PDA

View Full Version : When is a rider a "Rider"



fivecats
Jan. 29, 2012, 02:57 PM
Scenario – An adult amateur, Ammie, competes Horse A at Training, never been above Training. Ammie gets new horse, Horse B, and is ready to ride Novice. Can Ammie ride as a Novice Rider? Or, is the phrase “an event” interpreted as once Ammie completed 1 event at Training level she could no longer compete as a Novice Rider?

The first part of the first sentence implies that Ammie could ride as both Novice Rider and Training Rider as long as she does not (or has not) complete a Preliminary event. However, the examples use the phrase “an event”.
The rule says “a Training Rider may have completed an event at Preliminary level” … but does not address if the rider has completed more than one event at Preliminary.

Guess the same questions applies to “Horse” -

Here's the new rule for "Rider" and “Horse” - from Appendix 3 -
4.5 RIDER (R) – Open to competitors who have not completed an event above the next highest level in the 5 years preceding the date of the competition, e.g. a Novice Rider may have completed an event at Training level, but not Preliminary level or higher in the 5 years preceding the date of the competition; a Training Rider may have completed an event at Preliminary level, but not Intermediate level or higher in the 5 years preceding the date of the competition.
4.6 HORSE (H) – Open to competitors of any age, horse may not have completed an event above the next highest level, e.g. a Novice Horse may have completed an event at Training level, but not Preliminary level or higher; a Training Horse may have completed an event at Preliminary level, but not Intermediate level or higher.
4.7 For the purposes of this rule, FEI divisions are considered to be one level higher than the equivalent National division, e.g. FEI One Star is one level higher than a Preliminary Horse Trial. A rider who has completed an event at the Advanced Level is not eligible to compete as an Intermediate rider.

BigRuss1996
Jan. 29, 2012, 06:25 PM
Below copied from rules above...I think it is pretty self explanatory. Basically if you have ridden above training level in the last 5 years you may not go in the Novice rider division...

"e.g. a Novice Rider may have completed an event at Training level, but not Preliminary level or higher in the 5 years preceding the date of the competition"

fivecats
Jan. 29, 2012, 07:41 PM
Sorry, guess I didn't ask my question clearly.

Rider has never gone above Training but has done multiple events at Training. Enters an event as Training Rider. Can rider also enter on 2d horse as Novice Rider.

4.5 RIDER (R) – Open to competitors who have not completed an event above the next highest level in the 5 years preceding the date of the competition, e.g. a Novice Rider may have completed an event at Training level, but not Preliminary level or higher in the 5 years preceding the date of the competition; a Training Rider may have completed an event at Preliminary level, but not Intermediate level or higher in the 5 years preceding the date of the competition.

The example in the rule uses the term "an event" which implies that after completing 1 Training event they can no longer be a Novice Rider, but if you just read the first part of the rule "Open to competitors who have not completed an event above the next highest level"... then in the scenario I gave above, the rider could enter as Training Rider and Novice Rider.

deltawave
Jan. 29, 2012, 08:16 PM
If you have never completed a Preliminary HT, you may compete in Novice or Training Rider divisions. IMO, however, and it's a completely worthless one, it would be sort of tacky to enter two different levels of "Rider" divisions (at the same show especially). Legal, but tacky. :)


The example in the rule uses the term "an event" which implies that after completing 1 Training event they can no longer be a Novice Rider, but if you just read the first part of the rule "Open to competitors who have not completed an event above the next highest level"... then in the scenario I gave above, the rider could enter as Training Rider and Novice Rider.

That's not how I read it. It says a Novice rider may not have completed an event at Preliminary level. That rider can do as many Trainings as they want.

BigRuss1996
Jan. 29, 2012, 11:24 PM
I have to agree with Deltawave....You should enter Training rider but to then enter Novice rider would be tacky.
It's kind of a funny rule because by that standard then if I don't compete for 2 more years (have been out of circulation for 3) then I can enter as "Novice rider" but I have competed Advanced for many years in the past. Do you think that would be fair....I don't.
IMO if you can go training level then you shouldn't be allowed to go Novice rider.
Just out of curiosity.... why would you want to go in the rider division at both levels?



If you have never completed a Preliminary HT, you may compete in Novice or Training Rider divisions. IMO, however, and it's a completely worthless one, it would be sort of tacky to enter two different levels of "Rider" divisions (at the same show especially). Legal, but tacky. :)



That's not how I read it. It says a Novice rider may not have completed an event at Preliminary level. That rider can do as many Trainings as they want.

Beam Me Up
Jan. 29, 2012, 11:41 PM
IMO there is nothing "tacky" about competing in divisions that you are eligible for. The rule could have been written to say that rider divisions are only open to those who have never competed above the level, but it wasn't--it says 2 levels above the level, which presumably was the rule-authors' decision to make.

The 5 years portion may be more of a technological limitation than the spirit of the rule, as complaints such as "X competed prelim in 1970" could be tough to research.

Still, I really dislike the idea that we are adding an extra level of judgment outside of the written rules. That is sort of like the braiding or coats controversies.

fivecats
Jan. 30, 2012, 06:48 AM
Just out of curiosity.... why would you want to go in the rider division at both levels?

I'm not a rider, just trying to interpret the rule. Saw it done at an event this week.

Janet
Jan. 30, 2012, 07:40 AM
Under the new rules, once you complete at Training, you lose (for 5 years) your elegibility for Beginner Novice Rider, but you can compete at both Novice Rider and Training Rider.

Once you complete at Prelim, you lose (for 5 years) your elegibility for Novice Rider (and Beginner Novice Rider), but you can compete at both Prelim Rider and Training Rider.

USEA would not have changed the rules if they didn't EXPECT people to take advantage of it.

Whetehr or not YOU take advantage of it depends on your own perspective.

That perspective also depends on how other people around you are interpreting.

