The Chronicle of the Horse
MagazineNewsHorse SportsHorse CareCOTH StoreVoicesThe Chronicle UntackedDirectoriesMarketplaceDates & Results
 
Results 1 to 11 of 11
  1. #1
    Join Date
    May. 15, 2007
    Posts
    155

    Default The rider fall rule

    Hi all, I was just wondering if the rule is the same or has been changed... that 2 falls within 12 mos on the same horse... that the rider cannot compete for how long? and drop down a level?
    I saw that a young girl that fell at Poplar, also fell 2 other times with in the last year on the same horse and is still competeing at I and even A.
    Did I miss something?



  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb. 23, 2009
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,233

    Default

    I thought that it was 3 falls of rider within 12 months and the horse loses qualification at the level. I think they have to wait 1 month before they can go for the 2 QRs it takes to get re-established.
    If it were easy, everybody would do it.

    Equi-Sport Services



  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug. 30, 2004
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    687

    Default

    The horse loses its qualification with two Es, not the rider. The rule book explains this clearly.



  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb. 23, 2009
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,233

    Default

    If this helps:

    EV105.3:

    LOSS OF ESTABLISHMENT. (Preliminary Level and up)
    In cases cited in EV105.3, only penalties assessed during the cross-country phase of competition apply.
    a. A horse that is eliminated, for disobediences in the cross-country phase of competition, three times within any12month period loses its establishment to compete at the higher level at which the elimination occurs.
    b. A horse that falls in the cross-country phase of competition 2 times in any 12month period loses its establishment to compete at the higher level at which a fall occurs.
    c. A rider who falls in the cross-country phase of competition from the same horse 3 times in any 12month period will cause the horse to lose its establishment to compete at the higher level at which a fall occurs.
    d. Having lost establishment, a horse may be re-established by achieving 2 QRs at the next lower height level (e.g., loss of establishment at the CCI2* level requires re-establishment at the Preliminary Level) within any 6 month period and no sooner than one month following the loss of establishment.
    If it were easy, everybody would do it.

    Equi-Sport Services



  5. #5
    britlee Guest

    Default casey mahoney

    Oh great, thank you!



  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct. 29, 2000
    Location
    Southern Pines, N.C.
    Posts
    11,540

    Default

    This is all well and good, but at SP II last weekend when I was fence judging, I noticed that most people retired when they were one disobedience short of elimination.

    Seems to me that the "Elimination" rule has a loophole big enough to ride a WB through. Careful people do not allow themselves to get eliminated anymore.

    [The above is the perception of a HP who volunteers to jump judge and notices that people are retiring on course. The explanation was given to me by an experienced upper level eventer. So if I am incorrect, do not blame me. Blame the BNE. ]

    If the intent of the rule is to protect people from themselves and to protect horses from more-guts-than-brains riders, perhaps the rule should be re-written to account for the total number of disobediences (say 10?) within the prior 12 months, whether or not the horse was eventually retired on course.

    Any horse that has 10 stops in 12 months is probably being overfaced; if the rider is not smart enough to go back down to fix things, then the rules should be written in such a way as to ensure that he/she has to go back.
    "I used to have money, now I have horses."



  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar. 1, 2003
    Location
    Happily in Canada
    Posts
    4,863

    Default

    Good point on the E vs. R, Lord Helpus.
    Blugal

    You never know what kind of obsessive compulsive crazy person you are until another person imitates your behaviour at a three-day. --Gry2Yng



  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug. 21, 2000
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,614

    Default E vs. R

    Lord Helpus, I was one of those people (at least once I reached I/A), and I was that way before the loss-of-qualification rule was written, so that wasn't my motivation. I'd like to offer a different perspective: A first run-out might be caused by a missed line or a miscommunication. As a rider, if it feels like a bobble rather than An Issue, you go on. It's having a second where you think, "Wow, OK, this is clearly not our day/something's not right physically/we need to go home and practice some homework rather than galloping around this course."
    Now you are retiring with two stops, which with the combination of two newer rules -- 3 vs 4 stops for elimination, and loss of qualifications -- means you are "jumping through this loophole" just because you are making a responsible decision.
    Having said all that, though, I agree with you that a total # of stops over a 12- or 24-month period could be a good idea for ID'ing people who are repeatedly turning in marginal performances at a level.
    I evented just for the Halibut.



