I was opposed to the automatic 21 penalties being awarded and made a case for why. However, it always confuses me when Eventing Nation uses platitudes like “this is a big win for the international eventing community” but doesn’t say why. As if we are supposed to know, and that it isn’t an opinion, but a fact.
[QUOTE=Blugal;8080602]
I was opposed to the automatic 21 penalties being awarded and made a case for why. However, it always confuses me when Eventing Nation uses platitudes like “this is a big win for the international eventing community” but doesn’t say why. As if we are supposed to know, and that it isn’t an opinion, but a fact.[/QUOTE]
seriously :mad: agreed. how is this a big win for us? it isn’t. it’s like the FEI saying “we’ll compromise - we’ll find a way to do it MY way, and you can find a way to deal with it”.
Activating a frangible device on cross country at an FEI competition will now award 11 penalties instead of 21, and the rule also now clarifies that the ground jury has the discretion to remove the penalties if “unexpected activation occurred through a light tap.”
You’re right — a summary paragraph of the concerns about the rule would have been helpful. I just updated the post to add that, and I also added additional links to outline more background on the rule, which you can access below. I hope that helps.
A summary of eight potential negative impacts from the 21 Penalty Rule
Top riders and leaders in the sport speak out against the 21 Penalty Rule
The FEI is certainly doing quite a bit of backing down lately over unexpected and unpopular rules changes. I may be nuts, but I don’t recall so many rule “reversals” ever before the past five years.
[QUOTE=jkautry;8080688]
You’re right — a summary paragraph of the concerns about the rule would have been helpful. I just updated the post to add that, and I also added additional links to outline more background on the rule, which you can access below. I hope that helps.
A summary of eight potential negative impacts from the 21 Penalty Rule
Top riders and leaders in the sport speak out against the 21 Penalty Rule[/QUOTE]
It does. Sorry, I wasn’t digging at you and I think that might have been how my post came across. I promise I’m only disgruntled with the FEI, not you! :yes:
It’s a partial win, in that there’s at least now the opportunity to challenge the MER, but the actual number of penalties (21 vs. 11) seems to be pretty irrelevant if you have the MER on your record.
GotSpots, I think you might be confused about terminology? MER is Minimum Eligibility Requirement (scores used for qualifying)- so usually it’s a competition with dressage of at least 50% good marks, cross-country without jumping penalties, and show jumping penalties of 16 or fewer. However you are sometimes allowed one MER with up to 20 XC jump penalties, so this rule would allow a frangible pin penalty and still achieve the MER in some cases.
Oh DUH. I was thinking MR and assuming the worst of the FEI. As one does.
Carry on then, with more appropriate (or at least more accurate) griping.
Argh.
This bothers me
“Designers have said that they will now seriously consider using fewer devices based on the possible effect a breakage has on the outcome of a competition.”
Course designers should be worrying about safety not who is winning the competition. Am I reading that wrong? It’s rubbing me the wrong way!
This is like the joke about the prostitute and negotiation. The one with the punchline that goes ‘We’ve already established that you’re a prostitute, now we’re just negotiating price.’
The FEI has admitted the rule is arbitrary, random, thoroughly lacking in evidence, not grounded in any demonstrable safety or scoring practice. ‘So, riders, you don’t like 21 points? Will you take 11?’
The answer is ‘Hell, no.’ They’ll come back with 5, then 3, etc.
I actually think it’s a big improvement; maybe even great. The whole point of the original 21 points was to penalize it more than a refusal and cause the run to not be qualifying. But, with time we’ve seen the pin break over and over (and thus basically ruin a ride) where it probably wasn’t avoiding a catastrophe. The 21 penalties for “we save your bacon today.” made sense, but now we know in most cases the 21 penalties and a lost MER is too significant of penalty. 11 makes sense.
Everyone complains when you don’t make changes and then they complain that your “negotiating” when you listen to your members. What do you really want?? I’ve been on an FEI committee for a couple of years (not involving this). We didn’t take decisions lightly and did try to listen to riders and be as fair as possible. It’s not all rainbows on the other side either. Just providing the other perspective too.
Ground jury can decide? UGH - this is going to get messy. Who decides whether its a light “rub” or a hard hit? Could you imagine this was a deciding factor for a win?
Just what you need to decide an event - an opinion.
The snarky side of me is hoping for some horse of one oF the worlds best to pound the crap out of a pin and have the GJ waive the penalty for the win at rolex.
I’m so glad my eventing days were when the sport was more grass roots and lots of fun…when a rider would come back off a course and tell the next rider to watch a certain corner as it was slippery, etc.
However, some of the lack of rules would make a person gulp these days, like when there was no written rule for how deep the water could be. I have a picture of the water coming in over the top of my boot
I hope you were being sarcastic about opinions not deciding who wins eventing. Have you ever heard of dressage?
Not an eventer but I really enjoy spectating so excuse my ignorance…but what is the argument from the FEI for adding any penalties for breaking the pin?
[QUOTE=sockmonkey;8082687]
I hope you were being sarcastic about opinions not deciding who wins eventing. Have you ever heard of dressage?[/QUOTE]
There is a big difference between a dressage judge and a ground jury as evidenced by ingrid klinke’s ride at WEG.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YCk1gbWYLI
She was initially penalized for crossing her line, which obviously happened, and then the penalties were removed. Do you think a lesser rider would have had the same result on that ride?
woodhillsmanhattan, I think the argument for the FEI adding penalty points for breaking a frangible pin is based on the idea that if the pin is broken, allowing the log to fall, a serious (rotational) fall is prevented.
A rotational fall may well have resulted in a dead horse or rider. They don’t always, but they have a very high percentage of serious injuries to both or either horse and rider.
The other problem is, though, that the pins will allow several hard brushes from previous horses and then give way on the next horse … so it ends up being a very unfair way to judge the situation.