For instance, suppose you have never competed at Prelim, but have competed at Nov and Training for many years. There are lots of people like that. If most of them are now entering Nov Rider, then there is no reason for you to avoid it. However, if most of them are sticking to the Open division, then it would be more socially acceptable for you to stick to open.

It also depends on who is competing in the Horse and Open divisions. In some events, the majority of the riders at Open Novice and Novice Horse have competed at Advanced in the last year, many on "the short list". At those events, the "perpetual Novice/Training ider" is clearly outclassed in the Open Novice division. At those events, I would expect it to be much more socially acceptable for the "perpetual Novice /Training rider" to enter "Novice Rider".

Less so at events where most of the riders in Open Novice have never completed above Prelim.

Janet
Jan. 30, 2012, 07:44 AM
The 5 years portion may be more of a technological limitation than the spirit of the rule, as complaints such as "X competed prelim in 1970" could be tough to research. I don't think that is the motivation. It is "5 years" for "Rider", but "ever" for "Horse"

There is no significant technical difference in keeping track of Horse vs Rider history.

JackW
Jan. 30, 2012, 08:16 AM
What is the effective date for the new rule?

Janet
Jan. 30, 2012, 09:26 AM
It was approved by the USEF BoD 1/23/11 Effective 12/1/11 (Dec 1, 2011).

So it is in effect now.

Janet
Jan. 30, 2012, 09:30 AM
It's kind of a funny rule because by that standard then if I don't compete for 2 more years (have been out of circulation for 3) then I can enter as "Novice rider" but I have competed Advanced for many years in the past. Do you think that would be fair....I don't.
They have actually tightened up that part of the rule.

Under the old rule, you would be eligible for the "Rider" divisions NOW, as the old rule was based on "24 months" for the rider.

Atigirl
Jan. 30, 2012, 09:30 AM
Best not to worry about what subdivision of novice, training or prelim you are in. At the end of the competition look at the scores. Sometimes the novice rider have lower scores then the open novice:). I think people should not only follow the rules, but do what is right. I may have not competed above prelim, but I have many years of experience at novice and training and many yrs ago at prelim. I would be embarrassed to compete in novice rider. Now I may put a greenie in novice horse. But you can never predict the outcome. At one event I had thought I signed my horse up for novice horse as this was our first novice event. I was put in open novice and just left well enough alone. Out of 22 horses, she was the only one to have a double clear on xc and we finished 4th among some very distinguished professionals. I looked at our score against the NH division and we would have been in 3rd place. I would rather have the 4th against the people I was competing against.
Just my opinion.

FlightCheck
Jan. 30, 2012, 10:02 AM
Just my 2 cents:

I hate this rule.

It irritates me to see riders who last year were competing and winning at Novice riding in the BNR divisions this winter.

They are correctly following the rules - no shame on them - but I think this violates the SPIRIT of the Beginnner Novice Rider division.

Everyone has a story...but why can't they be in the Open divisions instead?

KateWooten
Jan. 30, 2012, 10:14 AM
I think the rules need an overhaul. At the moment, the Rider division excludes almost nobody except true, current professionals and UL riders. I can sit forever in BN Rider if I like. It should be for people new to riding at BN. It's crazy that I can go take tinyPony round a Novice course and then straight away put her in BNR.


My very first BN (when I really could have done with being in the Rider division), I was in the Open. Which was cool because I was scared witless on Day 1, but by Day 2, we'd had the overnight scores and my little pony had already whupped a few people who'd made it round Rolex. And there we were, gallolloping in and out of real rolex jumps at the horse park, kicking butt ;) Best day of my life. But I digress. If the Rider restrictions were more meaningful, there would be space in that division to put people doing their first events (like I was then), and not have it full up with career-weenies (like I am now).

I don't think I should be allowed to take each years' new baby pony into BN-Rider division. Regardless of how far up the levels I haven't been - if I'm making a whole career out of starting little horses at BN, clearly, I'm becoming an expert rider in that limited field, and I should have 'aged out' at some point in the past 5 years, surely ?

wildlifer
Jan. 30, 2012, 10:38 AM
Just my 2 cents:

I hate this rule.

It irritates me to see riders who last year were competing and winning at Novice riding in the BNR divisions this winter.

They are correctly following the rules - no shame on them - but I think this violates the SPIRIT of the Beginnner Novice Rider division.

Everyone has a story...but why can't they be in the Open divisions instead?

I agree with this completely. I rode up to Training Rider before my horse got injured. With new horse, I will be starting over at BN. I would feel guilty to enter BNR (which I techincally could since I did not COMPLETE a Training Level event, re injury) and I don't think it is fair. With new horse, I will enter either "open" or "horse" divisions until he gets to Training. That is what the other divisions are for.

Why should I, who has been comfortable competing/Training at Training level, feel proud about competing against someone at BN who may be at their first time out and 2'7" is a really big deal to them? That would feel unfair to me and I would not make that choice.

Beam Me Up
Jan. 30, 2012, 10:43 AM
Thanks for the clarification Janet. I just assumed that they were limited to the online records, but you are right if horse is "ever" then they could have made rider "ever" if they wanted to.

I think it is fine for individuals to choose to ride in whatever division they are comfortable with, but it seems like with so many different interpretations of the "spirit" of the rule, it's hard to judge anyone following it.


For instance, I'd always assumed that the "spirit" was to separate the true lower level riders from the Boyd/Karens of the world, which is how it looks in Area II. In that case, someone who has only ridden to training is probably more like the population of the "novice rider" division than "open."

But Kate above seems to feel that the rule should separate riders new to the level vs. those experienced at the level, which is also a valid point, and more along the lines of other show disciplines who divide by number of blue ribbons won, etc.

But really the rule does neither, since it only goes back 5 years.

I don't know, I don't feel strongly about what the rule should be, since nobody will agree on the ideal spirit or letter.

AlterEgoME
Jan. 30, 2012, 11:04 AM
It doesn't matter how the rule is written or what the intention is. Someone is always unhappy. It is a total PITA trying to keep up with rules that are constantly changing.


Just my 2 cents:

I hate this rule.

It irritates me to see riders who last year were competing and winning at Novice riding in the BNR divisions this winter.

They are correctly following the rules - no shame on them - but I think this violates the SPIRIT of the Beginnner Novice Rider division.

Everyone has a story...but why can't they be in the Open divisions instead?

That's really what it comes down to right, if the person were following the rules but they weren't winning or taking home points/ribbons no one would care. It's only when said rider is better than "me" that my nose gets out of joint.

GotSpots
Jan. 30, 2012, 11:19 AM
The idea behind revamping the Rider rule was to protect those riders who try to do a move up, find out that neither they nor their horse are really ready, and then allow them to continue to ride against their peers in the lower division - for those who want to. Particularly in the East, the "Open" and "Horse" divisions are almost entirely professionals, and it can be pretty daunting. If more organizers offered an "Amateur" division, the problem might more readily be solved, but as it is, this is the best compromise we could come up with at the time. We chose to err on the side of giving more flexibility to folks who wanted to ride in Rider divisions, thinking that in the culture of eventing, folks who were regularly cleaning up in that division would usually take it on themselves to move to an Open division.

End of the day, enter the division where you feel comfortable. Or the one that's scheduled in a way that fits your needs. Or the one that is set to have dressage in the outdoor/indoor/grass/footing/hill/judge-who-hates/likes-your-horse. Gah.

AlterEgoME
Jan. 30, 2012, 11:44 AM
There are two ladies in one area that have been winning the area championship at their level for YEARS. They typically have more than double the number of points the reserve champion. It has been suggested that they no longer be allowed to win the year end award.

Would that be any more correct than saying Phillip Dutton should no longer be eligible for Rider of the Year - after all he has won it so many times. Should we kick Mary King and WFP out of the FEI, they really make it so hard for everyone else to win.

What are we coming to that the best horse/rider can't be name the BEST. That is what they are.

FlightCheck
Jan. 30, 2012, 12:22 PM
AlterEgo...

Has nothing to do with a ribbon. Has to do with a 12yr old who is truly a BNR at her first event, trying to explain this rule to the rider and her mom.

Moving on now. Don't care if every Olympic rider in the world is in my division...

Janet
Jan. 30, 2012, 12:53 PM
The idea behind revamping the Rider rule was to protect those riders who try to do a move up, find out that neither they nor their horse are really ready, and then allow them to continue to ride against their peers in the lower division - for those who want to. Particularly in the East, the "Open" and "Horse" divisions are almost entirely professionals, and it can be pretty daunting.

...

End of the day, enter the division where you feel comfortable. Or the one that's scheduled in a way that fits your needs. Or the one that is set to have dressage in the outdoor/indoor/grass/footing/hill/judge-who-hates/likes-your-horse. Gah.
THANK YOU.

deltawave
Jan. 30, 2012, 01:45 PM
The BEST horse and rider do not belong in the division that is intended for newcomers to the sport. If they are riding in that division "because they can", and winning everything in sight in the relative safety of the "Rider" divisions, well, shame on them. Is there a rule to prevent it? Nope. But there is a code of sportsmanship. Tends to be an unwritten one.

AlterEgoME
Jan. 30, 2012, 03:05 PM
Last I checked, we don't require anyone to move up in eventing. You get to stay at the level you are comfortable. If someone tries Novice and is uncomfortable at the level, it doesn't matter whether they were good at it or not. I thought eventing respected the idea that you don't have to move up. Yes, BN is the introductory level, but you can ride there forever if you want, and we would assume with enough practice you would get good at it.

The BN level is for newcomers, people on horses that lack the bravery, scope or any other quality required to move up, and riders who don't have the time or desire to do anymore.

This discussion always turns into a) that rider has ridden at a higher level than me so they shouldn't be in my division, or b) that rider gets to ride more horses than I do, so they shouldn't be in my division or c) that rider bought a fancy warmblood with floaty gaits and I can't afford a horse like that so they shouldn't be in my division.

Fact is, every person would write their own definition of what "rider" should be. Some seem to think it is for newbies to the level. Well, then propose THAT rule. That's why we have the rules. If you follow the rules you are a sportsman. If you want to opt out into the open division that doesn't make you a better sportsman than someone who doesn't.

And for the record, my qualifications are similar to BigRuss's and I have been eligible for Rider divisions, but I don't enter them. I just chose not to judge the people who prefer to enter a rider division if they are within the rules to do so.

scubed
Jan. 30, 2012, 03:08 PM
Interestingly, when I first started eventing, you were required to move out of BN after 3 blue ribbons (at least in our local CTA). That said, no one says you need to move out of BN if you are uncomfortable higher, only that it might be a good test of your riding/your horse's talents to try your skills in the OBN if you are routinely winning at BN and isn't that what sport/competition are really about (as opposed to the ribbons, I really, really hope)

Janet
Jan. 30, 2012, 03:13 PM
Similarly.

Under the old rules, and the new rules, I am elegible for Novice Rider. But, with rare exceptions (the Waredace Masters Novice Challenge has "Rider" requirement), I do not enter Novice Rider.

But I have no criticism of other people, who are legal for Rider, entering Rider, even if they are experienced/successful.

But even more to the point, in Eventing you do not get to "enter a section". You indicate on the entry form what you are legal for, and what your preferences are - but the SECRETARY decides what section to put you in.

So you shouldn't be blaming the rider for being in a section YOU think is "inappropriate", even though it is legal.

Janet
Jan. 30, 2012, 03:16 PM
Last I checked, we don't require anyone to move up in eventing
Way back when, you WERE required to move up to the next level after you got a certain number of grading points (Prelim and above).

It had a lot of really bad results, both horses/riders being overfaced, and dropping out of eventing.

BAD idea.

deltawave
Jan. 30, 2012, 03:22 PM
NOBODY is proposing enforced move-UPS.


If you want to opt out into the open division that doesn't make you a better sportsman than someone who doesn't.


Well, I disagree, when a person purposely squats in the "Rider" division for years and years and is consistently winning at the level. A matter of opinion, of course. I merely wish they would move OVER, NOT necessarily UP. :) Let the newbies have their day in the sun.

FWIW, I have supported mandatory moving OVER (into Open) after so many points/placings at a level for as long as I've been competing in this sport, in excess of 15 years. :) Have never once supported mandatory move ups to a new level. God forbid!

Beam Me Up
Jan. 30, 2012, 03:23 PM
Haven't gone prelim in 7 yrs, not signing up for NR.

I don't have strong feelings about what the rule *should* be. If the majority dislikes this one, then by all means propose a change.

I just really dislike that a number of us are creating our own, unwritten rules in our minds and then judging other competitors by them. How is that fair or sportsmanlike?

CiegoStar
Jan. 30, 2012, 03:25 PM
I just really dislike that a number of us are creating our own, unwritten rules in our minds and then judging other competitors by them. How is that fair or sportsmanlike?

clapclapclapclapclap!

AlterEgoME
Jan. 30, 2012, 03:30 PM
Way back when, you WERE required to move up to the next level after you got a certain number of grading points (Prelim and above).

It had a lot of really bad results, both horses/riders being overfaced, and dropping out of eventing.

BAD idea.

Yes, I remember. One reason I get so upset over the "Well, they are winning everything. They should move up." comment.

FWIW, the ladies I alluded to who win the Area every year, DO ride in the open divisions. They have no desire to move up and have consequently gotten very good at dressage. Lots of people contend they should move up or lose their eligibility for year end awards. This is where my "BEST" comment is based.

ETA: I have also heard the comment directed at the woman who won the AEC's one year and then entered them again at the same level the following year. Lots of "She shouldn't be able to do that." or "She should move up." All from people who can't beat her but want to win.

If you think that we should have a ceiling on blue ribbons, then change the rule. But again, having ridden I/A, I would STILL probably be eligible BNR under any sort of blue ribbon rule. I have LOTS of pretty red ribbons though. Maybe we could create a matrix. :rolleyes: Oh, wait, that sounds like the points system.

CiegoStar
Jan. 30, 2012, 03:34 PM
I definitely do not think people being TOO competent at their level is a major concern in eventing. Quite the opposite.

deltawave
Jan. 30, 2012, 03:43 PM
I certainly resemble THAT remark! :lol: I endanger nobody in the ribbons hunt. :)

breakthru
Jan. 30, 2012, 04:02 PM
I understand the need for rules, and have my own opinions, but ultimately, I've never been one to care about ribbons, just scores. My big question is, everyone is concerned about the hypothetical victims of these blue ribbon hogs- snatching blue ribbons from other more deserving pairs. But really, let's think about these hypothetical victims- who are they really? Do they even exist?

Ok, so say someone is "hogging" all the blue ribbons at BN for years. So, say they snatch blues from many deserving newer pairs emerging through the years. Pity, sure. But the way I see it is, promising new pairs at BN aren't likely to sit around in the BN division, sulking about the red ribbon they get for years, second place to the blue ribbon hog. They generally might get a couple red ribbons, get some great scores, and move up and out of those divisions. Then you're not competing with them anymore, who cares. What if they don't want to move up? Well then, you're basically a just red-ribbon hog aspiring to be a blue ribbon hog, right? :D

Edited to add:

It's not about the ribbons, man! It's about CROSS COUNTRY! :)

wildlifer
Jan. 30, 2012, 04:43 PM
NOBODY is proposing enforced move-UPS.

Well, I disagree, when a person purposely squats in the "Rider" division for years and years and is consistently winning at the level. A matter of opinion, of course. I merely wish they would move OVER, NOT necessarily UP. :) Let the newbies have their day in the sun.

I 100% agree. Move your lil self over to the Horse or Open divisions. No one is asking you to move up. You can stay in the Open division as long as your heart desires, that is what it is there for. And I am certainly not sore about losing any ribbons, as I am NOT a ribbon-taker-homer, LOL! :lol:

AlterEgoME
Jan. 30, 2012, 04:53 PM
I 100% agree. Move your lil self over to the Horse or Open divisions. No one is asking you to move up. You can stay in the Open division as long as your heart desires, that is what it is there for. And I am certainly not sore about losing any ribbons, as I am NOT a ribbon-taker-homer, LOL! :lol:

So all those poor folks in Area II/III that are qualified for the Rider division, but win a lot/ride well, should ride against karen and phillip and boyd because they have won too many ribbons against the likes of those who are also qualified for the rider division but don't win a lot/don't ride well. Makes perfect sense. Anybody who wants to "squat" in the rider division because they don't want to ride against Olympians is a poor sport, but all the people who don't want to ride against Suzy the Blue Ribbon hog are the true sportsmen. Now I get it.

bornfreenowexpensive
Jan. 30, 2012, 05:10 PM
So all those poor folks in Area II/III that are qualified for the Rider division, but win a lot/ride well, should ride against karen and phillip and boyd because they have won too many ribbons against the likes of those who are also qualified for the rider division but don't win a lot/don't ride well. Makes perfect sense. Anybody who wants to "squat" in the rider division because they don't want to ride against Olympians is a poor sport, but all the people who don't want to ride against Suzy the Blue Ribbon hog are the true sportsmen. Now I get it.


Actually....there are a lot of us in Area II that don't ride in the "rider" divisions...are true ammies...ride against Boyd/Karen et al and occassionally beat Boyd/Karen et al. (I'm also sometimes in last place against no-big named riders....it all depends on the day;)) And I don't really care one way or the other.

I often am on green horses and while I can technically qualify for some of the rider divisions...tend to enter the horse divisions instead (in the hopes that they will run early in the day). My horses are green....I'm not.

I personally would rather all the divisions just be open and keep it simple. If someone can do the best dressage test...and jump clear...they should win.

But beyond that....I really really really don't care what other divisions people are riding in...or that someone has won a year end award (or multiple ones). Great for them and they should be proud but it certainly wouldn't affect what events I enter etc.

deltawave
Jan. 30, 2012, 05:18 PM
If Karen and Boyd are riding Novice in the "Open" divisions when there are "Horse" divisions available, well, shame on THEM, too. :D

I TOTALLY get it that there aren't always choices in which divisions there are. But when there ARE choices, I do think it's more sporting (for whatever THAT term is worth) to go in "Open" if one is a real veteran rider on a real veteran horse, accomplished at the level. If one is a pro on a talented greenie, do the "Horse" division.

It always comes out sounding more contentious than it is. :no:

AlterEgoME
Jan. 30, 2012, 05:24 PM
bfne,
All true, my point is that kicking out a "squater" is two sides of the same coin. You can't call the squater a poor sport because she doesn't want to ride against the big kids in the open division, when that is the very same reason the complainers don't want her in their division.

Complainer says "Quit taking all the ribbons in my division, you have been here forever and ride better than me. I want to win and I can't unless you go away."

Squater says "I don't want to ride in the open division. The big kids take all the ribbons because they are better than me. I want to win so I am going to stay in this division."

You can sort the rule any way you want. It is always the same problem. Everyone who complains (and I know there are lots of people who couldn't give a rat's hat) is saying the same thing. They want the line drawn just above their head. Too say that someone who is following the rules is a poor sport doesn't work. Both parties want the same thing, the chance to win. The rest of us don't care one way or the other as long as we get the ride times that work for us and we don't get dumped on our heads.

I just think the complainers are kidding themselves. They are no different than the squater.

Janet
Jan. 30, 2012, 05:24 PM
And you come out sounding more judgemental than I expect you really are.


If Karen and Boyd are riding Novice in the "Open" divisions when there are "Horse" divisions available, well, shame on THEM, too. :D

I TOTALLY get it that there aren't always choices in which divisions there are. But when there ARE choices, I do think it's more sporting (for whatever THAT term is worth) to go in "Open" if one is a real veteran rider on a real veteran horse, accomplished at the level. If one is a pro on a talented greenie, do the "Horse" division.

It always comes out sounding more contentious than it is. :no:

scubed
Jan. 30, 2012, 05:25 PM
but as has been said, you don't always get to choose. This past weekend, there was OBN and BNR - no BNH divisions. My OBN division was a total mix of experienced horses, some coming back after injury, time off or what not, actual pros on horses with varying amounts of BN only experience and at least a couple OTTBs doing their first event. For me, BN is all about experience for the horse. I really don't care who I am competing against (and it often is the ULRs) and rarely stay at BN long enough for it to matter (I can promise you, I am unlikely to win a BN ribbon and the chance of a first or any award is vanishingly small). And I am against adding ammy divisions because just what we need is more confusion and stuff for secretaries/organizers to check

AlterEgoME
Jan. 30, 2012, 05:35 PM
If Karen and Boyd are riding Novice in the "Open" divisions when there are "Horse" divisions available, well, shame on THEM, too. :D

I TOTALLY get it that there aren't always choices in which divisions there are. But when there ARE choices, I do think it's more sporting (for whatever THAT term is worth) to go in "Open" if one is a real veteran rider on a real veteran horse, accomplished at the level. If one is a pro on a talented greenie, do the "Horse" division.

It always comes out sounding more contentious than it is. :no:

Perhaps you could post a detailed algorhythm for what is considered sportmanlike so that none of us run afoul. I was not aware that it was considered poor sportmanship for which one should be shamed to enter an open division when a horse division is available.

deltawave
Jan. 30, 2012, 05:35 PM
It's becoming more and more true that no matter what one puts down on their entry form . . . they wind up in "Open" divisions anyway, because that is all there are. I don't mind that at all, and if the PTB wanted to make every division Open, all the time, that would be fine with me. :)

For the record, I usually go in "Open" or "Horse" even though I'm technically qualified to be in "Rider" other than (I think, would have to do math) for BN. I don't normally go home with ribbons (tough to do when one's dressage score normally begins with a "four") so am not trying to draw lines above my head so that I can. :lol: I still think it's tacky, am aware that people think I'm judgmental and tacky in my own right, but I do walk the walk. :D


Perhaps you could post a detailed algorhythm for what is considered sportmanlike so that none of us run afoul. I was not aware that it was considered poor sportmanship for which one should be shamed to enter an open division when a horse division is available.

As I've indicated many, many times, this is a matter of opinion, and is put forth here only because it's a public forum. I assure you I'm not giving anyone the hairy eyeball at horse shows . . . it would be awfully silly of me to do so as I am fairly devoid of talent and that is manifest at every level at which I've ever ridden. :lol: So no crankiness is required. :)

As scubed said, making organizers' lives more difficult is not even worth contemplating for what this rather trivial topic is worth. But IF I were to be anointed the Divisional Qualifications Guru, which is unlikely, I would indeed set up a scheme similar to the old "Maiden/Novice/Limit/Open" plan that equitation classes used to go by: so many points, and up you go to the next "point" level AT THE SAME LEVEL of competition. As has been said ad infinitum, it's too complicated and a lot of people hate it. That's cool with me. I shall cling, however, to my unpopular and curmudgeonly opinion IF that is OK with you! :lol:

KateWooten
Jan. 30, 2012, 05:51 PM
Everyone who complains (and I know there are lots of people who couldn't give a rat's hat) is saying the same thing. They want the line drawn just above their head.

Good point, except that, at least according to this thread and (as far as I can remember which isn't very far) every other thread I've read on COTH about this subject .... the ONLY people 'complaining' are saying We Want The Line Drawn Just Below Our Arse (to extend your analogy, just a little).

Pretty much everyone who thinks hard and wishes a re-think of the rule, argues from a point of view of "I am STILL eligible for this restricted division, and yet, I am no longer in any sense, a beginning rider at this level"

I will never move up the levels much. Neither will many older ladies. We don't have the balls for it. We find other goals. But if we've been riding those horses at BN level, for 10 or 20 years, should we really have access to a specific restricted division based on the the Rider's Experience ? It makes no sense at all, in the Real amateur world. The current Rider restriction only makes sense in the context of Proper Eventers - where everyone is assumed to be moving up the levels throughout their career. But times have changed. There's a new breed of older amateur re-riders who have money later in life and who are simply not going to do that old eventing career. We have money, trainers, horses (or ponies), time, and experience, and no desire to move Up. We shouldn't be allowed to sit in a restricted rider division - we're often much better equipped to ride BN than the pros !

FLeventer
Jan. 30, 2012, 06:07 PM
Alrighty, Can someone help me?

I did a recognized novice in 2010. I have gone training at un-recognized events, but that should not count. Right?

Here is my question. Am I eligible for BNR because of this new rule? I do not mind riding in the OBN divisions on my green bean but I am wondering if I am able to do BNR just to help me clear this up. Thanks in advanced.

deltawave
Jan. 30, 2012, 07:18 PM
You are A-OK at BNR. :)

FLeventer
Jan. 30, 2012, 08:10 PM
You are A-OK at BNR. :)

Thank you! That is what I thought from reading the rest of the thread, but I just want to make sure. I hate being in the wrong.

Groro
Jan. 30, 2012, 08:52 PM
What I love about competing in Area 2 and Area 3 is that if your horse is good, it's good. I love it when my daughter on her self trained horses beat the big names in the Open divisions. She is an Amateur as she is competing family owned horses and many times gets a "blue" for being the top placed Amateur in the division.

One of my favorite times was when she was a YR and competing her Appaloosa who had amazing movement (M-S Reddy Fox). She rode the most beautiful test at Jumping Branch (he was a five year old) and received a 20.5 in the Novice division. She was the lowest score of the weekend against Phillip, Jan, etc. etc. She ended the weekend on her dressage score with a Big Blue ribbon. When she finished the season, this horse was fifth in the nation only because we quit competing in September (he was # 1 at that time).

breakthru
Jan. 30, 2012, 09:17 PM
Thank you! That is what I thought from reading the rest of the thread, but I just want to make sure. I hate being in the wrong.

Don't worry FLeventer, I'm sure someone here will decide that you are in the wrong :D:D:D

VCT
Jan. 30, 2012, 11:49 PM
I don't care much what other people do. I also would not judge someone for being in two levels Rider division. As others pointed out - you don't get to choose. You indicate what you are eligible for and a preference. The secretary decides where to put you.

I rode H/J when I was younger, had years off due to back injuries, and plan to enter my first ever BN horse trial in June. My preference will be the Horse division, but if not I'd rather be in Open. I teach beginner-intermediate lessons and I agree with Deltawave that (for me) it's not sporting to enter BN Rider. That said I am eligible and the Secretary may stick me there anyways.

OTTBs
Jan. 31, 2012, 01:52 AM
NOBODY is proposing enforced move-UPS.
Well, I disagree, when a person purposely squats in the "Rider" division for years and years and is consistently winning at the level. A matter of opinion, of course. I merely wish they would move OVER, NOT necessarily UP. :) Let the newbies have their day in the sun.

FWIW, I have supported mandatory moving OVER (into Open) after so many points/placings at a level for as long as I've been competing in this sport, in excess of 15 years. :) Have never once supported mandatory move ups to a new level. God forbid!

.........

But IF I were to be anointed the Divisional Qualifications Guru, which is unlikely, I would indeed set up a scheme similar to the old "Maiden/Novice/Limit/Open" plan that equitation classes used to go by: so many points, and up you go to the next "point" level AT THE SAME LEVEL of competition.


I agree with both of these! I'd like to see either Novice or Limit divisions, having never once gotten a 1st place at any HT myself. No need to have all the divisions. Though having a points system might be even better, since I've only placed 4th or higher 3 times in my life--get those better horses/riders out of my division! (I think that was 20% sarcasm, 80% sincerity.) I do have to admit, when I took 5th at my first Novice and beat several riders who'd been at Novice for a while, that felt good too! No perfect solution...

As for proposing rule changes...good luck. I went up to Richard Jeffries at the USEA convention in St. Louis and asked him to get the rules about boots straightened out. I believe back then dress boots were allowed only in x-country and not in the other 2 phases; currently you are not allowed to wear dress boots in dressage unless you are at Intermediate or Advanced, and dress boots are not allowed in x-country or SJ for anyone. :confused:Yet in the dressage world dress boots are the preferred boots?:confused: (I asked him also about the rule that all riders must wear a hard hat at all times while mounted, but top hats were allowed for dressage?!? Now apparently "hard hat" was replaced with ASTM protective headgear and there is no mention of top hats anymore.)

deltawave
Jan. 31, 2012, 04:28 AM
currently you are not allowed to wear dress boots in dressage unless you are at Intermediate or Advanced, and dress boots are not allowed in x-country or SJ for anyone

Seriously? :confused: That's news to me . . .

Janet
Jan. 31, 2012, 08:43 AM
As for proposing rule changes...good luck. I went up to Richard Jeffries at the USEA convention in St. Louis and asked him to get the rules about boots straightened out. I believe back then dress boots were allowed only in x-country and not in the other 2 phases; currently you are not allowed to wear dress boots in dressage unless you are at Intermediate or Advanced, and dress boots are not allowed in x-country or SJ for anyone. :confused:Yet in the dressage world dress boots are the preferred boots?:confused: (I asked him also about the rule that all riders must wear a hard hat at all times while mounted, but top hats were allowed for dressage?!? Now apparently "hard hat" was replaced with ASTM protective headgear and there is no mention of top hats anymore.)

First, I agree that the attire rule is badly worded, but in fact dress boots ARE legal for all phases. You can ask any TD.

Second, I also agree that the wording about hard hats was confusing - in fact it was one of the test questions on the TD exam- but that HAS been fixed.

But I am vey confused why you were talking to Richard Jeffries about the attire rules. He is actively invloved in the Show Jumping related rules, but is not much involved in the other Eventing rules. The person you want to talk to about rules in general is Malcolm Hook.

quietann
Jan. 31, 2012, 10:03 AM
...

I will never move up the levels much. Neither will many older ladies. We don't have the balls for it. We find other goals. But if we've been riding those horses at BN level, for 10 or 20 years, should we really have access to a specific restricted division based on the the Rider's Experience ? It makes no sense at all, in the Real amateur world. The current Rider restriction only makes sense in the context of Proper Eventers - where everyone is assumed to be moving up the levels throughout their career. But times have changed. There's a new breed of older amateur re-riders who have money later in life and who are simply not going to do that old eventing career. We have money, trainers, horses (or ponies), time, and experience, and no desire to move Up. We shouldn't be allowed to sit in a restricted rider division - we're often much better equipped to ride BN than the pros !

Maybe we need a new division for "Will Never Move Up" :) I mean that semi-seriously; if I had not had my accident that keeps me from eventing at all, I doubt I would have gone higher than Novice.

scubed
Jan. 31, 2012, 11:46 AM
Maybe we need a new division for "Will Never Move Up" :) I mean that semi-seriously; if I had not had my accident that keeps me from eventing at all, I doubt I would have gone higher than Novice.

Yes, but then do we need separate divisions for "once rode at upper levels, but now will never move higher than xx" and "have never ridden higher than xx and never will" :winkgrin:

AlterEgoME
Jan. 31, 2012, 12:34 PM
Yes, but then do we need separate divisions for "once rode at upper levels, but now will never move higher than xx" and "have never ridden higher than xx and never will" :winkgrin:

:lol: Or how about the "I keep buying jackasses that won't put their head down in dressage, really, it's not me" division.

Carried Away
Jan. 31, 2012, 01:18 PM
Most of the online entry options allow you to choose your division, and you also rank which divisions you are eligible for.

I think what FC was referring to are a few individuals who have horses that have competed successfully/won at the next level up, with the same rider (including championships, AEC's etc) but still enter the BNR division and not ride HC. There are many different scenarios here but the individual I'm thinking of has been doing this for quite a while...give others a shot in the rider divisions!

VCT
Jan. 31, 2012, 01:19 PM
Or, "My horse does better dressage when there are jumps involved, but hates doing dressage in the dressage ring - really, its not me" ... I could use that one!

scubed
Jan. 31, 2012, 01:22 PM
Or, "My horse does better dressage when there are jumps involved, but hates doing dressage in the dressage ring - really, its not me" ... I could use that one!

Or a personal favorite, we would do just fine in dressage if we could do our XC and SJ first....

purplnurpl
Jan. 31, 2012, 01:34 PM
Just my 2 cents:

I hate this rule.

It irritates me to see riders who last year were competing and winning at Novice riding in the BNR divisions this winter.



I always thought that the rule should be calculated like points at breed shows per the HORSES.

Because we also have to think about the Ammie who doesn't feel like moving up to Training but has been winning every Novice they have entered with Smoochie Poo for 5 years.

Smoochie Poo should accumulate points at a given level and once he has so many novice points on the cards he should only be eligible to be placed in and OPEN division.

For the rider, the rules stay as is. I think 5 years is kind of a while. But whateve. 24 months was easier to calculate.

wildlifer
Jan. 31, 2012, 01:44 PM
:lol: Or how about the "I keep buying jackasses that won't put their head down in dressage, really, it's not me" division.

:lol::lol: I had a great laugh at this one. I want "dressage ring is in the middle of the woods in 1" of standing water because my horse has a phenomenal trot when we are surrounded by trees." I'm good with everything else. Really.:cool:

pcwertb
Jan. 31, 2012, 01:50 PM
So, since I compete in FL with all the big wigs, am I better off in Open or Novice with a green bean (not eligible for BNR)? I put BNH as my 1st choice, OBN as choice 2 and checked that I am amateur for choice 3. I ended up in OBN, as there was no BNH division.

After a few goes at BN, if pony wants to move up, I am eligible for NR, but I have only ridden NR 3 times and TR twice. I actually think the NR division is more competitive, and novice horse as well, and may just enter ON! Pony will make time XC and also go clean SJ, but dressage is still a discussion :)

Beam Me Up
Jan. 31, 2012, 02:07 PM
It may vary by area, but in mine NH/ON are virtually indentical (experienced riders, some of them BNTs, on green horses). The number of pairs in ON where both have gone prelim and are dropping back is negligible.

NR dressage is usually a bit less competitive, I think?

deltawave
Jan. 31, 2012, 02:07 PM
Horse divisions seem to be a little less common, so I usually do the same--I put "Amateur" first (since I'm trying to drop hints to area 8 to start actually HAVING Amateur divisions, LOL) then either Open or Horse depending on the animal in question. And 90% of the time I end up in Open, which is A-OK with me.

bambam
Jan. 31, 2012, 03:17 PM
I must admit, I am a little baffled as to why, if they are complying with the rules, anyone gives a crap.
And for everyone on here who has made some statement (judgmental or not ;)) as to whether someone is sporting or "should" do what they are doing, you are imposing your own interpretation of the rider division rule and what it is "meant" to do when it is simply not in the rule itself. You are imposing an additional substantive purpose to the rule that just ain't there.
That is fine for how you make your own decision about how you compete, but it gives you no legit basis for saying someone else is wrong or not sportsmanlike for not abiding by your personal use/interpretation/whatever of the rule.
Disclaimer- I am not saying this as somone who is doing something that one of you have labeled as unsportsmanlike and who wants to defend that. I don't stay in the Rider division once I am established at a level but that does not mean I am any more sportsmanlike than someone who camps out in the divisions for years on end with no intention of moving.

WW_Queen
Jan. 31, 2012, 03:43 PM
Things are different now than they were in. Coaches who 15-20+ years ago used to say they would never allow a student to show until they were ready for Novice/Training are now showing up in little bitty divisions themselves. Lots of people used to feel that if you and your horse are clearly capable... shouldn't you WANT to move up?

Nowadays is a whole different ballgame. Lots of riders have different reasons for showing, and becoming an Olympian (for most Ammies) is not one of them. They aren't squatting in divisions, they're cruising! Drink in one hand, reins in the other. ;) Eventing is social and fun and they shouldn't be forced to worry about surviving the Training coffin when all they want to do is showcase their horse while escaping the family routine. :)

Nobody really starts their showing career at 3'6" anymore either. I would think the number of riders who get so frustrated they aren't winning the blues and drop out of eventing because of year-after-year area champions is probably really few.

(Besides... if they do, they're quitters. We don't want those ones anyways :lol: )

wildlifer
Jan. 31, 2012, 03:43 PM
NR dressage is usually a bit less competitive, I think?

HAHAHA, not here! Good lord, I couldn't wait to get out of Novice and am sad that I have to revisit it with new horse. Those people are out for blood and the NR division leader would usually lay down an 18 or a 20. So I just bopped around the white ring until it was over with and I got to jump, LOL.

Beam Me Up
Jan. 31, 2012, 03:49 PM
HAHAHA, not here! Good lord, I couldn't wait to get out of Novice and am sad that I have to revisit it with new horse. Those people are out for blood and the NR division leader would usually lay down an 18 or a 20. So I just bopped around the white ring until it was over with and I got to jump, LOL.

You are probably right. Unfortunately my dressage is so uncompetitive I maybe haven't paid enough attention.

I have been in a lot of NH divisions where the ribbons went down to 31 or 32, and sometimes it looked like NR was a little higher (like 35?) but that may not be a function of just the dressage.

And either way, not too relevant for me and my 40!

wildlifer
Jan. 31, 2012, 07:10 PM
And either way, not too relevant for me and my 40!

Let us be proud of our 40's, my friend, because hey, we did the right test and stayed in the ring and WE DIDN'T GET ELIMINATED! Winning!

deltawave
Jan. 31, 2012, 08:55 PM
IMO finishing with a number and not a letter deserves some sort of accolade! :p

kimbrawner
Jan. 31, 2012, 09:34 PM
What is comes down to for me is whether I would like to be behind professionals that I can watch conquer Rolex later, or have my butt kicked by 12-year-olds on 12.5 hand demon ponies. At least in the open division I can save face a little! ;)

KateWooten
Jan. 31, 2012, 10:09 PM
Yes, but then do we need separate divisions for "once rode at upper levels, but now will never move higher than xx" and "have never ridden higher than xx and never will"

I appreciate you are being funny here, but I think you entirely miss the point. I, and most people like me, do not want extra divisions to cater for our every whim. We want the exact opposite. We want to be EXCLUDED from the existing restricted division because it should be left for proper beginners at that level, rather than career non-move-uppers.

Beam Me Up
Jan. 31, 2012, 10:48 PM
Haha! Agreed wildlifer and deltawave.

Are people concerned about the higher level "rider" divisions too, or just N/BN?

ACMEeventing
Feb. 1, 2012, 09:04 AM
IMO finishing with a number and not a letter deserves some sort of accolade! :p

E for excellent and R for really good, right?

W for WTF just happened? :lol:

deltawave
Feb. 1, 2012, 10:15 AM
RF = Really Fantastic

MR = Maybe Rolex

:D

VCT
Feb. 1, 2012, 01:31 PM
Or a personal favorite, we would do just fine in dressage if we could do our XC and SJ first....

No joke! That would definitely help me! :) Or if they could just put a couple small jumps in the dressage ring. My horse is SO much more relaxed when jumping :)

AlterEgoME
Feb. 1, 2012, 06:46 PM
I appreciate you are being funny here, but I think you entirely miss the point. I, and most people like me, do not want extra divisions to cater for our every whim. We want the exact opposite. We want to be EXCLUDED from the existing restricted division because it should be left for proper beginners at that level, rather than career non-move-uppers.

Where is it written that the intent of the rule is to make a divison for "proper beginners". The rule is to exclude people who have ridden above a certain level within a certain time period. No one is denied the right to exclude themselves. The point of this thread seems to be the desire to exclude other people.

I don't think scubed is missing the point at all.

KateWooten
Feb. 1, 2012, 07:13 PM
But it doesn't really function as a Rider restriction, if practically nobody is excluded. As evidenced by the fact that the majority of us at any show are eligible for it !

Duckz
Feb. 1, 2012, 07:21 PM
Nowadays is a whole different ballgame. Lots of riders have different reasons for showing, and becoming an Olympian (for most Ammies) is not one of them. They aren't squatting in divisions, they're cruising! Drink in one hand, reins in the other. ;) Eventing is social and fun and they shouldn't be forced to worry about surviving the Training coffin when all they want to do is showcase their horse while escaping the family routine. :)



This...is fabulous.

deltawave
Feb. 1, 2012, 07:21 PM
Bring back the Restricted divisions, and get rid of "Horse" and "Rider" divisions! Problem solved. :)

AlterEgoME
Feb. 1, 2012, 08:12 PM
But it doesn't really function as a Rider restriction, if practically nobody is excluded. As evidenced by the fact that the majority of us at any show are eligible for it !

I think it depends where you live and what shows you enter whether the "majority" are included. In theory, you check every division for which you are eligible. If the show secretary has the right numbers, they may choose to create the division. I am sure if we went through the entries at Rocking Horse last weekend we would find that the majority WERE excluded from rider divisions.