2022 New Rules Proposed - MERs Required to Move Up

You all do realize we had a qualitative aspect to XC for years. The Charles Owen Technical Merit Award.

I won it twice at competitions and once nationally (highest score in the US).

So, the suggestion of adding a qualitative score has been tried and is still in place?

The data analysis task force make up is being considered. I was asked to provide several names of epidemiologists, engineers, statisticians which I did and were passed on to the c-suite personnel for consideration. Several of us had a very in-depth email conversation with Dr. David Vos, who did the original data analysis, where we were able to highlight deficiencies and incorrect assumptions. He was very accepting of the knowledge and expertise as well as alternative qualifying matrices that can account for lifelong experience and quality of rides based on available data.

The reality is that simply looking at fall rates per level and completion experience is a very poor model for safety without stratifying the rider/horse demographic as well as regional and course specific parameters of consideration.

15 Likes

The dressage phase is supposed to demonstrate harmony and rythmn, obedience, good training and team work between rider and horse. Better dressage evidently does make a better cross country horse as it is more responsive to the aids, more ajustable, better balanced etc etc. One idea to explain the 30% drop in horse falls in 2020 in British Eventing is that people did their homework, practiced and schooled before competion resumed after lockdown 1 and the horses benefited. Rider fall numbers didn’t change. So setting a minimum dressage score is not unreasonable in order to improve xc safety. If one can not ride an effective test between the confines of the boards, why would one have sufficient skill and control to run xc?

It seems to be a particularly American conviction that dressage judges award marks for gaits rather than training. The good judges are evaluating training and looking for pure gaits not flash. Most top riders say they buy the gallop, not the flashy trot, because dressage training will improve the trot. The standard of dressage has improved such that UK eventers win in pure dressage competitions these days, up to respectable levels, with their event horses.

Education, education and futher education.

1 Like

I will slightly beg to differ with your overgeneralization about dressage. If it is such a great indicator of jumping success we should be able to take a GP dressage horse Advanced with little training.

You need to consider that the possibility wasn’t just riders focusing on dressage. They may have been forced to simply up their expectations of their own riding and had to put the work in not just on the flat but over fences as well.

Most riders (athletes in general) are “lazy” in that if they aren’t pushed they don’t push themselves.

6 Likes

A GP dressage horse should be able to go Advanced with little training?

I don’t believe that at all, unless the horse is exceptional.

As an example, a friend’s horse made it to PSG in dressage after dropping out of eventing at Training with a couple Prelims. Horse was in reality happiest at Novice and only jumped bigger because it was a good obedient horse. I don’t believe that athletic talent for flatwork and obedience are the sole factors needed for an upper level event horse.

8 Likes

True enough, I was over-generalizing. Home work would include all three eventing elements. I do stick to my view that better dressage leads to better xc simply because the horse is better schooled. I’m certainly not saying a GP horse would easily go xc because it is good at dressage. Event horses are unique in requiring three skill sets and in the modern sport all three need to be pretty solid. However, I think everyone here agrees that eventing should not be just a dressage competition and that xc is the crucial element of our sport. And that it takes a great deal of practice!

Text
1 Like

Just chiming in on the dressage: I get show nerves. Not “I’m an idiot” nerves that would make me dangerous, but just a bit tense/stage fright. So for me, mid-30s was great–my scores on two horses ranged from a 34 to a 41 at Training with one outlier in each direction (30/46). Both horses were fabulous XC, and one was also a great show jumper. I never felt nervous on XC on either horse (beyond the normal adrenaline). I was rarely placed highly. Based on that experience, my inclination is to steer away from making dressage limits a super tight score or relying on placings.

The CO Technical Merit Award is similar to what I was describing earlier–a judged XC. The thing is that it is only at one event per area per year. In Area VII, for example, it was at Rebecca Farm, which is the one event that is a full week and furthest out for many of us–I only did it once in 7 years of competing in that area, and it cost as much as two other events. Also, despite being an amateur I never received any feedback that year because I was in the T3DE (at the time the only one in the area and my reason for making that trek). So the program would have to be expanded in a way that makes it actually possible to obtain scores–and I’d venture that if we make it a requirement for a move up, we’d require more than one XC score and ideally over more than one course. Running it as a sort of independent competition might also make it more readily available–organisers could host it as a separate event, and it would generally be one day and just XC.