  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb. 27, 2008
    Location
    Middleburg, VA
    Posts
    1,120

    Default

    I'd like to point out that I think it's a GOOD thing that people are choosing to retire instead of carrying on to be eliminated. It seems that quite a few of the nastiest accidents occurred after the horse and rider had already accrued several stops and kept going despite this. The rule kind of creates a mentality of rider responsibility (albeit for maybe not quite the right reason).

    For instance, if a rider had two stops before the rule, what they should have thought is 'Maybe this isn't my day and I should go home before we eat a fence.' But instead they kept going until elimination occurred. Now, under the new rule the rider thinks 'Maybe this isn't my day and I should go home before I get eliminated and have to get reestablished for this level.' Different reasoning, not as good, but with the same result.

    So the fact that riders are learning to pull up after a stop or two, before they get into real trouble, is great I think.



  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb. 3, 2000
    Location
    Nokesville, VA
    Posts
    35,147

    Default

    I raised that issue when the rule was first proposed. The people who proposed the rule acknowledged that would happen, but did not consider it a "loophole". It is one of the things they expected/intended to happen.

    After seeing in practice, it no longer concerns me.

    The people who "have enough sense to retire before they are eliminated" usually "have enough sense to figure out if/that the horse needs to drop back".

    It is the people who do NOT "have enough sense to retire before being eliminated" (the "more guts than brains") who NEED the rules to tell them "the horse HAS TO drop back".

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Helpus View Post
    This is all well and good, but at SP II last weekend when I was fence judging, I noticed that most people retired when they were one disobedience short of elimination.

    Seems to me that the "Elimination" rule has a loophole big enough to ride a WB through. Careful people do not allow themselves to get eliminated anymore.

    [The above is the perception of a HP who volunteers to jump judge and notices that people are retiring on course. The explanation was given to me by an experienced upper level eventer. So if I am incorrect, do not blame me. Blame the BNE. ]

    If the intent of the rule is to protect people from themselves and to protect horses from more-guts-than-brains riders, perhaps the rule should be re-written to account for the total number of disobediences (say 10?) within the prior 12 months, whether or not the horse was eventually retired on course.

    Any horse that has 10 stops in 12 months is probably being overfaced; if the rider is not smart enough to go back down to fix things, then the rules should be written in such a way as to ensure that he/she has to go back.
    Janet

    chief feeder and mucker for Music, Spy, Belle and Tiara. Someone else is now feeding and mucking for Chief and Brain (both foxhunting now).



  11. #11
    Join Date
    Sep. 18, 2004
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    856

    Default Scoring Inconsistencies

    Quote Originally Posted by faybe View Post
    If this helps:

    EV105.3:

    LOSS OF ESTABLISHMENT. (Preliminary Level and up)
    In cases cited in EV105.3, only penalties assessed during the cross-country phase of competition apply.

    b. A horse that falls in the cross-country phase of competition 2 times in any 12month period loses its establishment to compete at the higher level at which a fall occurs.

    c. A rider who falls in the cross-country phase of competition from the same horse 3 times in any 12month period will cause the horse to lose its establishment to compete at the higher level at which a fall occurs.
    .
    At Rocking Horse II, I saw multiple horse falls (4) and was shocked to see that the scores had just one MR. And, this has occurred at other events... I can't help to wonder if there isn't some leniency given in the final scoring because of the severity of the MR. I know of one person who has "talked" her way out of 2 MRs.

    I am an experienced Jump Judge and I compete. I know what a fall of horse looks like ... just sayin'



Similar Threads

  1. One Fall Rule
    By MeghanDACVA in forum Eventing
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: Jan. 11, 2011, 11:06 AM
  2. Rider Fall rule questions
    By joharavhf in forum Eventing
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: Sep. 29, 2009, 09:28 AM
  3. Scoring RF(rider fall ) what is the rule?
    By boppin along in forum Eventing
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: Jul. 5, 2009, 06:30 PM
  4. One fall and you're out rule
    By LAZ in forum Eventing
    Replies: 185
    Last Post: May. 30, 2008, 10:10 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •