get there on a bad stride, but not DR in the right hands.


I agree, picking up a collected canter from a very close distance has given me a solid approach and precision on my youngster when it was needed... Even walking in until two strides out (awesome advice given to me schooling by a trainer when struggling with a single jump) is easy for my horse.
I find it really tough to understand how something like that could have been classified as DR.

Coppers mom
Jun. 17, 2010, 09:46 AM
SevenDogs,

I appreciate you explaining your position.....to set the record straight...."people I knew" stated that I had a stop after hitting the log due to the squeak....however I never and would never state that.
I think that maybe you need to get some new people then. You may feel that your sportsmanship is great, but theirs is shining through. And it's not reflecting well on you, at all.

Janet
Jun. 17, 2010, 10:10 AM
On a general level, not this particualr incident-

DR rulings are inherently subjective, and therefore often controversial.

While video is always useful for reviewing the situation
-the video is rarely from the same angle as the official's view, and that can make a big difference.
-"speed" can look very different on video. This was demonstrated at USEA BoG meeting at the annual meeting a couple of years ago.

There is a big difference between a single instance of "X" being dangerous, and "X" in general being dangerous. For instance jumping the wrong fence, or leaving out (or adding) a stride in a combination. I suspect that "rein back to re-approach" falls in that category.

We need to make sure that the offcials are confident that they can use their judgement in making a DR, but at the same time we need to have feedback and communication between officials (with input form the riders) to improve the consistency with which it is applied, without removing individual judgement.

There are also all sorts of valid training techniques that you shouldn't use at a competion.
-When schooling, it is appropriate to stand on the edge of the water or a drop or a ditch, shuffliing back and forth until the horse finally goes. But it will get you eliminated for 3R at a competition.
-When schooling, it may be appropriate (and isn't inherently "cruel") to give a single overhand "whack" when the horse stops. But it may get you eliminated for Abuse at a competition.
-When schooliing, it is sometimes appropriate to keep trying after 3R. but not in competition.
-When schooling, if you have a "bad" fence, it is appropriate to immediately redo it. But not in competition.

I don't know, but it may be that "rein back to re-approach" is (or becomes) one of those things that is "fine at home, but not in competition".

But clearly we need to reach the point where both riders and officials have a consistent sense of which things are likely to be considered "dangerous". Not sure how we get there.

SevenDogs
Jun. 17, 2010, 10:42 AM
o set the record straight...."people I knew" stated that I had a stop after hitting the log due to the squeak....however I never and would never state that.


You most certainly stated it, along with your supporters.

Good Intentions
Jun. 17, 2010, 11:05 AM
I stated I had a problem with the load noise the log made when I hit....I also stated that I didn't like the fact that it distracted me or my horse.....the stop was because I wasn't focused on getting him to jump through the keyhole. I had jumped it before and made a assumtion that it would jump great.....based on the ride up to it....thats exactly what it shows....a nice canter up to the keyhole and not jumping (which happened to be very uncharacteristic of the horse I was riding.....he is a xc machine).....so there are alot of assumtions going on and I guess if you really knew me you would know I didn't say the sound of the log made my horse stop. In fact when I heard people saying it I told them exactly what I just stated here.

Again, this is about whether backing up your horse and jumping a jump deserves a DR or a yellow card.....hopfully the video comes soon.

saje
Jun. 17, 2010, 11:11 AM
I'm quoting Janet's entire post here because she's wise and it all bears repeating. And FWIW I agree 100% :)


On a general level, not this particualr incident-

DR rulings are inherently subjective, and therefore often controversial.

While video is always useful for reviewing the situation
-the video is rarely from the same angle as the official's view, and that can make a big difference.
-"speed" can look very different on video. This was demonstrated at USEA BoG meeting at the annual meeting a couple of years ago.

There is a big difference between a single instance of "X" being dangerous, and "X" in general being dangerous. For instance jumping the wrong fence, or leaving out (or adding) a stride in a combination. I suspect that "rein back to re-approach" falls in that category.

We need to make sure that the offcials are confident that they can use their judgement in making a DR, but at the same time we need to have feedback and communication between officials (with input form the riders) to improve the consistency with which it is applied, without removing individual judgement.

There are also all sorts of valid training techniques that you shouldn't use at a competion.
-When schooling, it is appropriate to stand on the edge of the water or a drop or a ditch, shuffliing back and forth until the horse finally goes. But it will get you eliminated for 3R at a competition.
-When schooling, it may be appropriate (and isn't inherently "cruel") to give a single overhand "whack" when the horse stops. But it may get you eliminated for Abuse at a competition.
-When schooliing, it is sometimes appropriate to keep trying after 3R. but not in competition.
-When schooling, if you have a "bad" fence, it is appropriate to immediately redo it. But not in competition.

I don't know, but it may be that "rein back to re-approach" is (or becomes) one of those things that is "fine at home, but not in competition".

But clearly we need to reach the point where both riders and officials have a consistent sense of which things are likely to be considered "dangerous". Not sure how we get there.

BEARCAT
Jun. 17, 2010, 11:20 AM
Having audited David O'Connor's clinic at the Colorado Horse Park last summer, backing up after a refusal and representing the fence was his method of choice. As he stated, "my horse NEVER leaves the line" (to the fence).

Meredith Clark
Jun. 17, 2010, 11:48 AM
Having audited David O'Connor's clinic at the Colorado Horse Park last summer, backing up after a refusal and representing the fence was his method of choice. As he stated, "my horse NEVER leaves the line" (to the fence).

I think a lot of people have said that this is a good method for teaching a horse not to lose focus on a fence but the issue is if it is appropriate for competition.

Even if it is agreed that it is appropriate for competition a competitor must make sure that they can properly execute the rein back in a proper manor. When a rider is feeling flustered or pressure after a refusal they must make sure they actually give the horse a few strides to get over the fence. (since jumping from a standstill will get you a DR) and not be all over the place and present the fence again in a way that the horse can jump it safely.

SevenDogs
Jun. 17, 2010, 12:01 PM
Having audited David O'Connor's clinic at the Colorado Horse Park last summer, backing up after a refusal and representing the fence was his method of choice. As he stated, "my horse NEVER leaves the line" (to the fence).

"Never" might be a bit of hyperbole. I don't really think DOC would apply that rule to a **** XC fence. Maybe I'm wrong, but I seriously doubt it, and then that begins the question of where is the line of a training tool being effective in some situations and "dangerous" in others?

saje
Jun. 17, 2010, 12:23 PM
Certainly KO'C has had refusals in competition, as have the Canadians DO'C coaches. I don't remember seeing them or hearing about them backing, never turning, to represent after a refusal.

Again, what's a good training tool may not be wise in competition. A good rider needs to have a pretty full toolbox.

Also, for every poorly re-presented horse who's turned away from a fence only to have it refuse a second time, there must be at least twice as many who go on to make a good clean jump, *especially* those for whom a refusal on course is a rarity. Possibly with a dirty stopper the backing technique is appropriate, but in a perfect world that habit would be addressed at home, or by dropping down a level in competition.

RAyers
Jun. 17, 2010, 12:53 PM
I suggest that this is a training technique that, like the rollkur etc., is most likely only truly effective in the best, most knowledgeable hands. I would NEVER tell a rider with less experience or an unconfident rider (e.g. one who tips at a fence) to back-up after a stop and go at it again. It is asking for a possible disaster and that may be part of the motivation behind officials issuing penalties.

Yes, in this case we are discussing a trainer using a training technique and who got penalized. This opens a different can of worms and considerations.

Reed

flutie1
Jun. 17, 2010, 01:12 PM
I wasn't there so any comments I may make are theoretical in nature...

There is backing - and there's backing. I've seen riders back their horses and it's a soft, quite lovely movement. I've also seen riders back their horses with a whole bunch of see sawing and jerking and it's just plain ugly. Could the GJ member who gave the DR penalty have interpreted the backing in this case as falling into the latter category?

(Remember guys, before you pile on me, I wasn't there and this is theoretical!)

flutie

gardenie
Jun. 17, 2010, 01:24 PM
""Never" might be a bit of hyperbole. I don't really think DOC would apply that rule to a **** XC fence. Maybe I'm wrong, but I seriously doubt it, and then that begins the question of where is the line of a training tool being effective in some situations and "dangerous" in others?"

Well, I saw DOC do quite a bit of stopping, backing up, and then uphill balance power cantering intermediate fences at Middleburg one year, schooling one of his clients horses. I imagine he would agree that its best to fix the problem before going ****.

Ghazzu
Jun. 17, 2010, 01:51 PM
Not to be snarky, but squeaking logs can be avoided by not hitting them.
Not always possible, I know, but to complain about a squeak vs. an encounter with a hard unyielding object...

Meredith Clark
Jun. 17, 2010, 02:44 PM
Not to be snarky, but squeaking logs can be avoided by not hitting them.
Not always possible, I know, but to complain about a squeak vs. an encounter with a hard unyielding object...

:lol:

a new eventing proverb: the well jumped log doesn't squeak

now jump grasshopper!

Gry2Yng
Jun. 17, 2010, 06:33 PM
I think that maybe you need to get some new people then. You may feel that your sportsmanship is great, but theirs is shining through. And it's not reflecting well on you, at all.

I have to say, I used to be very judgmental about how a professional's students behaved/presented themselves. Now that I am an instructor, of a modest little group, I realize that a) you can't direct their conduct or turnout 100%, ever and b) you chip away at these things a little at a time. No new student gets a riding, behavior and turnout makeover the day they start paying you, or cheering for you for that matter. c) You can't start working on something until the problem rears its ugly head. Sometimes you just get caught out by something a student or a horse does.

Yes, my students reflect back upon me, but I cut them some slack and I have learned to cut other pros some slack. I hope I get the same courtesy, but I probably deserve what I get, in terms of what goes around comes around in that regard.

TXnGA
Jun. 19, 2010, 10:42 PM
Funnily enough I was at a schooling combined test today and watched an ammie use the backing up method for "training" her horse when it hesitated or refused to jump a fence.

Do keep in mind that a) this horse was in the tadpole division b) the ammie was not a very good rider/ nor was she very productive in her riding c) had already been on this poor horse for 2 hours doing dressage tests and then decided she had to jump 2 courses in the heat of the south.

It was not a pretty sight to say the least (and I'm not comparing the GI to what I saw today). But I can see how this method in the wrong hand could be considered dangerous riding, or even just bad riding in general.

This rider was seesawing on this poor horses mouth going anyways but strait back and I really feel that the horse wasn't the problem. THe rider was older, it was hot and she had already done a lot of riding for the day on this horse with the mutiple dressage tests rider did and lots and lots of warmup too for both dressage and jumping. If the horse even slowed his trot before a fence (anywhere from 2 strides to 5 strides out), the rider would stop the horse and back up and all they had to do was kick on- heck it was cross rails. Even the paramedic and hubby of another rider was like, stop with the backing up, just circle and come back to it. We felt that she would soon be coming off the horse with how the round was going.

It was not a good method for this ammie rider, and I was horrified (but didn't really feel that I could tell her) that she would use this on her horse, on her own with no trainer. :(

gottagrey
Jun. 22, 2010, 01:14 AM
I don't live in that area but there is little an event facility can do when Mother Nature decides to intervene. There is an event here - one year it was unseasonably hot so for the safety of horse and rider they shortened the course. What happened people complained. Had they not shortened the course people probably would have still complained... another year buckets and buckets of rain they had to move the show jumping course to another field; reschedule the Prelim Xcountry and/or show jumping (due to lightening). Of course as luck would have it the next day was beautiful, footing perfect. Of course there were those that complained. In my opinion the organizers did a superb job of getting things done despite near hurricane level weather. there are just those people who love to complain. Fortunately, this event does give out very good prizes.

devcubber
Jun. 22, 2010, 11:57 AM
I think every single person who events should MAJOR volunteer at one horse trial (like give a whole day), or RUN a horse trial, once in their life.

Everyone complains. Too hot, too wet, not enough, too much.

The entire Ground Jury is made up of humans, with opinions shaped by their experiences and their training. Subjective with an objective bent. So you may or may not like their opinions. That is eventing.

My last bitch: COMPETITORS, READ YOUR OMNIBUS. Don't like the PGJ due to last time you rode under her judging? Don't go. No big prizes? Stay home. Venues too far apart, even though distances from stables to Dressage, XC and SJ were listed? :rolleyes:

I love being organizer. I think most people have no idea that we volunteer months, weeks, days and hours, to put these events on in all kinds of weather. So that you can have the opportunity to have this sport! Organizers love constructive criticism, but when you harangue us, we get grumpy :)

mtk9122
Jun. 28, 2010, 10:20 PM
Has the video been posted?:D

a1ngot8r
Jun. 29, 2010, 12:45 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrRAHgdH53s

If this is dangerous riding, half the people that event shouldn't be allowed on course.

This is an example of a rule poorly written and governed over by some people who are not clear on the concept.

a1ngot8r
Jun. 29, 2010, 12:50 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrRAHgdH53s

If this is dangerous riding, half the people that event shouldn't be allowed on course.

This is an example of a rule poorly written and governed over by some people who are not clear on the concept.

Meredith Clark
Jun. 29, 2010, 12:57 AM
hmm... *shrug*

as an active jump judge (aka smurf who doesn't ride at the upper levels but volunteers for the sport I adore :lol: ) it would cause me to raise an eyebrow and ask the TD.

Does that mean I don't know "good riding or advanced technique" when I see it? maybe..

When upper level riders and trainers start replacing me as volunteer jump judges I guess we won't have these sort of problems. :rolleyes:

Hope the DR doesn't cause the rider too many problems and hope even more that we can all learn from it.

Coanteen
Jun. 29, 2010, 01:36 AM
I know nothing about penalties in eventing, so I can't comment on whether this was DR or not. No clue. The horse seemed ok to jump to me, but there are those who can judge that much better than I can.

But as flutie was saying further up about backing vs backing - in this vid I don't see "a soft, quite lovely movement". She could be right that this was the issue.

vali
Jun. 29, 2010, 01:40 AM
Not DR in my opinion, as an amateur competitor and jump judge. Nicely ridden the second time through.

JER
Jun. 29, 2010, 02:23 AM
On the original thread, I suggested that the issues could have been addressed more thoroughly, thoughtfully and satisfyingly by the GJ (or whoever deemed this DR) having a conversation with the rider.

After watching the video, I stand by that statement.

The horse was re-presented to the fence in a way in which he understood the correction and what was being asked of him. The rider was balanced. The horse had appropriate impulsion.

Compare this to the video compilation from the Chatt Hills Intermediate that was posted on another thread recently -- you know, the one with all the elbow-flapping, rein-flinging and seat-driving on unbalanced, strung-out horses.

A stop and a clear correction is a learning experience that often results in a safer partnership. A horse saving a rider's sorry a$$ after a poor ride usually results in the rider thinking they can get away with it next time, which is not exactly in the interests of safety.

canterlope
Jun. 29, 2010, 06:13 AM
I dunno guys. Had I been the TD, I probably would have sent the incident to the Ground Jury for consideration of a DR penalty. Not because I think the second attempt at the jump was dangerous because, as JER said, the rider was balanced and the horse had appropriate impulsion. Rather, it's the rider's actions immediately after the stop that is cause for concern.

The rate of speed in which the rider backed the horse was quite dangerous. Had the horse reacted by going up with his front end, or had he slipped or tripped on some rough footing, both of them could have gone over backwards very quickly. True, the rider was balanced throughout, but dangerous riding isn't defined by a poorly balanced rider. It is defined by the rider putting the horse into a dangerous situation. By backing the horse as rapidly as she did, the rider definitely created a situation where she placed both the horse and herself in harm's way.

I'm also not totally convinced that this correction was all that good of a learning experience for the horse. Yes, it could be argued the horse learned that at no time is it appropriate to turn away from a fence. However, as an unintended consequence, the horse also may have learned that it should back away from the fence as quickly as possible if it stops in the future. In that instance, if the rider is unbalanced and thrown up the neck, chances are she will hit the dirt if the horse goes backwards as rapidly as it was asked to do in this situation.

There are instances when backing a horse in front of the jump is a good learning experience. Normally, however, this exercise is used in a schooling setting to teach horses not to rush their fences, the stop is initiated by the rider early enough to give the horse plenty of room to go forward to the jump without having to back up, and any backing that is necessary is done in a slow and gentle manner. In this situation, the horse was not rushing the fence, the rider did not initiate the stop, and the backing was far from gentle. In my mind, the rider used a good exercise, but executed it harshly and at an inappropriate time/place.

saje
Jun. 29, 2010, 06:22 AM
I agree entirely with canterlope.

BigRuss1996
Jun. 29, 2010, 07:04 AM
I have to say I agree with Canterlope 100% also. There is never a reason to back a horse away from a fence that quickly and actually you really shouldn't ever back them like that when they refuse. If a horse is stopping the last thing you want them to be thinking is backward. She should have gone to her stick and represented.
Sorry to those who disagree but having seen first hand others do this great backing thing and end up with the horse flipping over backward onto them it isn't such a hot idea. Then there was the one who yanked her horse in the face when it stopped and it went up and over and had to be put down...yeah that was a good lesson. NEVER EVER pull them in the face people...always thinking forward.

dotneko
Jun. 29, 2010, 07:05 AM
I agree with JER - not dangerous and an
appropriate correction and re-presentation.
On the other hand, I have not been through
the 'fence judge school' in quite some time.
If this is an example of dangerous riding, then
I fear for scorers - DRs will be handed out left
and right.

DLee
Jun. 29, 2010, 07:36 AM
Whether or not anyone agrees with the training aspect of the correction, I would never have thought that would have been listed under the Dangerous Riding rule.

toeknee
Jun. 29, 2010, 07:49 AM
ditto DLee.

gardenie
Jun. 29, 2010, 07:49 AM
Not dangerous riding in my opinion. So again, we have differing opinions on a SUBJECTIVE ruling. I think that the folks that are saying it is dangerous are well thought out.

However, this rider rode this horse in this situation the best way the rider knew how at that moment. Cross country riding is not done in a manicured ring. She knew she had to turn and balance after the jump to the next element.

She made a plan on the fly and corrected her horse such that next time he will not do the plant feet stop. If he does, maybe she should find him a new career. The most important element, correcting the horse in a reasonable, clear manner was done. Maybe he did back up too fast, maybe that isn't what **I** would do, but that's not the point.

She had a lovely ride over both fences after the correction, which is better than I've often seen on the circle and reapproach method most often used.

You all have seen it, the whip used on the circle (ie not at the right moment), horse on the forehand, rider out of balance, horse's knees down over the jump, but he jumped it! And it was the approved method!

soloudinhere
Jun. 29, 2010, 07:53 AM
In the video I see a horse flying backwards, taking several steps where it looks almost like he will stumble, and I really wish I could see what the rider was doing with her hands because that is not a soft, gentle back up that is "back the f**k up, now!"

I can see where the DR came in. It might not be TOTALLY fair, but I don't see how it was completely uncalled for either. She created a situation where horse and rider could very easily have been badly hurt. If the ground was sloppy then so much the more risk that the horse could have fallen.

A useful exercise, used at a completely inappropriate moment and venue. Maybe the TD should have had a conversation with the rider, maybe we should stop expecting to be coddled by our officials and take responsibility when we engage in unorthodox techniques. There is always the possibility of penalty, TDs are too busy to give every rider a "talking to" and we all know the odds of that actually making an impact are pretty slim anyway.

shea'smom
Jun. 29, 2010, 07:55 AM
As a PC National Examiner, I have learned to accept different training methods and not impose my own in every situation.
I might not do this, but I see nothing wrong with it. It does not look rough to me, horse goes quietly forward and jumps well the second time.
It is a matter of opinion, but god help us if you can take such a fairly benign incident and someone can hit you with a DR penalty.
Geez, Eventing has changed in 33 years, not so much always for the better.

bornfreenowexpensive
Jun. 29, 2010, 07:59 AM
Whether or not anyone agrees with the training aspect of the correction, I would never have thought that would have been listed under the Dangerous Riding rule.


Agree....that is NOT Dangerous Riding. A DR penalty should ONLY be used in extreme cases.

I'm sorry...you may or may not agree with how the horse was corrected (and I personally don't)....but that in no way warrents a DR penalty or even consideration. This is arm chair riding by GJ and TDs that is not acceptable in my book.

A DR should only be given in situation where EVERYONE who sees it would agree it was dangerous riding. This wasn't even a close call in my opinion.

soloudinhere
Jun. 29, 2010, 08:01 AM
Its not about how lovely the ride is after you do something dangerous. It's about doing something dangerous regardless of the result it produces.

Gayla
Jun. 29, 2010, 08:16 AM
It may be that the emotion that the rider and horse were displaying was more intense in person. The outside rein is snatched with all of that rider's strength which made me wince when I watched it. It is about at 8 seconds on the video. Ouch!

alicen
Jun. 29, 2010, 08:39 AM
BigRuss wrote: ... and actually you really shouldn't ever back them like that when they refuse.

I don't know about that. Looks to me like that horse learned, quite sensibly, the value of going forward there.

bornfreenowexpensive
Jun. 29, 2010, 08:39 AM
It may be that the emotion that the rider and horse were displaying was more intense in person. The outside rein is snatched with all of that rider's strength which made me wince when I watched it. It is about at 8 seconds on the video. Ouch!


Still NOT Dangerous riding....maybe you can make an argument for horse abuse and I would accept that far quicker than DR.... but I personally do not want to have DRs handed out so easily . It is a slippery slope that I've seen officials head down.

canterlope
Jun. 29, 2010, 08:40 AM
I'm sorry...you may or may not agree with how the horse was corrected....but that in no way warrents a DR penalty or even consideration. This is arm chair riding by GJ and TDs and that is not acceptable in my book. Wait a second here. Every post on this thread, including yours, is "arm chair riding" unless you are the rider or the rider has posted without identifying herself. Does that mean this thread is unacceptable? I think not and no more than the GJ and TD making a determination that is included within their official duties.

Jazzy Lady
Jun. 29, 2010, 08:42 AM
I don't think it's a DR either. The backing may have been a bit hurried and harsh, but you don't know how much of that is the horse and not the rider. I know when my horse does something bad, often he'll react before I do because he KNOWS he's done something that will be corrected. If this is the way the horse is usually corrected for a stop, then he may be flying backwards in anticipation. Who knows.

The re-approach was very balanced and the horse was forward and balanced and obviously learned from it. Much better than a LOT of re-approaches from the circle that I've seen.

canterlope
Jun. 29, 2010, 08:42 AM
Its not about how lovely the ride is after you do something dangerous. It's about doing something dangerous regardless of the result it produces.Exactly! DR isn't only about the end result of a horse and rider crashing and burning. It also includes a rider placing the horse in a potential dangerous situation regardless of the outcome.

bornfreenowexpensive
Jun. 29, 2010, 08:47 AM
Wait a second here. Every post on this thread, including yours, is "arm chair riding" unless you are the rider or the rider has posted without identifying herself. Does that mean this thread is unacceptable? I think not and no more than the GJ and TD making a determination that is included within their official duties.

I didn't say this thread was unacceptable....I said making a ruling that this was DR is unacceptable.

Yes we are arm chair riding here. I strongly dislike the rule for DRs because it is so subjective. And because it is so subjective, I believe that it should be rarely used. It should only be applied in very obviously dangerous situations. Situations that if you posted the video....all of us "arm chair riding" would be in agreement that it is dangerous riding.

It should be obviously DR. This video was NOT...bad judgment maybe...not the best correction, yes...not the best riding, yes...but bad enough to give a DR...I don't think so.. The fact that many on this thread don't think it warrented a DR to me is why one should not have been given. Otherwise...the role of officials is now that of judging good riding....and that is NOT what our sport is about.

ETA: For the record, I do think that snatching on their horse and backing up that fast was not good correction regardless of the results. And perhaps the rider should have been spoken too....just not alone enough for DR.

tle
Jun. 29, 2010, 08:51 AM
Not sure I'd have handed out an actual DR penalty, but have to agree with canterlope that the quick backing is cause for concern and definitely would have TALKED to the rider after the ride at a minimum. Depending on how the conversation went would determine if I would have handed out a DR.

but that's just my 2 cents... and probably worth less than that.

Rallycairn
Jun. 29, 2010, 09:02 AM
I typed up my own response about how DR would never have entered my mind watching this, but DLee said it far better than I could:

"Whether or not anyone agrees with the training aspect of the correction, I would never have thought that would have been listed under the Dangerous Riding rule." -DLee

alicen
Jun. 29, 2010, 09:03 AM
Exactly! DR isn't only about the end result of a horse and rider crashing and burning. It also includes a rider placing the horse in a potential dangerous situation regardless of the outcome.

Just jumping a horse is placing him in a potentially dangerous situation. Heck, I know someone who popped over a 2ft fall-down on the trail and the horse broke its leg. If we rode thinking what-if's we'd have to bubble-wrap our horses and not ride at all. I would say the rider in the video knew exactly what he/she was doing and did it well.

canterlope
Jun. 29, 2010, 09:05 AM
I didn't say this thread was unacceptable....I said making a ruling that this was DR is unacceptable.BFNE, I never said you said this thread was unacceptable. I was merely commenting on the fact that you find unacceptable for officials to commit "arm chair riding", but then turn right around and do exactly that by posting to this thread.

EventingJ
Jun. 29, 2010, 09:08 AM
As a PC National Examiner, I have learned to accept different training methods and not impose my own in every situation.
I might not do this, but I see nothing wrong with it. It does not look rough to me, horse goes quietly forward and jumps well the second time.
It is a matter of opinion, but god help us if you can take such a fairly benign incident and someone can hit you with a DR penalty.
Geez, Eventing has changed in 33 years, not so much always for the better.

I agree with this.

bornfreenowexpensive
Jun. 29, 2010, 09:18 AM
BFNE, I never said you said this thread was unacceptable. I was merely commenting on the fact that you find unacceptable for officials to commit "arm chair riding", but then turn right around and do exactly that by posting to this thread.

I guess my point is that applying a DR is Arm chair riding and because of that officials should be Very hesitant to apply them. It shouldn't be used in situations where the official dislikes or disagrees with a rider's decision or even thinks it is bad riding. It has to be far worse or part of a long pattern of bad riding on a course.

canterlope
Jun. 29, 2010, 09:21 AM
Just jumping a horse is placing him in a potentially dangerous situation. I completely agree which is why, when a rider places a horse in a dangerous situation that goes above and beyond the danger inherently present, the awarding of DR penalties should be considered.

Janet
Jun. 29, 2010, 09:30 AM
A couple of things are clear to me-

A- what looks like "dangerous riding" in person often doesn't look "dangerous" on video. In particular, things LOOK slower on video

B- It would be helpful (though not easy logistically) to collect and review the DR penalties, and come up with some consistent guidelins for DR ( a bit like the guidelines for abuse)

NCRider
Jun. 29, 2010, 09:31 AM
I don't even necessarily think it's bad riding. I know that outside of a dressage test, most English riders don't do a lot of backing (a trainor once told me it was never OK to back your horse more than 3 strides :eek:) but in the Western working horse world, backing up is a part of life and this wasn't that fast or abrupt. I'm guessing the DR was given either because the JJ didn't think it backing to represent was allowed or because the JJ confused speed with impulsion and didn't think the rider got far enough away from the fence to gather enough speed to clear it. Definitely arm chair riding and not remotely what I think of when I think of DR.

S A McKee
Jun. 29, 2010, 09:31 AM
How do we know that the short clip is the incident that resulted in a DR penalty? Perhaps there were other incidents on course and it was a cumulative effect.

Looking at the video it seems that it's abuse rather than DR but without being there who knows.

The rule for DR says " any competitor who rides in such a way as to constitute a hazard to the safety or well-being of the competitor, horse, other competitors, their horses, spectators or others will be penalized accordingly".

There is nothing about "placing the horse in a dangerous situation." The text is different enough to be significant.

Public questioning of an officials decision is NQR. There are other ways to handle the situation including asking USEF for a hearing.
Under GR914 this thread in itself could be enough to get the OP's entries refused at this event in the future. Although he/she seemed to hate the event so much I'm sure they won't be back anyway.

For way too long judges and officials looked the other way. Read the Morrissey thread in H/J or read about Rollkur being unacceptable in FEI events. The world has changed and what may have been acceptable riding is no longer classified that way. What some would think of as a correction is abuse.
All disciplines are changing in how they regard the relationship with the horse.

For years Eventing has kept up it's image as the bad boy of equine sports and the many accidents and fatalities haven't helped that perception.. It's time to dump that attitude.

USHJA's magazine has a long discussion about acceptable treatment of the horse and where to draw the line. And that's the question here. Where to draw the line.

Bobthehorse
Jun. 29, 2010, 09:38 AM
I wouldnt have handed out a DR penalty (maybe a little talk at the finish flags)...but I would have cursed out the rider under my breath, and given them one my little mental bookmarks to avoid in the future. Not because I disagree with the *concept* of backing up to represent, but because I think this rider did it entirely too fast and rough. She said it was "like a rein back in dressage" in the other thread....thats a pretty bad dressage reinback, it was not quiet, and I would worry about the horse going up backing up at that speed on xc. Some schooling methods are only best in the right hands, and not in competition. The fact that they cant seem to fathom they did anything that people should question is also a cause for concern, for me.

LisaB
Jun. 29, 2010, 09:51 AM
I agree with Canterlope on this one. And yup, everything looks slower on video.
I keep thinking to myself about how we present ourselves at shows. I mean sometimes we or our horses have bad days and I've always been taught that you just call it a day. Like when a horse asks for a knock down drag out battle, you call it a day at the show and go home to confront the issue. You don't do it at a show. Like the use of crop ruling. It's very clear about that use of correction. Not as clear in this case with the backing but still, if you feel the need to be this dramatic and do this kind of correction, do it at home!
And yes, when I finally get to move out west, I will be avoiding this person. This ain't cool to me at all.

RacetrackReject
Jun. 29, 2010, 09:54 AM
I don't think that is DR and to be honest, it concerns me that DR would be used for something that happened at 1 jump. Every one has had a jump they wish didn't happen or that they could take back, but that doesn't mean they were riding dangerously. Things happen when were mortals are in charge and sometimes, things need to be handled in a schooling manner, in competition, for the horse to get the point. I think the DR needs to be used for a pattern of events. If not, then almost every single rider in that video at Chat Hills (I think it was Chat Hills) needed to be handed a DR.

a1ngot8r
Jun. 29, 2010, 10:15 AM
Regarding the comments that the horse is backing too quickly, let's remember here that we are out on a cross country course, not in an arena doing a nice calm dressage test. The horse has been galloping, jumping and knows he is going to be corrected. Quite a different environment then in the dressage court. He backed up, was balanced, jumped the two fences and the rest of the course beautifully, I could post the entire video, but I don't see the point, this is still not deserving of a DR.

asterix
Jun. 29, 2010, 10:23 AM
There is no dispute that if we are going to have a DR penalty it is going to end up being subjective in its application. We can work towards some standardization, but we'll never fully achieve it.

Further, I doubt any rider given a DR will respond by saying "yeah, you're right, I deserved that."

That being said, there is another element to this that hasn't been explicitly brought out. Part of the push to using the DR penalty (which was on the books, but rarely used and not, I believe, given its own "clearly noted" penalty points before the last few years) is to try and promote GOOD cross country riding across the levels in this sport.

That is, there is an element of the "teachable moment" or, less kindly, "making an example" to the DR penalty. Officials want riders to have in their mind that it is possible to be called for DR, and over time, to hopefully develop some sense of what this might entail, just as jump judges (and therefore by extension riders) are now very clearly briefed on what constitutes abuse of horse. When I first started jump judging this was hardly ever covered. Now it is standard in briefings.

So, to take my favorite example, the rider who jumped OUT the Advanced IN bank at the water at the AECs one year, in the Training division; this rider was on an ex-Rolex horse who apparently very happily and neatly jumped out backwards over a huge drop in. I don't know if this was the rider's idea (doubt it) or just over-enthusiasm on the part of the horse and insufficient command and control on the part of the rider; I didn't see it.

But. It was a "safe" jump for that pair -- horse had no problem with it. It was a TERRIBLY unsafe thing for Training riders in general to do. It had to be called as DR, IMO -- we have to understand that it doesn't matter if we are sitting on a horse who has gone around Rolex (or that we _think_ can go around Rolex). That is still not OK.

So in this case, it is also possible that there was a consideration of how risky this move could be, if it became a accepted mode to correct a refusal IN COMPETITION. It was hastily executed, and although the resulting jump was calm and safe, I would hate to see other riders think this was a good idea as it is very easily misused in the heat of the moment.

apachepony
Jun. 29, 2010, 10:28 AM
For those of you with issues with the back up, why the shock? Her back up was done quickly, and in a manner that was a correction, but how is that any different than wailing on the horse with the crop three times? If she had taken a 'one step at a time' dressage reinback, enough to go 5 strides worth, they would have been there all day, and the point of the correction wouldn't have been made. Horses aren't robots. They don't know that some horses go better with a crop and a circle, and so go better backing up. Mine is one that I would back up exactly the same as this rider did.

If you think her backing was fast, try watching reining sometime. Here's a top reining horse backing up in the first few seconds of the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Px8boFh0e_Y

Just because you personally don't use backing as a tool doesn't mean that others don't find it very useful.

Janet
Jun. 29, 2010, 10:31 AM
Regarding the comments that the horse is backing too quickly, let's remember here that we are out on a cross country course, not in an arena doing a nice calm dressage test. Are you saying that backing up on the rough footing of the cross country course is safer than backing up on the flat, groomed, footing of the dressage arean?

LisaB
Jun. 29, 2010, 10:32 AM
'Wailing' on a horse isn't cool either at an event.

asterix
Jun. 29, 2010, 10:36 AM
If you think her backing was fast, try watching reining sometime. Here's a top reining horse backing up in the first few seconds of the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Px8boFh0e_Y

Just because you personally don't use backing as a tool doesn't mean that others don't find it very useful.

In reining, as others have said, backing up quickly is a part of the sport.

I haven't heard anyone suggest it is a regular part of xc competition. It is unusual to do this in competition.
Your analogy is false.

The video does show that the horse comes pretty close to loosing his footing during the backing; ground was obviously not ideal.

TBCollector
Jun. 29, 2010, 10:48 AM
I looked up the results for CHP and saw that this particular rider had a RF on one horse. Which level is she riding in the Youtube clip? I'm late to this discussion; don't know if the RF was on this horse or not.

flutie1
Jun. 29, 2010, 10:48 AM
Was the film edited at all before it went out on U tube? There seems to be a small skip right after the stop and before the backing began.

JER
Jun. 29, 2010, 10:50 AM
I haven't heard anyone suggest it is a regular part of xc competition. It is unusual to do this in competition.


:lol::lol::lol::lol:

Actually, a horse backing up quickly is often an incident on the XC course. At the water or in front of a ditch, we award 20 penalties for it. :D

The idea that 'backing up too quickly' is DR just serves to underscore the lack of clarity in the rule as written.

SandyUHC
Jun. 29, 2010, 10:50 AM
Maybe not DR, maybe a violation of an abuse rule instead? That rein snatch is UGLY, particularly considering the horse was akready backing up as fast as it could. I bet the rider's temper was a factor in this.

(And what is that weird noise??)

bornfreenowexpensive
Jun. 29, 2010, 11:02 AM
In reining, as others have said, backing up quickly is a part of the sport.




....and you don't get a reining horse to back up by snatching on their mouth.....

a1ngot8r
Jun. 29, 2010, 11:17 AM
I looked up the results for CHP and saw that this particular rider had a RF on one horse. Which level is she riding in the Youtube clip? I'm late to this discussion; don't know if the RF was on this horse or not.

RF was on her other 1* horse not related to a fence. Spectator hiding in bushes scared the horse at an unmarked water crossing, he spun and she came off, this video is of her second 1* horse.

a1ngot8r
Jun. 29, 2010, 11:23 AM
Was the film edited at all before it went out on U tube? There seems to be a small skip right after the stop and before the backing began.

No editing done to the video received directly from the videographer as is.

Meredith Clark
Jun. 29, 2010, 11:24 AM
....and you don't get a reining horse to back up by snatching on their mouth.....

Yea.. that was a really bad analogy and coming from a western background it is almost insulting to compare what the rider in the video (x-country) did to world class reining.

I don't see what is so hard about this concept. When you're at an event going cross country (or really any phase) don't back up and don't intentionally snatch your horses mouth. Do whatever you want schooling but stuff like that is going to attract negative attention at an event.

Also it is VERY true that the TDs look at the ENTIRE course. Anyone who's jumped judged knows that if a pair is looking dodgy going around a course the TD will "follow" them and watch very carefully. At a lot of events they'll swtich to their own radio channel to discuss it and if need be pull the rider. They may not pull the rider at the "worst" fence they've had, but they pull the rider because they truly believe that the next fence might be the "worst" and cause harm to the horse or rider.

Moderator 1
Jun. 29, 2010, 11:32 AM
We merged the two parallel threads on this topic and tweaked the thread title to reflect the addition of the video here.

Thanks,
Mod 1

riderboy
Jun. 29, 2010, 11:34 AM
When I first saw the video I have to say, the reinback looked too fast and too rough. Is that DR? I don't know but I can see why a judge might think so. That's the problem with DR, it's a subjective thing.

HappyRiding
Jun. 29, 2010, 11:40 AM
I looked up the results for CHP and saw that this particular rider had a RF on one horse. Which level is she riding in the Youtube clip? I'm late to this discussion; don't know if the RF was on this horse or not.

She had two horses in the division, the one she fell off of was a grey that spooked at some spectators hoping out of trees at this small creek that had filled with the rain.


I watched her ride this horse(video) in stadium the next day and the horse stopped at a jump and when she turned around to represent it, the horse put its head down and ran off for a few strides. I think after watching the video and seeing the horse being represented in a circle clearly backing up was the best option for the horse. If someone is going to say though the footing is not ideal then I have to agree but you need to remember horses have flipped trotting in arenas with footing worth thousands of dollars. The rider was not pulling on the horse in a manner that seemed like to me that it would have caused the horse to flip that i have seen others use.

texaswhenidie
Jun. 29, 2010, 11:58 AM
i just don't see how a professional rider backing up a horse as a correction is up for debate like this. she already got eliminated, do we all really need to drag down her riding style too?

coming from a background with a lot of Western in it, i just don't think the back up was that harsh. yes it was fast, and she did use a lot of hand, but it was a CORRECTION, not a gentle introduction to backing up. plus the horse was on XC, it's not like he was a school pony.

i think all the flaming is a little extreme, especially since everyone knows the rider can read it. she's obviously a capable rider, she made a mistake, she already got eliminated.

asterix
Jun. 29, 2010, 12:03 PM
I don't think we are flaming -- this is really a learning opportunity for everyone, and kudos (as has been said before) to the rider for posting the video.
DR is obviously subjective, and we are having a debate about whether what we can see in the video "merits" a DR penalty.
Some folks on this thread are licensed eventing officials. Most of us are just eventers.
This is somewhat uncharted territory for the community, and it is very helpful for us to be able to see something that an official did designate as DR and talk about it.

You are right, the penalty has already been assessed (you do not get eliminated for DR; you get a penalty), and none of us have the ability to cancel that out for the rider.

But I don't think there's anything terribly wrong with having a frank discussion about this. It's an important issue in our sport.

EDITED to add: why does the fact that she is a professional matter in this debate? I would hope that this penalty is assessed based on what the officials SEE and not on who the rider is; similarly, she should not get a "pass" because she is a professional, or is competent, or whatever.

JAM
Jun. 29, 2010, 12:10 PM
My $.02 -- generally agree with an amalgam of Canterlope and Bobthehorse: I personally wouldn't call it DR, but it is close enough (for the reasons Canterlope states) to merit a discussion among the officials and a conversation with the rider by the officials. The many differences of opinions on this thread -- all reasonable and all reasonably stated -- illustrate the need to have some clear standards on this question (and the similar question of abuse).

I will add my own view that "letters should not be written" over this. It was a borderline call, but not egregious (again, in my view, looking at a somewhat grainy video from a distance -- but it probably looked worse close up and when it was happening).

bornfreenowexpensive
Jun. 29, 2010, 12:12 PM
i think all the flaming is a little extreme, especially since everyone knows the rider can read it. she's obviously a capable rider, she made a mistake, she already got eliminated.


I don't think most of the "flaming" is extreme.

I personally disagree with her correction....as I don't think snatching a horse in the mouth and backing as a correction when they stop, teaches or corrects what is a lack of going forward mistake by the horse.

Professional riders are not above bad riding...or making mistakes.

But do agree that what I saw in the video to me should not have warrented a DR penalty.

This opens the valid debate of when a DR penalty should be assessed. Of which....there seems to be a lot of debate.

1516
Jun. 29, 2010, 12:22 PM
DANGEROUS RIDING?? Crazy! So ridiculous! Who is the official that gave her the DR? Sounds to me like somebody is on a power trip or something.

whbar158
Jun. 29, 2010, 12:45 PM
I have to say for some horses backing is very important. My horse doesn't stop at jumps but when he was in training he was often backed after jumps and in corners when he was bad, he was western broke and it worked amazing on him. I actually have used backing up many times for horses to go over something, and not turn them away from the jump. While maybe she did use some hand aggressively and others have said what if the horse went up etc but the horse never looked like it wanted to go up and was not fighting the rider, it did back quickly as others said partially I am sure because it has had to back in the past and backing step by step would take forever.

If that is getting DR then I would guess they are handing a lot out. I don't think that it even falls under abuse her hands where not moving around that much. The horse was not overly upset.

Interesting what the poster said about the stop in stadium where she circled instead and the horse tried to run off which is why she backed here. I have seen much worse not get a penalty at all.

SGray
Jun. 29, 2010, 01:07 PM
did rider discuss with GJ or JJ the reasoning for the DR? perhaps it was not the reinback at all

LuvMyTB
Jun. 29, 2010, 02:19 PM
My guess is that the horse is used to this type of correction, KNEW he was going to be backed, and THAT'S why he backed so quickly.

No different than a jumper who backs off or stops at a fence, then shies sideways and throws his head because he KNOWS he's going to get smacked with the crop a few times. They KNOW they will be corrected and will anticipate it.

I don't see any DR here, but then again, I'm not an eventer.

Beam Me Up
Jun. 29, 2010, 03:17 PM
First, thanks to the OP for sharing! Brave, and helpful.

I do think this is a constructive discussion and that DR is something that needs better definition.

Like others, my concern about DR in general is its subjectivity, and clearly here people are split. I wonder if we were all to watch other riding tapes, how frequently officials/jjs would agree/disagree? I wish we had more clips.

I wonder if the camera angle (further behind the horse) is kinder than that of the jj who was seeing the incident in profile. The snatches with the left hand and the abruptness of the reverse are certainly jarring, and probably looked worse from that vantage point than from behind the horse where he's backing at you.

Then again, it is a single on-course decision we are debating, as opposed to the continuous dangerous riding around a whole course.

If I were the jj I would definitely radio it in, especially if there had been any concerns from earlier in the course. As an official, with just that to go on, I doubt I would have penalized based on just that fence.

NeverTime
Jun. 29, 2010, 03:55 PM
Watching that, it's hard for me to get all up in arms. The manner in which the horse jumped the turning question after being corrected would seem to indicate the correction was effective.
But I do think Asterix raises an excellent point (quoted below because it was a few pages back):



So in this case, it is also possible that there was a consideration of how risky this move could be, if it became a accepted mode to correct a refusal IN COMPETITION. It was hastily executed, and although the resulting jump was calm and safe, I would hate to see other riders think this was a good idea as it is very easily misused in the heat of the moment.

In this case, the rider backed up enough, reapproached with adequate impulsion and had quite a nice, seemingly balanced jump through the combination. But I'd be worried about this being telegraphed as a universally appropriate reapproach method ("Hey kids, if you have a stop, circle or reinback, either is fine!") down through the levels. A less experienced rider's version of the same correction could easily include less distance, less/no pace after the reinback (there's a reason we now penalize jumping from a standstill), simultaneous whacking and pulling ... essentially reapproaching the fence WITHOUT the key elements that made this rider's correction effective. I don't personally have any problem with the correction, but do think asterix makes an excellent point.
But is the purpose of the DR penalty to penalize an individual's actions or set policy for eventing as to what is and is not appropriate that's not written in the rule book? From my armchair, this one looks like a bad call for the individual but a good call for the sport (except that I don't really think that's what the DR penalty is meant to do).

asterix
Jun. 29, 2010, 04:08 PM
Thanks, NeverTime -- that was something I was curious to get others' responses to...
IS this part of the purpose of DR? Or is it simply meant as a penalty on the spot, in the moment?

My understanding of the discussion surrounding the move to make DR more a part of officials' toolbox was that it would have a teaching effect....

bornfreenowexpensive
Jun. 29, 2010, 04:16 PM
Thanks, NeverTime -- that was something I was curious to get others' responses to...
IS this part of the purpose of DR? Or is it simply meant as a penalty on the spot, in the moment?

My understanding of the discussion surrounding the move to make DR more a part of officials' toolbox was that it would have a teaching effect....


And I thought that it was just a safety measure....to be a wake up call for people who needed one so that they felt it where it perhaps mattered to them (in the placings).

Honestly...I don't really want to be taught by all officials. Some yes...but not all. Slippery slope to me.

asterix
Jun. 29, 2010, 04:32 PM
I should clarify that I am NOT speaking from any special knowledge here (although I can check this out if I ever see my constantly-on-the-road-coach again) but my own memory of these conversations when it was on the plate of the Powers That Be.
(and I suppose that even if it was NOT part of the official conversation, there is nothing to say that individual officials may not have this use in mind when they debate giving a DR, which is certainly a high-profile penalty, as evidenced by this discussion)...

purplnurpl
Jun. 29, 2010, 04:50 PM
dang. I was supprised a rider did that in public. If it is your prerogative to use the tool as a training aide for one or all of your horses--then train at home.
There are politically correct things to do in public. This IMO was not kosher.

I would not put this in the DR catagory.

I would compare it to the, "more than three spanks with the whip at one time and you are out" catagory.

If I had seen it in person I would have thought, geez, is that allowed?

I think it would fall under excessive backing.
It not like she quietly reined back three canter steps and then continued forward.
She ran the horse backwards in an unbalanced manner for 8 seconds. Not something others need to observe and try at home.

FlightCheck
Jun. 29, 2010, 04:56 PM
There is always more to the story than published on a public BB (or than Should Be).

I was there, saw the ride, the rider's other ride, etc....and the aftermath.

I don't know the OP or the rider in question, so I have no dog in this hunt.

Lalalalalalala.

Carry on.

JER
Jun. 29, 2010, 05:16 PM
At the considerable risk of unleashing the COTH It's-Not-Your-Business! Chorus, I have a question:

Who was the licensed official or officials who handed down the DR?

I'm asking because the GJ listed in the Omnibus for this event consists of 2 US-designated officials, a TD from Mexico and one official from Great Britain. And yes, these are all licensed officials, whose work and decisions at competitions should always be transparent.

Transparency and accountability of licensed officials are of paramount importance in maintaining the credibility of any sport organization. Just ask FIFA. :)

DLee
Jun. 29, 2010, 05:30 PM
I never got the impression at the Safety Summit that the DR penalty was to teach. I got the impression it was to help prevent an impending disaster that basically "everyone" could see coming sooner or later.

NeverTime
Jun. 29, 2010, 06:22 PM
That had been my impression, too, DLee, and that's how I *think* it was used in the only two times I know remotely anything about where it was a preventative measure and the rider stopped on course (Hilda Donahue last year at Pau, where media reports indicated officials thought her horse was jumping in poor form and stopped her several fences from home, and a few years ago also at, coincidentally, the Colorado Horse Park, where an adult amateur and his pony were clearing the fences in very unusual, but typical-for-them form).
Hilda's was the topic of plenty of debate, and FlightCheck was there, too, for the other one at CHP ... I have no idea of the aftermath of that one, except to note the same horse/rider pair were there again this year and completed the intermediate without being flagged for DR again so perhaps the penalty helped encourage them to change their style.
So, with us only watching a few moments in time, perhaps that was the case here, too, the idea of preventing an accident that the officials think is close at hand.

Gry2Yng
Jun. 29, 2010, 06:31 PM
Of course the caveat is "every story has AT LEAST two sides", but based on the video ALONE, that one little snippet. I would not call that DR, personally. I thought the whole thing was well executed based ONLY on this video from this angle.

ETA: I think sometimes we get all bent about "punishment". Horse stopped. He was punished. If we are not allowed to punish in public and only at home we will have lots of wonderful horses that can never be shown. They learn the difference.

Gry2Yng
Jun. 29, 2010, 06:44 PM
Exactly! DR isn't only about the end result of a horse and rider crashing and burning. It also includes a rider placing the horse in a potential dangerous situation regardless of the outcome.

If the ground is potentially dangerous to back up over, should we really be galloping on it? A rein back is no more potentially dangerous than riding 600mpm. Stuff happens, but it is not inherently dangerous. A big, disorganized, arm flapping circle is no great shakes in my book, and a much more blatant display of poor horsemanship/lack of education than this ride - for this small snippet.


Public questioning of an officials decision is NQR.

It is our job to publicly question those in power. In any organization, be it the USEA or the Federal Government. Read the Federalist Papers.



I don't think that is DR and to be honest, it concerns me that DR would be used for something that happened at 1 jump. Every one has had a jump they wish didn't happen or that they could take back, but that doesn't mean they were riding dangerously. Things happen when were mortals are in charge and sometimes, things need to be handled in a schooling manner, in competition, for the horse to get the point. I think the DR needs to be used for a pattern of events.

Agree with the above entirely. What we don't know is whether the officials observed a pattern, and that changes the answer to the question.

riderboy
Jun. 29, 2010, 06:46 PM
I never got the impression at the Safety Summit that the DR penalty was to teach. I got the impression it was to help prevent an impending disaster that basically "everyone" could see coming sooner or later.

Yes, the thought being that if reckless or dangerous behavior was left unchecked it would one day end in disaster. This was after Rolex that year. Again, I personally don't like the way it looks. This has been said before, that we don't know this trainer/horse combination and their training history and all that is very true. They may do this all the time at home. Having had a horse that would have reared with a lot less than that I guess my experience colors what I see. Rearing is scary as hell and flipping over backwards? -way not cool. Who knows if someone watching this who is a less talented rider with a less tolerant horse might try this with very different results.

EventingJ
Jun. 29, 2010, 06:50 PM
Who knows if someone watching this who is a less talented rider with a less tolerant horse might try this with very different results.

Oh come now - you could say this for just about any part of eventing, or riding for that matter.

bornfreenowexpensive
Jun. 29, 2010, 07:01 PM
So, with us only watching a few moments in time, perhaps that was the case here, too, the idea of preventing an accident that the officials think is close at hand.


and condsidering this combo's issues in stadium....I suspect there is more to the story. But my opinion that this wasn't worthy of a DR penalty was just based on the video. It is interesting to me that there are others who think it was.....which really highlights how subjective this sort of rule is.