2 Likes

What if we had ratings, like Pony Club? You should have to achieve a certain rating (ridden in front of a qualified official, or ICP instructor) to move up. Trainers could focus on preparing riders for their “ratings” as much as the upgrade itself, and if the rider doesn’t pass, they don’t move up. Structure the ratings at various event venues or schooling locations around the country, in conjunction with an existing event if you like.

8 Likes

That was my point. Excellent dressage is NOT directly related to safety and capability over fences. Horses are NOT machinery.

Dressage is where horse and rider develop connection and communication, excellent scores or not.

13 Likes

ohhhhhhhhhhhh

This is my favorite idea. Not only would it be a value-add for the sport (safer combinations out on course, at least in theory), it would be a value-add for the rider (as opposed to just a test, although I’m in favor of that too over blanket increased MERs). Even if you weren’t “approved”, you would still have participated in an entire clinic, learned a lot, and received specific feedback to make you safer and set you up for success next time. Not to mention it is a LOT cheaper for the more remote areas to chip in a few hundred bucks apiece to fly Buck Davidson or whoever else out for a couple days than it is to repeatedly ship their horses 6+ hours and put excess miles on their horses legs just to tick a box.

Agreed. If you can’t keep your horse in the dressage ring, you probably shouldn’t be out on xc (and you won’t be - that’s elimination). But if your horse is excited about what’s to come, that doesn’t mean he’s unsafe. I’ll never forget Rioghan Rua’s test at her first Badminton, for example. That test was memorable for all the wrong reasons (poor thing was frightened by the stands and the tents and of course super fit) - it actually held her back from what would have otherwise been an MER - but that xc round from what was, at the time, a 10 year old mare and a 20 year old rider, was one of the rounds of the day. Safe as houses and the seventh-fastest round of the day. You don’t need a test in the 20s to be a safe jumper xc (and I suspect the correlation may even run the other way. No one has an incentive to event a horse that puts up a 55 and is a terrible jumper, but some people will always think trying to kick the dressage winner around is worth the risk).

This is why I continue to be a huge advocate for the Z-Line - a level of proficiency in dressage beyond which you receive 0 faults. Currently, you can receive 0 faults in both other phases, but not in dressage. This means that if you want to be more “competitive”, you have the most room for improvement in your score on the flat, which IMO skews the focus more than we want it to. The number can be debated, but for me, a test below 25 should be a 0, or a “clear round”. Situations like Chris Burton’s Burghley win on Nobilis (no hate at all, but he won a 5* with FOUR rails down and time faults xc because his dressage test was a 30.2 - new money that’s a 20.1) IMO do not represent the event horse we all should be striving for.

11 Likes

I’ve never heard this before, but I like it. That certainly would make the best jumping/xc horses more desirable and fix dressage being weighted too highly. I think a 75% would be a good marker as well. The number could definitely be debated, as the description for scores can leave a lot of room for interpretation:

  • 5 = sufficient
  • 6 = satisfactory
  • 7 = fairly good
  • 8 = good

For the sake of a little debate, the logic of “good enough” on the flat would be a 50%, as that’s considered “sufficient”. In terms of where to cap it off at being competitive vs excessive proficiency, how does one decide where that line is? Should it be a test that averages “good”, or one that just averages “fairly good”? I think somewhere in between (75%) would be a good marker, as any horse that goes correctly, obediently, and is ridden accurately (that’s really the goal, right?) should be able to score a 75%.

My only question is about what happens when there are ties, as I feel there inevitably would be? I think closest to the optimum time is the current breaker, but not sure.

2 Likes

Exactly. I would far rather celebrate an event horse who can put up a 25 in dressage and jump double clear than one who can put up a 17 but pulls a rail or two and doesn’t make time.

I can’t take credit for the idea - it’s an Equiratings concept. Here’s their article on it, which links to the podcast where they explain it. If you have the time I highly recommend listening. They lay out their rationale in very interesting depth, and give several different options for implementation (including tie breakers - and I personally agree with continuing to use closest to OT as a tie breaker).

4 Likes

Then what do you do when you have 10 horses tied at 0 penalty points? Leave them tied? That would have lots of other repercussions.

