• Welcome to the Chronicle Forums.
    Please complete your profile. The forums and the rest of www.chronofhorse.com has single sign-in, so your log in information for one will automatically work for the other. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are the views of the individual and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of The Chronicle of the Horse.

Announcement

Collapse

Forum rules and no-advertising policy

As a participant on this forum, it is your responsibility to know and follow our rules. Please read this message in its entirety.

Board Rules

1. You’re responsible for what you say.
As outlined in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, The Chronicle of the Horse and its affiliates, as well Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., the developers of vBulletin, are not legally responsible for statements made in the forums.

This is a public forum viewed by a wide spectrum of people, so please be mindful of what you say and who might be reading it—details of personal disputes are likely better handled privately. While posters are legally responsible for their statements, the moderators may in their discretion remove or edit posts that violate these rules. Users have the ability to modify or delete their own messages after posting, but administrators generally will not delete posts, threads or accounts upon request.

Outright inflammatory, vulgar, harassing, malicious or otherwise inappropriate statements and criminal charges unsubstantiated by a reputable news source or legal documentation will not be tolerated and will be dealt with at the discretion of the moderators.

2. Conversations in horse-related forums should be horse-related.
The forums are a wonderful source of information and support for members of the horse community. While it’s understandably tempting to share information or search for input on other topics upon which members might have a similar level of knowledge, members must maintain the focus on horses.

3. Keep conversations productive, on topic and civil.
Discussion and disagreement are inevitable and encouraged; personal insults, diatribes and sniping comments are unproductive and unacceptable. Whether a subject is light-hearted or serious, keep posts focused on the current topic and of general interest to other participants of that thread. Utilize the private message feature or personal email where appropriate to address side topics or personal issues not related to the topic at large.

4. No advertising in the discussion forums.
Posts in the discussion forums directly or indirectly advertising horses, jobs, items or services for sale or wanted will be removed at the discretion of the moderators. Use of the private messaging feature or email addresses obtained through users’ profiles for unsolicited advertising is not permitted.

Company representatives may participate in discussions and answer questions about their products or services, or suggest their products on recent threads if they fulfill the criteria of a query. False "testimonials" provided by company affiliates posing as general consumers are not appropriate, and self-promotion of sales, ad campaigns, etc. through the discussion forums is not allowed.

Paid advertising is available on our classifieds site and through the purchase of banner ads. The tightly monitored Giveaways forum permits free listings of genuinely free horses and items available or wanted (on a limited basis). Items offered for trade are not allowed.

Advertising Policy Specifics
When in doubt of whether something you want to post constitutes advertising, please contact a moderator privately in advance for further clarification. Refer to the following points for general guidelines:

Horses – Only general discussion about the buying, leasing, selling and pricing of horses is permitted. If the post contains, or links to, the type of specific information typically found in a sales or wanted ad, and it’s related to a horse for sale, regardless of who’s selling it, it doesn’t belong in the discussion forums.

Stallions – Board members may ask for suggestions on breeding stallion recommendations. Stallion owners may reply to such queries by suggesting their own stallions, only if their horse fits the specific criteria of the original poster. Excessive promotion of a stallion by its owner or related parties is not permitted and will be addressed at the discretion of the moderators.

Services – Members may use the forums to ask for general recommendations of trainers, barns, shippers, farriers, etc., and other members may answer those requests by suggesting themselves or their company, if their services fulfill the specific criteria of the original post. Members may not solicit other members for business if it is not in response to a direct, genuine query.

Products – While members may ask for general opinions and suggestions on equipment, trailers, trucks, etc., they may not list the specific attributes for which they are in the market, as such posts serve as wanted ads.

Event Announcements – Members may post one notification of an upcoming event that may be of interest to fellow members, if the original poster does not benefit financially from the event. Such threads may not be “bumped” excessively. Premium members may post their own notices in the Event Announcements forum.

Charities/Rescues – Announcements for charitable or fundraising events can only be made for 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations. Special exceptions may be made, at the moderators’ discretion and direction, for board-related events or fundraising activities in extraordinary circumstances.

Occasional posts regarding horses available for adoption through IRS-registered horse rescue or placement programs are permitted in the appropriate forums, but these threads may be limited at the discretion of the moderators. Individuals may not advertise or make announcements for horses in need of rescue, placement or adoption unless the horse is available through a recognized rescue or placement agency or government-run entity or the thread fits the criteria for and is located in the Giveaways forum.

5. Do not post copyrighted photographs unless you have purchased that photo and have permission to do so.

6. Respect other members.
As members are often passionate about their beliefs and intentions can easily be misinterpreted in this type of environment, try to explore or resolve the inevitable disagreements that arise in the course of threads calmly and rationally.

If you see a post that you feel violates the rules of the board, please click the “alert” button (exclamation point inside of a triangle) in the bottom left corner of the post, which will alert ONLY the moderators to the post in question. They will then take whatever action, or no action, as deemed appropriate for the situation at their discretion. Do not air grievances regarding other posters or the moderators in the discussion forums.

Please be advised that adding another user to your “Ignore” list via your User Control Panel can be a useful tactic, which blocks posts and private messages by members whose commentary you’d rather avoid reading.

7. We have the right to reproduce statements made in the forums.
The Chronicle of the Horse may copy, quote, link to or otherwise reproduce posts, or portions of posts, in print or online for advertising or editorial purposes, if attributed to their original authors, and by posting in this forum, you hereby grant to The Chronicle of the Horse a perpetual, non-exclusive license under copyright and other rights, to do so.

8. We reserve the right to enforce and amend the rules.
The moderators may delete, edit, move or close any post or thread at any time, or refrain from doing any of the foregoing, in their discretion, and may suspend or revoke a user’s membership privileges at any time to maintain adherence to the rules and the general spirit of the forum. These rules may be amended at any time to address the current needs of the board.

Please see our full Terms of Service and Privacy Policy for more information.

Thanks for being a part of the COTH forums!

(Revised 1/26/16)
See more
See less

Proposed rule change for "completed"

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Proposed rule change for "completed"

    http://www.usef.org/documents/ruleChanges/441-07.pdf
    is a rule change proposal to change the definition of "completion" in Appendix 3- in particular in terms of what counts as a qualifying competion, either for "moving up", or for "Horse" or "Rider" division.

    It SAYS
    Completion, except as noted below, means having completed the entire Horse Trial, and itmeans having:
    - not more than 50 penalty points in the Dressage Test; and
    - not more than 20 penalties at obstacles on the Cross Country Test, and not more than 90 seconds (36 penalty points)
    - exceeded the optimum time in the Cross Country Test; and
    - not more than 16 penalties at obstacles in the Jumping Test.
    But since a requirement to exceed the optimum time doesn't make much sense, I think it is SUPPOSED to say

    Completion, except as noted below, means having completed the entire Horse Trial, and it means having:
    - not more than 50 penalty points in the Dressage Test; and
    - not more than 20 penalties at obstacles on the Cross Country Test, and not more than 90 seconds (36 penalty points) exceeded the optimum time in the Cross Country Test; and
    - not more than 16 penalties at obstacles in the Jumping Test.
    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).

  • #2
    I know I'm going to be outvoted on this one, but I don't like the dressage qualification for moving up. I don't really see the point (guessing the argument is safety?), assuming that our dangerous riding rules would catch that more directly.

    As for the horse/rider divisions, I don't care either way, since it doesn't impact the level at which you can compete, just the divisions within.

    Comment


    • #3
      I don't like it. Personally I think completing should be just that - completing the event, not getting a certain score.
      http://community.webshots.com/user/CloverExpress08/

      Comment


      • #4
        As someone who moved up in the standings with 23 sj points--and wasn't riding dangerously, either-I agree I don't like it.

        Comment


        • #5
          as an amateur who rode the worlds' safest horse who hated dressage, I don't think dressage scores for completion are appropriate. It was perfectly safe and appropriate for us to move up when we did, but our dressage scores weren't always making it
          OTTBs rule, but spots are good too!

          Comment


          • #6
            In addition, that is a poorly structured paragraph.
            If the present tense is used -- "it means having" -- then the time penalties must be referred to as "exceeding" not having been "exceeded".

            The whole thing sucks. Completed means completed the test. I don't like the federation's new definition of "completed". I would much rather they used a different word to describe this. Perhaps QUALIFYING STANDARD. Drop the "completed" for this meaning. When you talk about eventing to others if you did the dressage, the xc, and the stadium they and the rest of the English speaking world understand what "completed" means.

            I do not think 50 in dressage is remotely fair. The breed organizations like American Warmblood Society referr to 55 as being a qualifying score for some registration criteria, and I think 55 is a safer number to use with regard to dressage. Our sport is NOT dressage and dressage is only supposed to count for the smallest bit of it. Making the score low makes dressage way more important for QUALIFYING than it should be for competing.
            I think 16 is too difficult for stadium as well. You can't quantify stadium courses. Some are difficult, some are easy, some are set on side hills on flat cups, some use 50 lb. rails in coffee cup holders that couldn't come down if Godzilla rapped them with both sets of legs.
            As far as time penalties go, again, let's encourage people to ride like hell on cross country, there's a safety point gone out the window. Sheesh. Who makes this stuff up?
            Proud & Permanent Student Of The Long Road
            Read me: EN (http://eventingnation.com/author/annemarch/) and HJU (http://horsejunkiesunited.com/author/holly-covey/)

            Comment


            • #7
              But notice that the penalties are "at obstacles", so as written it doesn't mean time penalties, just looking for clear rounds. They also don't start until Prelim.

              All in all I don't think this is such a bad thing, though I admit I'm on the fence a bit about the addition of dressage requirements. But I'm leaning towards being OK with the whole thing, really.

              Comment


              • #8
                So those are the requirements for a competition to qualify for an FEI three-day, right?

                And now the same are going to apply to moving up the levels in US horse trials?

                Wow.

                I think the dressage component really sucks. Because that means part of moving up is now going to be based on the subjective opinions of judges. Judges, as we all well know, can WIDELY differe in what they thing is good and bad, and how they reward points. This is just STUPID. Base it on objective criteria - stops, rails, and time if you must, but leave the effing dressage out of it. The DQ judges have more than enough influence in our sport now. What is WRONG with the USEF????

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by retreadeventer View Post
                  I do not think 50 in dressage is remotely fair. The breed organizations like American Warmblood Society referr to 55 as being a qualifying score for some registration criteria, and I think 55 is a safer number to use with regard to dressage.
                  Remember that in straight dressage criteria, a 55 is considered 55% good marks, versus in eventing, where the number goes to penalty points accrued (as a conversion of the percentage). A 50 in penalties is equivalent (using the dressage conversion table), to a 50% good marks - or straight 5s on every single movement. Thus, your standard of a 55 in dressage terms is actually harder to achieve than the standard set forth here.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Is this for all qualifications? so does this start with the 4 trainings to move up to prelim? If that is the case- I really don't think its so bad. I mean, if you cant get around with only one stop and that is a LOT of time penalities you can rack up too- you probably SHOULDNT be moving up. really. completing really isn't the same as competant at that level. esp in regards to moving up a level. I do have mixed feelings on the dressage. If you ahve a horse that hates the dressage, that can be a really sucky way to not be able to move up if you have clear rides elsewhere. but it is incentive to work on the dressage a bit. I would say maybe 55 does sound better. you can have a hot tense horse that will easily score around a 50 on a cold windy day and I dont think that makes you unsafe.

                    But I actually agree with the other requirements. at least for moving up to prelim and beyond. Its really not that much to ask to get around with just one stop and not more than 36 time penalities. and 4 rails in SJ. though again- it would be disappointing to have an unlucky day in the SJ ring and not qualify, but I see where they are coming from. I think the xc requirements are on the right track.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I was looking at the scores from Rolex, and Master Monarch got a 53.1 in dressage. So, under these rules, he won the competition but still didn't "complete" it. I know this will have no effect on Rolex, just for qualifying, but still makes me wonder if the dressage component is a bit harsh. Especially seeing that there were several horses in the top 10 who had a dressage score greater than 50. Like someone else said: on a windy day with hot, fit Thoroughbred, you may not do so well in dressage, but still be able to get around XC and stadium fine.

                      Edited to add: this is the 2006 Rolex, of course.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I never looked twice at the dressage requirement.
                        All 5s is not at all out of the question.
                        I think all the suggested rules are fair.
                        http://kaboomeventing.com/
                        http://kaboomeventing.blogspot.com/
                        Horses are amazing athletes and make no mistake -- they are the stars of the show!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Dressage at FEI is scored differently

                          At Rolex, or any FEI event, 50% good marks would mean a score of 75 or better. So Master Monarch absolutely would have had a "qualifying score".
                          Jeanne
                          www.horseandhome.com

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Eventer13 View Post
                            I was looking at the scores from Rolex, and Master Monarch got a 53.1 in dressage. So, under these rules, he won the competition but still didn't "complete" it. I know this will have no effect on Rolex, just for qualifying, but still makes me wonder if the dressage component is a bit harsh. Especially seeing that there were several horses in the top 10 who had a dressage score greater than 50. Like someone else said: on a windy day with hot, fit Thoroughbred, you may not do so well in dressage, but still be able to get around XC and stadium fine.

                            Edited to add: this is the 2006 Rolex, of course.
                            The rule change refers to a dressage score of 50 in a Horse Trial. The dressage is calculated differently in Horse Trial than it is in an FEI three-day such as Rolex. A 50 at Rolex is more like (aprox) a 35 penalty score at a Horse Trial.
                            Hindsight bad, foresight good.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Eventer13 View Post
                              I was looking at the scores from Rolex, and Master Monarch got a 53.1 in dressage. So, under these rules, he won the competition but still didn't "complete" it. I know this will have no effect on Rolex, just for qualifying, but still makes me wonder if the dressage component is a bit harsh. Especially seeing that there were several horses in the top 10 who had a dressage score greater than 50. Like someone else said: on a windy day with hot, fit Thoroughbred, you may not do so well in dressage, but still be able to get around XC and stadium fine.

                              Edited to add: this is the 2006 Rolex, of course.
                              However, in FEI competitions, the penalty score is mulitplied by 1.5 to get the final score. Which means that Andrew Hoy actually got a 35.4.

                              I do agree with your point though; the dressage requirement for competion is unfair.

                              Comment


                              • #16
                                Is this for safety or to only move up horses that "do" better? If for safety, I agree with others to dump the dressage test quals and I'd up the amount of rails that can fall in stadium. If it's to move up the horses that "do" better, then whatever, but it leans towards those in areas with more competitions like Area II or III. A person could be having a bad stadium day and miss a qualifier, if they have another event scheduled next week, then it's just money But if there aren't that many events, then they might have to wait another year.

                                Comment


                                • #17
                                  Originally posted by scubed View Post
                                  ...horse who hated dressage, I don't think dressage scores for completion are appropriate.
                                  I am not a huge fan of people claiming their horse "hates" dressage - 99% of the time it's the RIDER that can't produce a decent test, not the horse. If a horse truly detested dressage, I imagine it's because there's a pain issue or inappropriate training. Producing a "50" caliber test is more than enough for qualifying criteria.
                                  Road to the T3D
                                  Translation
                                  fri [fri:] fritt fria (adj): Free
                                  skritt [skrit:] skritten (noun): Walk

                                  Comment


                                  • #18
                                    I dont get why people are getting in such a huff and a puff about this.
                                    you dont need qualifying scores to do bn/n/t so the new "completion" rule will not effect these, correct.
                                    theres always been qualifying scores to get to prelim, 4 trainings with only one allowed to have a refusal XC. i dont think it would be unreasonable to ask that you now be able to get under a 50 dressage, be less then 90 seconds under time XC, and knock 16 or less rails. if you cant do that at 4 trainings, why the heck would you move up to prelim??

                                    Comment

                                    • Original Poster

                                      #19
                                      "Completed" comes up in several contexts.

                                      First is in the definiton of the "Rider" divisions:
                                      RIDER (R) - Levels restricted by rider are limited to those competitors who have not completed more than two Horse Trials at the next highest level or higher in the previous 24 months.
                                      So, with the new definition of "completed" if you had done 10 HT at Training, but each of them, for some reason, wasn't "completed", you would still be eligible for "Novice Rider".

                                      In some cases, it would be possible to WIN your division with a score that would not count as completion .

                                      In terms of qualifying to go Prelim, there are additional criteria (in the same rule change proposal).
                                      The competitor must have completed four Horse Trials at the Training Level or higher, two of which must have been completed with no penalties at obstacles on the Cross Country Test
                                      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).

                                      Comment


                                      • #20
                                        For the lowest levels of BN and N yes I have seen a lot of safe jumping rounds on horses teaching the joy of eventing to kids and adults but often some of these saints are not high on the ladder of dressage scores, So I can see how 50 would be tough when you have safe rounds out there.

                                        However I should hope anyone wanting to make the leap from Training to prelim would be able to stay under the 50 mark in dressage before moving up.

                                        I think the XC ruling is fair and hate to say it but more than 16 jumping (not time) in stadium should be saying something at prelim and above.
                                        Life is really simple, but we insist on making it complicated.
                                        Confucius

                                        Comment

                                        Working...
                                        X