CookiePony
Jun. 29, 2010, 07:06 PM
Keeping in mind what FlightCheck said about there always being more to the story, and writing not from an armchair, but from my couch...

Count me among those who were surprised that the action on the video got a DR penalty. I appreciate the licensed officials who have posted here and explained that the act of backing up (I counted 15 steps) was the aspect of the situation that put the horse in danger. I was not aware that backing up was considered to be a dangerous action on a XC course, but now I am.

I also appreciate asterix's theory that perhaps this DR was applied to teach a lesson to the eventing community as a whole. I was not aware of any teaching function that the DR penalty has that would encourage its application in a situation that was not obviously dangerous. But I'm no expert.

Also, count me among those who feel that what the rider did was "not kosher." I personally feel that 15 steps of backing, accompanied by that snatch with the left rein, was too much. There is a provision against "excessive" use of the bit, but I have no idea whether the officials thought the use of the bit was "excessive" in this case.

ETA: the rider has clarified that what appears to be a snatch on the rein with the left hand was actually going to her whip to get the horse to move forward, which does seem to be an appropriate action to me.

JER
Jun. 29, 2010, 07:08 PM
ETA: I think sometimes we get all bent about "punishment". Horse stopped. He was punished. If we are not allowed to punish in public and only at home we will have lots of wonderful horses that can never be shown. They learn the difference.

This is a very important point.

It used to be that 'training at shows' situations were fairly commonplace, unremarkable and sometimes humorous. For example, we're all familiar with the horse who bolts off course and heads for home when he sees the trailers. The end result is a self-satisfied horse and a crying kid. The usual solution to this is to have the trainer or a stronger rider ride him at the next competition, with the idea that if and when the horse bolts, the rider will march the animal back to the course and continue on.

The last time I saw this happen, the very capable rider was told by some officials that she could not continue and she pleaded her case that this was exactly why she was riding this horse that day. They let her go, with some very stern warnings, and they went around without incident. I saw it as a sad moment for the sport, where we've forgotten our roots as horsepeople.

Disobediences happen. The same disobediences have been going on since the dawn of the sport and they will continue to happen. Riders should be able to deal with them in appropriate ways, which can vary from horse to horse. Circling or going to the whip might work for one horse and it might be totally counterproductive for another. (If you want to see some poor examples of circling and whipping, see the Chatt Hills Intermediate video. Circling and whipping without achieving any balance or impulsion is hardly safe riding.)

And if, like Flight Check says, there is more to the story and the GJ is punishing something other than this one act, then that should also be made clear. Made clear to anyone who's interested. How can we learn what dangerous riding is in the eyes of licensed officials if the penalty is merely assessed but not explained?

Blugal
Jun. 29, 2010, 07:36 PM
Just a quick comment on one issue:


I think the DR needs to be used for a pattern of events.

I disagree, and that's because it's very possible to ride dangerously in one instance that needs to be corrected. The example given earlier about the Training level rider jumping out the Advanced water complex is one instance.

I am having a hard time not equating DR with FEI Yellow Cards - where one moment of dangerous riding is definitely fodder for a yellow card, such as a rider who jumped over the spectator ropes. The rest of the round may have been brilliant - but that doesn't mean this move wasn't terribly dangerous.

subk
Jun. 29, 2010, 07:49 PM
I would have to support the DR penalty. Yes, it might be boarder line but I think the rider should count herself lucky she didn't get and Abuse of Horse penalty which I believe is more serious as it disqualifies the rider on all the horses they are competing and can result in a suspension. Yes, that would have been a boarder line call too, but it could have stuck.

The only fall that scares me as much (or more) than a rotational is a horse going up on his hind legs flipping over backwards. It is an extremely dangerous fall as the likelihood of a horse landing you--and thus serious injury--is very high. Unlike rotationals rearing flipping are/can be learned behavior.

When the "technique" was originally explained I visualized a horse stopping, standing a moment in front of the fence and then a controlled--or at least the correct footfall sequence--of a rein back. That video was NOT it. The horse slid into the fence, lurched back, and raced backward. If you look carefully at the sequence of the foot falls it was not the lateral movement of a rein back but the horse actually cantered backward. Horses structurally are not meant to canter in reverse.

The horse was NOT in balance. We are so used to an "unbalanced" horse being one with it forehand too low that I don't think it is obvious to us when we see one with the forehand too high. The rein back is also a "forward" movement. Had this horse gone up I had no sense that the rider could have gotten the gears reversed fast enough to prevent a flip, way too much backward momentum.

The other thing that scares me is the horse went backward so quickly that I'm almost certain that it was a conditioned response to a refusal. THAT is frightening because for many fences this would be safety hazard and I'm not sure trusting the horse to have the judgment to recognize a situation where this is a bad idea is particularly wise. Again rearing is a learned behavior and this horse is already partially there.

JAM
Jun. 29, 2010, 08:08 PM
I totally agree that disobediences need to be punished, whether at home or at an event. I also agree that different horses respond differently to different forms of punishment. But if punishment was the rider's objective in doing the reinback in this instance, then I disagree with it. I don't think that telling a horse that if it stops in front of a fence it's going to be reinbacked 8 or so steps is a particularly effective technique for encouraging the horse to go forward. If, as someone suggested, it was a technique that's been used repetitively on this horse (and the way that horse reined back, I would have to agree), then it is quite obviously not effective.

As presaged by my prior poston this thread, I also fully agree with your last paragraph that the rule needs to be explained clearly in advance and applied consistently across events and across levels so that everyone will know exactly what's permissible and what's not.


This is a very important point.

It used to be that 'training at shows' situations were fairly commonplace, unremarkable and sometimes humorous. For example, we're all familiar with the horse who bolts off course and heads for home when he sees the trailers. The end result is a self-satisfied horse and a crying kid. The usual solution to this is to have the trainer or a stronger rider ride him at the next competition, with the idea that if and when the horse bolts, the rider will march the animal back to the course and continue on.

The last time I saw this happen, the very capable rider was told by some officials that she could not continue and she pleaded her case that this was exactly why she was riding this horse that day. They let her go, with some very stern warnings, and they went around without incident. I saw it as a sad moment for the sport, where we've forgotten our roots as horsepeople.

Disobediences happen. The same disobediences have been going on since the dawn of the sport and they will continue to happen. Riders should be able to deal with them in appropriate ways, which can vary from horse to horse. Circling or going to the whip might work for one horse and it might be totally counterproductive for another. (If you want to see some poor examples of circling and whipping, see the Chatt Hills Intermediate video. Circling and whipping without achieving any balance or impulsion is hardly safe riding.)

And if, like Flight Check says, there is more to the story and the GJ is punishing something other than this one act, then that should also be made clear. Made clear to anyone who's interested. How can we learn what dangerous riding is in the eyes of licensed officials if the penalty is merely assessed but not explained?

riderboy
Jun. 29, 2010, 08:18 PM
Oh come now - you could say this for just about any part of eventing, or riding for that matter.
You could, but I'm not. Just my opinion on this thread.

I would have to support the DR penalty. Yes, it might be boarder line but I think the rider should count herself lucky she didn't get and Abuse of Horse penalty which I believe is more serious as it disqualifies the rider on all the horses they are competing and can result in a suspension. Yes, that would have been a boarder line call too, but it could have stuck.

The only fall that scares me as much (or more) than a rotational is a horse going up on his hind legs flipping over backwards. It is an extremely dangerous fall as the likelihood of a horse landing you--and thus serious injury--is very high. Unlike rotationals rearing flipping are/can be learned behavior.

When the "technique" was originally explained I visualized a horse stopping, standing a moment in front of the fence and then a controlled--or at least the correct footfall sequence--of a rein back. That video was NOT it. The horse slid into the fence, lurched back, and raced backward. If you look carefully at the sequence of the foot falls it was not the lateral movement of a rein back but the horse actually cantered backward. Horses structurally are not meant to canter in reverse.

The horse was NOT in balance. We are so used to an "unbalanced" horse being one with it forehand too low that I don't think it is obvious to us when we see one with the forehand too high. The rein back is also a "forward" movement. Had this horse gone up I had no sense that the rider could have gotten the gears reversed fast enough to prevent a flip, way too much backward momentum.

The other thing that scares me is the horse went backward so quickly that I'm almost certain that it was a conditioned response to a refusal. THAT is frightening because for many fences this would be safety hazard and I'm not sure trusting the horse's judgment to recognize a situation where this is a bad idea is particularly wise. Again rearing is a learned behavior and this horse is already partially there.

Yes, obviously there won't be any agreement on this, that's really the problem with the DR penalty. But I agree with Subk here.

Blugal
Jun. 29, 2010, 08:20 PM
I agree with subk, and could see the DR applied with her way of thinking (the unbalanced, speedy backing up) as showing the potential for harm to others - e.g. if the horse backed up into the jump judge or spectators, which would be quite possible in a different jump configuration/track lay-out.

a1ngot8r
Jun. 29, 2010, 08:29 PM
posted in response to subk

Good Lord.....this is the biggest bunch of BS I have read on this topic! Did you watch the same video? Horse rearing? Um....no, cantering backwards.....um no, not physically possible.

JER
Jun. 29, 2010, 08:40 PM
I agree with subk, and could see the DR applied with her way of thinking (the unbalanced, speedy backing up) as showing the potential for harm to others - e.g. if the horse backed up into the jump judge or spectators, which would be quite possible in a different jump configuration/track lay-out.

But that's not what happened here.

There was no harm to others. Not even close.

I don't see any positive value to the Minority Report interpretation of the Dangerous Riding rule. Dangerous riding should be specifically identifiable and substantiated by those who invoke the rule.

subk
Jun. 29, 2010, 08:53 PM
But that's not what happened here.

There was no harm to others. Not even close.
Which is the usual result of jumping from a stand still. But that has been identified as dangerous and is no longer allowed. That we recognize that putting a horse in that balance going backward on some occasions, but not always also can lead to a fall statistically more likely to injury and identify it as dangerous seems reasonable to me. It also seems reasonable that we don't need a rule for it as it is so rare, and that we can trust judges to recognize it when they see it.


posted in response to subk

Good Lord.....this is the biggest bunch of BS I have read on this topic! Did you watch the same video? Horse rearing? Um....no, cantering backwards.....um no, not physically possible.
That it is not physically possible is what makes the sequence of foot falls so disturbing. Watch the first stride or two backward, then the last 3 or 4 strides backward. As the hind feet land in almost unison note the position of the horse's shoulder and the lack of weight distributed on the front end to see the balance. No, I didn't say the horse reared just that had it decided to--and that it was in a balance to--the rider would have been in a dire situation. Using backing as a tool has always had rearing as a possible complication.

My opinion is that it is reason enough to make a DR stick, YMMV. But personally I'd rather see and support some close calls and rely on the officials educated opinion than see the rule book junked up with more rules that only make things more complicated. I like that the officials have descretion, it allows for the implementation of common sense--which I suspect is the untold backstory in this instance.

Janet
Jun. 29, 2010, 09:15 PM
Um....no, cantering backwards.....um no, not physically possible.

Yes it is

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bW0gLYhUR-0

Meredith Clark
Jun. 29, 2010, 09:34 PM
Yes it is

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bW0gLYhUR-0

wow! :eek:

Blugal
Jun. 29, 2010, 09:34 PM
My opinion is that it is reason enough to make a DR stick, YMMV. But personally I'd rather see and support some close calls and rely on the officials educated opinion than see the rule book junked up with more rules that only make things more complicated.

This is what I thought, too. I am, however, ALL for having DR better defined, preferably with some video examples and possibly an educational online component that both officals and riders could access, and for having DR penalties coupled with a requirement for officials to state reasons.

Gry2Yng
Jun. 29, 2010, 09:35 PM
Yes it is

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bW0gLYhUR-0

Not to start a spinoff, but that horse is not traveling backward in a three beat gait any more than the horse in the video in question, but I understand your point Janet.

retreadeventer
Jun. 29, 2010, 09:41 PM
What amazes me is that this thread has gone on four pages past the definitive video and very learned opinions of some people who have been in the sport and around horses about a hundred years.
I'm not going to argue with that experience. I do not like the correction and I could see that stop coming a long way back. I'm with BigRuss, Flutie and Canterlope on this. Not good riding and not good sportsmanship. Thumbs up for the call. Sorry. Maybe you will learn not to punish a horse like this in the future. I pray for your horse's sake you do. Corrections as Big Russ said, going forward -- not backward.

Gry2Yng
Jun. 29, 2010, 09:45 PM
I'm not going to argue with that experience. I do not like the correction and I could see that stop coming a long way back.


The stop happened 6 seconds and 10 strides into the video, when did you see it coming? But respectfully, what does that have to do with the topic?

FWIW, I do see what could be considered "cantering backward" as mentioned in a previous post.

lstevenson
Jun. 29, 2010, 09:51 PM
The stop happened 6 seconds into the video, when did you see it coming?


I saw it coming too. The horse was backpedaling the whole way to the fence.

Count me in as one who thinks that is NOT the best way to handle a stop, but DR penalties? That does not seem right.

subk
Jun. 29, 2010, 10:02 PM
Not to start a spinoff, but that horse is not traveling backward in a three beat gait any more than the horse in the video in question, but I understand your point Janet.
And my point is that the horse is not traveling in a rein back or any other form of controlled gait or foot sequence--not that it is or isn't technically going backward in a canter or three beat gait. All while being in a precarious balance.

Out of control, out of balance and intentionally ridden so--some people might reasonably conclude that that is dangerous. I don't think a DR call needs to be unanimous to be a reasonable call.

Bobthehorse
Jun. 29, 2010, 10:16 PM
The other thing that scares me is the horse went backward so quickly that I'm almost certain that it was a conditioned response to a refusal. THAT is frightening because for many fences this would be safety hazard and I'm not sure trusting the horse to have the judgment to recognize a situation where this is a bad idea is particularly wise. Again rearing is a learned behavior and this horse is already partially there.

I thought the same thing. Im sure in some cases a reinback response to a stop or run out could be useful (but IMO, not in cases where the stop is due to lack of impulsion, the correction should be forward not backward for this type). In skilled hands, and not all the time. These are apparently not skilled hands. The horse clearly knows that when he stops he gets yanked backwards, because his reaction was to immediately run backwards. It seems like a stop such as this one, where the horse was behind the leg coming in, would be better corrected with a stick. Maybe he gets one behind the leg 2 strides out when she puts leg on and he still sucks back (which he did), prevention is always easier than trying to solve something thats already gone wrong. Instead of waiting for him to stop and then running him backwards.

CookiePony
Jun. 29, 2010, 10:31 PM
I appreciate subk's explanation of how backing the horse up could be dangerous-- this has been educational for me.


I would have to support the DR penalty. Yes, it might be boarder line but I think the rider should count herself lucky she didn't get and Abuse of Horse penalty which I believe is more serious as it disqualifies the rider on all the horses they are competing and can result in a suspension.

But-- are you saying that DR functions as a kind of Abuse of Horse "lite," for officials to assess in lieu of a more serious abuse penalty?

subk
Jun. 29, 2010, 10:42 PM
But-- are you saying that DR functions as a kind of Abuse of Horse "lite," for officials to assess in lieu of a more serious abuse penalty?
No. I think the official had a choice of which penalty to access for different reasons and picked DR.

To me the Abuse of Horse would have been less defendable by the official, but I think there is an argument for it--albeit not one I would make. I also think that once it is implemented there cannot be any challenge to it, so it is a very heavy handed ruling.

Beam Me Up
Jun. 29, 2010, 11:27 PM
This is a very important point.

It used to be that 'training at shows' situations were fairly commonplace, unremarkable and sometimes humorous. For example, we're all familiar with the horse who bolts off course and heads for home when he sees the trailers. The end result is a self-satisfied horse and a crying kid. The usual solution to this is to have the trainer or a stronger rider ride him at the next competition, with the idea that if and when the horse bolts, the rider will march the animal back to the course and continue on.

The last time I saw this happen, the very capable rider was told by some officials that she could not continue and she pleaded her case that this was exactly why she was riding this horse that day. They let her go, with some very stern warnings, and they went around without incident. I saw it as a sad moment for the sport, where we've forgotten our roots as horsepeople.

I too have noticed this change in the culture of our sport fairly recently.
I have been told by officials straight out that events are not where we school, that if I had a single issue (on a horse that could get a bit wound in the warm-up) that they were pulling me off the course (luckily I never did, he was just a dope in warm-up).

I do understand that there is a fine line. Everyone needs to be safe, and nobody can infringe upon anyone else's safety, but at the same time green and troubled horses do ultimately need to learn from experience.

fooler
Jun. 30, 2010, 12:10 AM
Almost all of the Western horsemen I have known over the past 40+ years use the rein back to "get a horse's attention" or to 'discipline' the horse. However most Western horses are flat shod or bare foot.

Most Event horses at Training level or above are wearing studs. This horse could have very easily injured himself or worse during this 'quick' and unbalanced rein back. Also the rider backed up expecting there was no one, such as an overtaking horse/rider combo, coming up behind. So as a TD I see this as DR.

lstevenson
Jun. 30, 2010, 12:40 AM
Also the rider backed up expecting there was no one, such as an overtaking horse/rider combo, coming up behind. So as a TD I see this as DR.


That's a good point. I hadn't thought of that. Since the horse was going backwards so fast, and a little sideways, I guess it is possible that he could have run someone over.

Good Intentions
Jun. 30, 2010, 12:55 AM
Just to bring everyone up to speed on the incident. I am the rider on the video. The horse is very light in the hand....almost where he doesn't go into the hand at all. You obviously are unable to see it, however after getting quite alot of rain the night before it was a bit boggy....this horse is particular about footing and as you can see isn't in the "perfect" spot for taking off....so he stopped. I went to rein back and squeezed my fingers on the reins. The horse ran backwards....not because he was pulled backwards or often gets pulled backwards....he's a bit hot and very sensitive.....I simply wanted to regain his composure as he will get worried when he has had a refusal. (I was riding the horse for a student who recently stopped riding) When he started backing up, I smacked him with the whip because he started running backwards.....he then stopped....regained his composure and continued on. There was no reason for another horse to be approaching a fence nor overtaking me as I had not had any trouble up to that point. It was FEI so we were being sent out in 3 minute intervals. I had not had a bad fence and was complimeted by the ground jury about the ride being very nice around the course except for this incident.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrRAHgdH53s

I hope the explanation makes more sense of the video.
I agree the horse overreacted to the rein back.....and I felt I properly addressed the running backwards with a tap of the whip. The rein back was not the issue of the dangerous riding penalty. It was the fact that I went from a halt to 4 or 5 canter strides to a jump.
The official stated my ride "was not dangerous however the picking up a canter and jumping a fence could have led to a dangerous jump" She also stated that "this was a technique she would use in schooling but not in competition".

I just didn't think it was appropriate to receive a yellow card or DR.

Possibly a warning to say she didn't like that I went from a rein back to canter of 5 stides to a jump. Just didn't feel the DR was appropriate.

My biggest issue here is I was told by 2 other officials that they did not agree with the PGJ, however they would not state there opinion to anyone but me and each other. I understand officials need to support each other, however when they truly feel the other is not correct why is it that they don't feel they can stand up for what they beleive in?

It actually becomes unfair to the competitor at that point....because now I have a DR on my record and I don't feel I'm a dangerous rider or someone who should be looked upon as dangerous, nor did I feel that incident was dangerous or should be used as an example of dangerous riding.

I'm not trying to offend anyone....just trying to clarify at what point do you worry so much about receiving a DR when on course that it possibly effects your riding? Or do we just keep riding the way we know how and hope this becomes more defined.

wanderlust
Jun. 30, 2010, 01:48 AM
When he started backing up, I smacked him with the whip because he started running backwards.....he then stopped....regained his composure and continued on.
<snip>
I agree the horse overreacted to the rein back.....and I felt I properly addressed the running backwards with a tap of the whip. The rein back was not the issue of the dangerous riding penalty. It was the fact that I went from a halt to 4 or 5 canter strides to a jump.
This makes a lot of sense. What I thought was a sharp jab in the teeth (the left elbow coming back, which several have made reference to), upon re-watching, was actually you going to the whip. Which is, IMHO, absolutely the right correction, and the fence was well-ridden from the halt. I also thought not trying to kick him over the fence from that original icky distance was well done, too. But that's a debate for another day.

vali
Jun. 30, 2010, 02:39 AM
I've done a lot of jump judging, and I just didn't see anything that looked dangerous. It was clearly a horse that had a few issues, and I can see where the backing is not the most elegant approach, but nothing looked unsafe to me. I don't think DR penalties should assessed just because the jump didn't look perfect or the jump judge didn't like the way the horse was disciplined. If the rider was abusive (which I don't think they were here, but others might disagree), then cite them or warn them about abusive riding. Dangerous riding to me are people who seem completely out of control and the horse and rider are consistently having scary jumps. At the lower levels I would not give someone a DR for just one awkward jump, that seems very discouraging.

ZiggyStardust
Jun. 30, 2010, 03:02 AM
My lord, does a person need a thicker skin every day to go out in public with their horse, especially if they want to show over fences. The jump judges are judging you (makes sense), the spectators are judging you (that's cool, as long as they are minding their bidness), the people handing out water at the end of the course are judging you because they have walkie talkies and hear the judges judging (erm, ok), the other riders that sometimes maybe see only 10 seconds of you and your horse or hear half a conversation are judging you (well, whatever, we're all here to have fun... right?), and the peanut gallery, professional or no, on the internet is judging you, based on a snippet video from a less than informative angle (oy, the opinions, she canna take much more of this captain!).

No wonder half the people at horse shows are just nutty, maybe you have to be to tune out some of the BS and still enjoy yourself?

I get that there are learning opportunities everywhere, but holy turkmenistan batman, it's a very small world and we all still gotta live (ride) in it.

ETA: I'm sure a similar list could be made from the perspective of an event organizer, which is closer to where this whole thread started. Two way street and all.

riderboy
Jun. 30, 2010, 06:40 AM
I've done a lot of jump judging, and I just didn't see anything that looked dangerous. Dangerous riding to me are people who seem completely out of control and....
And that's the problem with DR. There will always be disagreement, we can't even agree here and we have a video replay! Anytime there is a "judge" there will be subjective calls. If and when they are unfair, how does one handle that? Personally, I do this to have fun and while evry now and then it may suck to be me, I think I'll just learn what I can from what happened and move on.

retreadeventer
Jun. 30, 2010, 07:29 AM
I just didn't think it was appropriate to receive a yellow card or DR..... I don't feel I'm a dangerous rider or someone who should be looked upon as dangerous, nor did I feel that incident was dangerous or should be used as an example of dangerous riding....

I apologize for cutting up your quote but I wanted, in the interest of brevity, to get to the point(s).

My question to you: what have you learned from this?


Remember, what you feel or think is very different from what other people see. I am sorry about the DR, but you need to learn from this. I sympathize with your not wanting it on your record and would feel the same way if I made a mistake that resulted in such a warning. I also know how it feels to be on the receiving end of what appears to be an unfair ruling or be caught out in an esoteric rule that looks, on its face, to be subjective and discriminatory.

I hope going forward that this horse and you develop a partnership with more empathy and understanding. We never stop learning and we never know it all. To avoid this in the future, it is clear to me that we all have to be really cautious about any sort of corrections while on course in the future. A horse stops -- just circle, try again, stay out of their mouths, hit once or twice with bat behind the leg -- if they don't want to go or won't go, retire. That's the lesson I'm taking away from this. I hope you are, too.

Sharon
Jun. 30, 2010, 07:56 AM
Always forward for safety of both horse and rider.

In this case, neither the rider nor the owner are thinking of the "best interest of the horse".

canterlope
Jun. 30, 2010, 08:03 AM
The last time I saw this happen, the very capable rider was told by some officials that she could not continue and she pleaded her case that this was exactly why she was riding this horse that day. They let her go, with some very stern warnings, and they went around without incident. I saw it as a sad moment for the sport, where we've forgotten our roots as horsepeople.Is it that we've forgotten our roots as horsepeople or is it because personal responsibility has become a thing of the past? Think back to the Mia Errickson case. To refresh everyone's memory, this was the situation where a young rider was eliminated for having four stops on course, attempts were made to flag her down and ask her to leave the course, she continued on to the next fence where she was killed when her horse landed on top of her after a rotational fall. What happened next? Her mother tried to sue everyone and his brother including the USEF, USEA, the organizer, even the controller, claiming they were to blame.

I know this is an extreme case, but it illustrates the fine line that we walk these days in terms of preserving the essence of our sport while at the same time protecting it in today's society where stepping up and taking personal responsibility for one's actions is a root that many truly have forgotten.

I can tell you with all honesty that, when I am officiating at an event and I see the wiseguy little ponies taking advantage of their riders by refusing to go near the first fence and running back to their buddies in warm-up or the young greenies having four stops on course and would really benefit by being allowed to continue on, I would like nothing better than to allow the riders to do what they need to do to further their horses' educations. However, if I do this, I expose all involved to the risk that they will be unfairly and inaccurately held responsible if tragedy strikes.

So yes, JER, it is a sad moment for the sport. Not because our officials have forgotten our roots as horsepeople, but because some involved have forgotten that our roots include taking ownership of our actions.

Food for thought: Why is it that we enact rules like DR in the first place? Is it because there is some vast conspiracy amongst the powers that be to penalize as many competitors as possible or are these rules in response to situations created by the competitors themselves? If you believe it is the former instead of the latter, I have a bunch of other conspiracy theories I'd like to sell you.

fooler
Jun. 30, 2010, 08:16 AM
Is it that we've forgotten our roots as horsepeople or is it because personal responsibility has become a thing of the past? Think back to the Mia Errickson case. To refresh everyone's memory, this was the situation where a young rider was eliminated for having four stops on course, attempts were made to flag her down and ask her to leave the course, she continued on to the next fence where she was killed when her horse landed on top of her after a rotational fall. What happened next? Her mother tried to sue everyone and his brother including the USEF, USEA, the organizer, even the controller, claiming they were to blame.

I know this is an extreme case, but it illustrates the fine line that we walk these days in terms of preserving the essence of our sport while at the same time protecting it in today's society where stepping up and taking personal responsibility for one's actions is a root that many truly have forgotten.

I can tell you with all honesty that, when I am officiating at an event and I see the wiseguy little ponies taking advantage of their riders by refusing to go near the first fence and running back to their buddies in warm-up or the young greenies having four stops on course and would really benefit by being allowed to continue on, I would like nothing better than to allow the riders to do what they need to do to further their horses' educations. However, if I do this, I expose all involved to the risk that they will be unfairly and inaccurately held responsible if tragedy strikes.

So yes, JER, it is a sad moment for the sport. Not because our officials have forgotten our roots as horsepeople, but because some involved have forgotten that our roots include taking ownership of our actions.

Food for thought: Why is it that we enact rules like DR in the first place? Is it because there is some vast conspiracy amongst the powers that be to penalize as many competitors as possible or are these rules in response to situations created by the competitors themselves? If you believe it is the former instead of the latter, I have a bunch of other conspiracy theories I'd like to sell you.

Well stated!

Bold text = my emphasis

nextyear
Jun. 30, 2010, 08:35 AM
Yes it is

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bW0gLYhUR-0

No one did it as well as Nuno Oliveira!!

From what I saw on the video horse was not cantering backwards though.

alicen
Jun. 30, 2010, 08:45 AM
retreadereventer wrote: Remember, what you feel or think is very different from what other people see.
To avoid this in the future, it is clear to me that we all have to be really cautious about any sort of corrections while on course in the future.

There you go. Clearly, it will be helpful for event riders to do the cross country course being mindful of how any corrective behavior might be miss-perceived by on-lookers or how it might re-play on video - or, if you find that troublesome, you might switch to hunter derby. Do any of the posters here who characterized the unseen left hand use of the crop as abuse of the bit care to apologize to the rider?

Gry2Yng
Jun. 30, 2010, 09:38 AM
I apologize for cutting up your quote but I wanted, in the interest of brevity, to get to the point(s).

My question to you: what have you learned from this?

I hope going forward that this horse and you develop a partnership with more empathy and understanding. We never stop learning and we never know it all. To avoid this in the future, it is clear to me that we all have to be really cautious about any sort of corrections while on course in the future. A horse stops -- just circle, try again, stay out of their mouths, hit once or twice with bat behind the leg -- if they don't want to go or won't go, retire. That's the lesson I'm taking away from this. I hope you are, too.

Wow! I am not the rider and I am insulted. You have determined from a snippet that this rider needs more empathy and understanding?

Jleegriffith
Jun. 30, 2010, 09:56 AM
Retread- personally I think you couldn't be more off base with those comments. I don't know how anybody can infer how well that person rides from the video or whether that was an appropriate punishement. I wouldn't judge someone because we don't know that horse. I did watch the video several times and I felt like the horse was backing up on it's own and I saw the rider use the stick. I didn't feel like it was out of control because I have ridden plenty of horses who like to run backwards as a default setting. Sure, maybe the footing wasn't ideal but I am not sure circling is any better of a correction and I didn't see her hit his mouth or do any sort of harsh riding. I can see some slack in the reins as the horse is running backwards. When she hit him with the stick he stopped going backwards she softened and he calmly went forward.

Furthermore, I thought she gave the horse a very good ride to the fence he stopped at. She was staying behind the motion but allowing him to try to go with her arms. I feel like that was all she could have done about the stop. She didn't break out her stick on him or do any crazy riding. She tried to get him right to the base and give him the opportunity to make the right decision.

I don't see how this is dangerous riding or why we should blame this rider for not taking "ownership." What should she own up to? That she was trying to train a horse who should know better than to stop? There are many times when backing up is preferable to circling depending on the horse. You all must ride perfect horses who don't have any issues. I try to keep an open mind that there are many ways of correcting a horse so who am I to judge one person's way of making a correction as being wrong?

She should feel guilty for backing him up and backing him is bad horsemanship? Very hard to make that assumption without knowing the horse and his history.

Interesting how we can all watch the same video and get different conclusions. My thoughts upon watching the video the first time were:
Boy that horse stopped dirty but good ride from the rider. Mmm..backing up is an interesting choice of corrections and then oh boy he reminds me of some horses that I have ridden who get a bit pissed about pressure in the mouth. Seemed to get him straight and balanced and they made a nice recovery. Rider nicely in the middle of the horse and even on presenting him the second time she gave him a soft but effective ride instead of whipping him.

IFG
Jun. 30, 2010, 10:05 AM
I am a lower level rider, but I have been eventing at the lower levels and spectating at the higher levels since 1985. I have to say, I no longer recognize this sport. The get it done attitude that initially attracted me to eventing is no longer there.

From what I saw on this video, there is no way that this would this ever have been construed as DR in the past.

I really cannot believe this discussion.

bornfreenowexpensive
Jun. 30, 2010, 10:07 AM
it is interesting how we can see different things in the video.

I didn't see a particularly good ride to the first fence other than a rider with good balance who didn't jump ahead of her horse.

I did see a correction of yanking on his face to back him up at the base of the fence....and disagreed with that correction and know that I wouldn't want my horse corrected in that manner. I've had to undo work on a horse who ridden that way and it wasn't fun so perhaps that taints my view. And really disagreed with so quickly jumping the jump again. What's the rush...she had 20...take your time and make sure you give your horse a solid training ride....it luckily worked out well.

But no...I didn't consider it a dangerous ride and didn't think it deserved the DR penalty. That first fence did not look very big and most reasonably athletic horses should be fine jumping it without a big run up as long as the rider doesn't jump up their neck (which this rider was good about). Just not a risk I would have thought was a good idea to take at that point...but not worthy of a penalty.

Hony
Jun. 30, 2010, 10:18 AM
I am a lower level rider, but I have been eventing at the lower levels and spectating at the higher levels since 1985. I have to say, I no longer recognize this sport. The get it done attitude that initially attracted me to eventing is no longer there.

From what I saw on this video, there is no way that this would this ever have been construed at DR in the past.

I really cannot believe this discussion.

Agreed. I felt that ride was in no way a DR. In addition, if the rider had backed the horse up I wouldn't have issue with it. The horse stopped, the horse is bad and he should know it.
I'm pretty sure Jimmy talks about it in his book. Whether the stop was horse or rider fault the horse needs to think that he should go ALWAYS.
If the rider or horse had been unbanlanced on their way back to the fence I might have looked at this differently but the represent was balanced and accurate.

I kindof think some people are getting trained to look for things that aren't happening because we're all so worried about having an accident. The work that we're doing towards making our sport safer is extremely important but it's also very important that we don't go so far in the opposite direction that we ruin our sport.

bornfreenowexpensive
Jun. 30, 2010, 10:29 AM
I'm pretty sure Jimmy talks about it in his book. Whether the stop was horse or rider fault the horse needs to think that he should go ALWAYS.



He's changed his views on that slightly with the current course designs/sport I believe. Although in this particular case....I suspect he would think that horse should have jumped that jump.

Janet
Jun. 30, 2010, 10:40 AM
No one did it as well as Nuno Oliveira!!

From what I saw on the video horse was not cantering backwards though.
Agree.

It was just the first relevant one that came up with Google, and I couldn't be bothered to search for a better one, since I was only trying to make the point that something resembling "cantering backwards" IS physically possible.

a1ngot8r
Jun. 30, 2010, 10:48 AM
Retreadeventer you are way out of line with your presumptous comments.

JER
Jun. 30, 2010, 11:27 AM
Is it that we've forgotten our roots as horsepeople or is it because personal responsibility has become a thing of the past? Think back to the Mia Errickson case. To refresh everyone's memory, this was the situation where a young rider was eliminated for having four stops on course, attempts were made to flag her down and ask her to leave the course, she continued on to the next fence where she was killed when her horse landed on top of her after a rotational fall. What happened next? Her mother tried to sue everyone and his brother including the USEF, USEA, the organizer, even the controller, claiming they were to blame.

The DR rule wouldn't have saved Mia Eriksson.

At the time of her death, there was a rule already on the books that said officials could stop a rider on course for dangerous riding/lameness/abuse/etc. It was not invoked in her case, presumably because she wasn't riding in a manner that looked to the GJ like any of the above. Or at least not to the degree to which they'd remove her from the course.

People will always sue if they want to. It is their right. It's up to the courts to decide if a suit has merit. The DR rule has no effect on any of this.


I know this is an extreme case, but it illustrates the fine line that we walk these days in terms of preserving the essence of our sport while at the same time protecting it in today's society where stepping up and taking personal responsibility for one's actions is a root that many truly have forgotten.

The case isn't really relevant to this discussion.


So yes, JER, it is a sad moment for the sport. Not because our officials have forgotten our roots as horsepeople, but because some involved have forgotten that our roots include taking ownership of our actions.

Some, perhaps. But not all or most. This is a rather negative view of people in our sport that I simply don't share.

This is why I feel quite strongly that many of these DR matters would be better served by the officials having a discussion with the rider, especially if one of the underlying reasons for the rule is to teach.



Food for thought: Why is it that we enact rules like DR in the first place? Is it because there is some vast conspiracy amongst the powers that be to penalize as many competitors as possible or are these rules in response to situations created by the competitors themselves? If you believe it is the former instead of the latter, I have a bunch of other conspiracy theories I'd like to sell you.

Vast conspiracy? Where does that come from?

I don't believe the DR rule was brought about by either of your two choices. 'A response to situations created by the competitors' is almost as outlandish as the 'vast conspiracy'.

The DR rule, as I understand it, is an attempt to make the sport safer. It was enacted in the wake of a spate of high-profile accidents, injuries and deaths -- not all of which could be called 'situations created by competitors.' The incidents at Red Hills, for example, seemed to have something to do with course design, which is in no way the fault of the competitors.

JAM
Jun. 30, 2010, 11:29 AM
She owes you no explanation. The rest of your post merits no comment.


I apologize for cutting up your quote but I wanted, in the interest of brevity, to get to the point(s).

My question to you: what have you learned from this?

GotSpots
Jun. 30, 2010, 11:38 AM
I think it's very hard to adjudge whether something was/wasn't dangerous riding by virtue of a 20 second video clip, perhaps out of context from the rest of the ride and accompanied by he said/she saids regarding what may or may not have been said by members of the Ground Jury outside of the deliberative process. As FlightCheck noted earlier, there's always more to the story and we're really only hearing one side here. What I would like to have seen happen, had I been the rider, would have been to bring all three of the members of the Ground Jury in one place to have a substantive discussion, perhaps with the help or assistance of the rider representative. If the Ground Jury refused to engage in that discussion or better explain the rationale behind the DR in a substantive way, than I think it becomes a matter for the licensed officials committee, and if I really believed that there was an inappropriate sanction or actions, I would have pursued it with that group.

In my experience, officials aren't looking to give a DR out - they're instead trying to educate riders and coaches. I've seen far more officials have a conversation with riders after a less-than-stellar go, and far more helpful and supportive interactions come out of it. Maybe I've been biased by getting to ride under generally excellent officials, but that's always been my experience - that a DR only comes after an intentional decision or series of decisions by a rider that risks serious harm to rider/horse/spectators/sport.

flutie1
Jun. 30, 2010, 11:40 AM
I've watched the video several times. The rider's actions on several posting have been referred to as "yanking" or words to that effect. I don't see that in the least. The only justification I can see for calling the whole thing dangerous is perhaps the speed of the backing - and I'd have to see it in person to judge that.

It's all perception isn't it?

Hannahsmom
Jun. 30, 2010, 12:03 PM
Well, if nothing else, the issuing of the DR and all this discussion has made it clear that you had better not back your horse. And even in this case if a horse stops 6 strides out and then you pick up a canter and jump it, you might get a DR also based on what the rider says. Obviously if they had just talked with the rider, all of this on-line discussion would not have been held. So point taken, everyone is now on notice.

I just do things like jump judge these days, I'm really glad I'm not competing anymore, too confusing to know what you can or can't do. I do think about how in the past horses used to be hunted before eventing. I would think if a horse stopped on the hunt field in a lane you may well back it up and then canter up and pop over. Shrug.

Moody Mare
Jun. 30, 2010, 12:14 PM
I've watched the video several times. The rider's actions on several posting have been referred to as "yanking" or words to that effect. I don't see that in the least. The only justification I can see for calling the whole thing dangerous is perhaps the speed of the backing - and I'd have to see it in person to judge that.

It's all perception isn't it?

I agree the rider should have been given the benefit of the doubt in this case.

But this is why the TD and PGJ get paid the big bucks; not just to make the call, but also to take the heat for the call. Bad calls happen. It sucks when they do, but they still happen. Obviously *I* think it was a bad call.

Just like bad calls in professional sports; soccer, baseball, etc.

What if that rider had been a young kid just starting to event? Do you think the same call would have been made? Or maybe just a warning from that TD?

wanderlust
Jun. 30, 2010, 12:19 PM
I've watched the video several times. The rider's actions on several posting have been referred to as "yanking" or words to that effect. I don't see that in the least. The only justification I can see for calling the whole thing dangerous is perhaps the speed of the backing - and I'd have to see it in person to judge that.

It's all perception isn't it? What I thought was yanking was actually the rider going to her whip. I saw the left elbow come back, and thought she was taking his teeth out. Upon re-watch, I can pretty easily see the elbow was using the stick.

bornfreenowexpensive
Jun. 30, 2010, 12:22 PM
I've watched the video several times. The rider's actions on several posting have been referred to as "yanking" or words to that effect. I don't see that in the least. The only justification I can see for calling the whole thing dangerous is perhaps the speed of the backing - and I'd have to see it in person to judge that.

It's all perception isn't it?


It is. My percepetion is that it is "yanking" and call it that is mostly based on the horse's reaction. Which to me is an indication that she is giving a strong correction for that horse...I don't see her putting her hands forward with a loop in the rein...she is causing the initial backup. (I'm not opposed to using backing up as a correction for somethings...just not causing it by pulling on the bit in their mouth or as a correction to a horse not jumping because they dropped behind the rider's leg).

The horse's intense reaction could be because the horse is sensitive (which is what the rider says--and I do believe)...or has a hell of a bit in its mouth (you can't always tell on a video). But the response of flying backwards to the riders use of her hands (which I can see) tells me she is yanking on his mouth in a manner that is strong for this horse. (it might not be strong for a different horse...what is yanking for some horses is a soft tug on another...)

but as you said...it is all perception....and I know I'm not above making mistakes either....and I think our perceptions are all based on our own experiences. The rider had a different view of what was going on (and an explanation)...all we can see is what is on the video....and that is what is forming our perceptions.

(and again...while I may not have agreed with the correction or ride etc...still didn't think it was dangerous or even all that bad).

JAM
Jun. 30, 2010, 12:33 PM
Except the rider is the one taking all the heat; the officials are not (at least not in any perceptible way). Same with the officials in other sports (e.g., the serially atrocious refereeing at the World Cup, the most significant and visible event in the world's most watched sport). The riders, through their entry fees, are the ones paying the officials, yet these officials appear to be accountable to nobody (certainly not the riders) for their decisions. I agree that bad calls happen and life goes on. But that is no excuse or justification for not clarifying a standardless "rule" or for making the ones imposing DR (or abuse) penalties accountable for their decisions.


I agree the rider should have been given the benefit of the doubt in this case.

But this is why the TD and PGJ get paid the big bucks; not just to make the call, but also to take the heat for the call. Bad calls happen. It sucks when they do, but they still happen. Obviously *I* think it was a bad call.

Just like bad calls in professional sports; soccer, baseball, etc.

What if that rider had been a young kid just starting to event? Do you think the same call would have been made? Or maybe just a warning from that TD?

JER
Jun. 30, 2010, 12:41 PM
I agree that bad calls happen and life goes on. But that is no excuse or justification for not clarifying a standardless "rule" or for making the ones imposing DR (or abuse) penalties accountable for their decisions.

Agreed.

The DR rule CANNOT be about 'teaching' if it is dispensed without qualification or explanation.

At least the FEI Yellow Card system requires an explanation.

Moody Mare
Jun. 30, 2010, 12:42 PM
Except the rider is the one taking all the heat; the officials are not (at least not in any perceptible way). Same with the officials in other sports (e.g., the serially atrocious refereeing at the World Cup, the most significant and visible event in the world's most watched sport). The riders, through their entry fees, are the ones paying the officials, yet these officials appear to be accountable to nobody (certainly not the riders) for their decisions. I agree that bad calls happen and life goes on. But that is no excuse or justification for not clarifying a standardless "rule" or for making the ones imposing DR (or abuse) penalties accountable for their decisions.


I totally agree people should be accountable. There is no easy answer. In eventing though, I do feel bad calls are the exception, and not the rule.

Moody Mare
Jun. 30, 2010, 12:44 PM
Agreed.

The DR rule CANNOT be about 'teaching' if it is dispensed without qualification or explanation.

At least the FEI Yellow Card system requires an explanation.

Issuing DR's should require the official to submit a written explanation.

JER
Jun. 30, 2010, 01:00 PM
Rules people and officials, I have some questions about protocols and precedence.

The omnibus lists the PGJ for the CCI* and HT as Susan Stewart (GBR). According to the rider, this is the official who dispensed the DR.

Ms. Stewart is from Great Britain and an FEI licensed official. She is not listed as a USEF licensed official.

However, the DR rule is a USEF/USEA rule. The equivalent in FEI rules is the yellow/red card Warning System.

Can an FEI-licensed official invoke a USEF-only rule in an FEI competition?

Is a licensed official from another country and NGB/IGB responsible to uphold the specific rules of a NGB in which he/she is NOT licensed? How are they qualified and/or educated to do this?

How can a rider in an FEI competition be penalized only according to a USEF rule and not the FEI equivalent? The Warning Card system covers 'abuse of horse' and 'incorrect behaviour' -- so how can 'dangerous riding' be considered only a violation of the USEF statute, especially in an FEI competition?

I'm just curious and want to understand how this works.

JAM
Jun. 30, 2010, 01:01 PM
Depends on what you mean by "the exception." If you mean less than 50% of the time, I'd agree with that. Probably would agree with less than 25%; below that, not so sure (in this or any other sport in an instance where there is a close call). I don't doubt for a second that these officials, like the officials in other sports, are trying their best to do the right thing and that it is truly the exception rather than the rule that there is personal animus or motive behind these kinds of decisions. However, I believe that, especially as the rule is currently written, way too much depends on the identity of the official(s), the identity of the rider, the location of the competition, and the level of the competition -- in other words, no consistency.


I totally agree people should be accountable. There is no easy answer. In eventing though, I do feel bad calls are the exception, and not the rule.

Janet
Jun. 30, 2010, 01:26 PM
Rules people and officials, I have some questions about protocols and precedence.

The omnibus lists the PGJ for the CCI* and HT as Susan Stewart (GBR). According to the rider, this is the official who dispensed the DR.

Ms. Stewart is from Great Britain and an FEI licensed official. She is not listed as a USEF licensed official.

However, the DR rule is a USEF/USEA rule. The equivalent in FEI rules is the yellow/red card Warning System.

Can an FEI-licensed official invoke a USEF-only rule in an FEI competition?

Is a licensed official from another country and NGB/IGB responsible to uphold the specific rules of a NGB in which he/she is NOT licensed? How are they qualified and/or educated to do this?

How can a rider in an FEI competition be penalized only according to a USEF rule and not the FEI equivalent? The Warning Card system covers 'abuse of horse' and 'incorrect behaviour' -- so how can 'dangerous riding' be considered only a violation of the USEF statute, especially in an FEI competition?

I'm just curious and want to understand how this works.
An FEI judge is clearly considered eligible to apply USEF rules.

GR1011.6. An FEI licensed judge does not need a Guest card to judge at any level at a Federation
Licensed Competition in the discipline for which he/she is licensed by the FEI.
and

GR1004.7. Judges licensed by the FEI are eligible to officiate in Federation Licensed Competitions
in the division in which they are internationally licensed (except in Vaulting.)

With regard to USEF vs FEI rules, because it is also a USEF licensed competition, the USEF rules which do not conflict with the FEI rules still apply

GR149.2.a. FEI rules take precedence as to international classes and events over Federation
rules at all FEI Sanctioned Competitions.

JER
Jun. 30, 2010, 01:50 PM
Thanks, Janet. That's exactly what I was looking for. :)

But how is it that an incident can be deemed 'dangerous riding' on a USEF level and not 'incorrect behaviour' on an FEI level?

One difference in the statues is that the FEI Warning Card system requires that (1) an explanation be provided by the official and (2) the rider must sign the yellow card acknowledging the violation.

Also, a completion score with a DR penalty cannot count as a qualifying result. However, this is not true of a completion score than includes a Yellow Card -- it can still count as a QR. (Correct me if I'm wrong about that.)

I suppose that could be an official's version of 'education' -- that the horse and rider have to stay at that level a bit longer rather than to allow the QR that might let them move up?

(But at CCI*, this wouldn't be very useful because you can run a CCI** without ever having run a CCI* or a CIC*. Many horses do this now due to scheduling and other issues.)

Pat Ness
Jun. 30, 2010, 03:03 PM
I agree with those that are surprised this is a DR.

I would like to add that I am also glad I am not competing at eventing anymore. No way would I have thought this was dangerous. I hate to admit it and wish it was not true - but I was way more dangerous in several warm up areas then what happened in this video.

I am floored that this is even an issue and more floored about how many agree with the call.

Pat Ness

Badger
Jun. 30, 2010, 03:29 PM
Remember the days when we went out on course, might have had some problems, might have had some run-outs or tipped off or something, but by george we got back on, we kicked on, we kept going, and we finished! Horses and riders were learning out there. If something didn't work, you tried something else. We were eventers once, and young.

Those days are done and gone. Rules are changing every other month. Riders are looking over their shoulders instead of between their horse's ears. Subjective judgement calls like the DR rule are making competing a crap shoot as you don't really know what is kosher and what is not any more. I think the sport is losing some of it's heart. And it makes me sad.

And fwiw, imvho, the refusal and represent shown in the video does not begin to come close to something that should be sanctioned by a DR penalty. It may have looked different IRL, or there may be more to the incident than was shown in the clip, but from looking at the clip I am left scratching my head and saying WTF?

millerra
Jun. 30, 2010, 04:02 PM
Just a couple comments...

1) I also don't agree that the video clip shows dangerous riding. At all. but what do I know. I'm just an ol' school LL smurf.

2) I think the officials are damned if they do, damned if they don't. Complaints from both sides are rather frequent... As in "why wasn't that DR? Why wasn't that person stopped earlier on course?" to "why was that called DR?" The blame for ...uhm... mistakes on courses are frequently and vocally (publicly) laid at the door step of the course designer, the fence builder, the TD...

Just ask... what would have happened if the rider backed the horse for refusing,say a 2nd fence and the horse flipped... what would the response be? Or a novice rider backed a horse and then flipped....

We can't have it both ways...

PhoenixFarm
Jun. 30, 2010, 04:03 PM
Bad rules leading to bad rulings. This was a knee jerk rule, written in haste and panic, and it is now running amok.

Here's the thing that really bothers me though--if the rules continue to be applied in such an inconsistent and haphazard manner, pretty soon getting a DR will be meaningless. If the idea of it was to be a wake-up call to competitors headed for trouble, or to be a warning to others to stay away from trainers who had received it, well, at this rate you are going to see a DR and think, huh, whatever. If you hand them out like Pez, it will be just as meaningless.

I've seen it applied a few times out west, and been left scratching my head every time. And just as in this case, the riders have been told it was because of one bad moment, not because of a pattern of behaviors. Which leads me to wonder, which is it? A bad round, or a bad fence? 'Cuz if it's the latter we're all screwed and will get DR eventually. I've also seen people not get a DR, but a talking to, that were more deserving, but had good connections. I've also seen the DR used as a threat to get you to WD from the competition. (WD or we'll give you a DR).

And while I have had the joy of knowing and riding under mostly truly wonderful, intelligent and thoughtful officials in my 22-odd years of eventing, I've also run in to a few folks with cards whom I wouldn't allow to hold my dog's leash. So I think we need to make this a significantly less subjective rule. (Actually, I think we should scrap it all together, and let the officials use what was already in place, but I know that won't happen). There should be written reports and explanations, involving rider signatures, and an appeals process.

And you know, I have to admit, I'm already getting paranoid. My current greenine is rather, ahem, enthusiastic, on XC. He had a 99% perfect XC run last weekend, but at one fence he decided my halfhalts were for suckers, and left long. He cleared it and landed well, but definitely whacked it with his feet. I literally remember thinking, oh geez, I hope that won't be a problem. For a long spot. On a green horse. At BN. As soon as I had the thought, I got mad about it, LOL. But it was there. I can't imagine trying to ride something quirky or at the upper levels in that climate. It certainly wouldn't be conducive to good riding on my part.

Oh, and everything JER said. :winkgrin:

bornfreenowexpensive
Jun. 30, 2010, 04:06 PM
Well said Phoenix Farm.