It is mentioned above that the tie breaker would be closest to optimal time on cross country.

2 Likes

I agree. There is absolutely no (zero) evidence that tighter dressage score improves safety on XC. If the data shows that a 20 on dressage consistently reduces falls on XC by 50%, then that would be important. But nobody has actually ever done the needed analysis.

Reed

7 Likes

As @trubandloki says, you would break the tie as usual - closest to OT, or if needed, collective scores on the dressage test.

However, the likelihood of having multiple horses scoring under 25 on the flat (or whatever number the experts select) and jumping double clear is such that I doubt you’d have 10 horses tied. If you listen to the podcast, which I really encourage you to do, they explore many different options for implementing this scoring system including a Z-Zone, setting the line at different places for different levels, etc.

The mechanics of implementation are certainly up for debate, but I do not believe in an appropriately balanced sport only two out of three phases should have the potential for a 0 score. The obvious end result is that the opportunity for competitive gains lies in dressage, and unless that is where we want competitors focusing their training time and horse purchasing decisions (we don’t), we need to make adjustments to reflect that.

4 Likes

I think the interesting data would be if there is correlation between dressage scores over a certain number and falls or XC penalties. I don’t think trying to get everyone a super low score is reasonable, but I also think expecting everyone to be under a certain (higher) score IS reasonable.

1 Like

So to sum up the ideas that have been suggested:

–Scored XC (a la CO Technical Merit) at more events, and a certain number of minimum scores to be obtained

–Scored XC, possibly in conjunction with a clinic, as separate events from a HT

–Move up testing, possibly in conjunction with the above or a clinic

–MER percentages or other numeric requirements (EquiScore ratings)

–More rider categories/levels

–Possibly some horse ratings so that the “as a team” minimum rating would have to be met, but that could help mitigate the “as a combination” factor?

–Ways to incorporate the Modified more effectively into the process

–A LOT more research–data on which riders are falling and their prior records, data on the types of fences causing problems (across rider levels as well as within each group), data on correlation between SJ or dressage scores and readiness for move up, data on the role of experience of horse/experience as a combination, data on speeds, data on types of falls, and probably a lot more areas I am missing.

It seems most of us don’t actually think the 8 MERs over more than 2 years is unreasonable for a first time Prelim rider. Even in areas that are a bit thin in competitions people can generally scrape together 3-5/year if they really want to make it work. It’s far more reasonable than the initial 10.

What people have a problem with is the combination requirement for the following scenarios:
–Getting some miles at T, buying the move up horse, getting some more miles at T, then moving up
–Having some miles at Prelim, getting the next Prelim horse, and having to re-qualify from scratch, particularly if the horse also has miles at P
–The catch ride, especially pros

And of course, people are not thrilled with the fact that there is no data to support more Trainings automatically equals safer Prelims–so the concern of the need for a qualitative assessment if possible.

Did I miss anything?

10 Likes

I think we are missing another thing: the initial premise by the PTB that it’s Training riders moving up to Prelim that are the sport’s safety issue.

Look at fall data per level and you’ll see that falls per start steadily increases from 2* up, with the highest incidence of falls per start at 5* level. 2019 Statistics 10.02.2020.pdf (838.3 KB)

If I were to use only that info and a personal belief that we should prevent horse falls, maybe I’d make a rule that every fence at Advanced level has to be fitted with Mimclips or pins, and that this should be funded by the Advanced competitors only since they’re the ones falling so much.

18 Likes

@Janet @Thames_Pirate
In my humble opinion DW did not really address the issue of students and parents “shopping” for a sign-off by a pro to move up. His argument is that parents will pressure the trainer, the trainers will cave (I guess because none of them care about the student’s safety because they are coin operated!?), and thus the sign-off happens.

That is a remarkably cynical perspective by DW with little thought being given to how to solve the problem. It just appears they want the system to be a check box algorithm, where no one is actually responsible for safety. This thread has already discussed people getting MER points with dangerous rides.

If instead we think of Prelim on up requiring a license, then the license has to be issued by someone. It would be corrupt for it to be issued by the applicant’s trainer. This “license” or sign-off would need to be authorized by a person / pro of standing who puts their name on the line with the sign-off. For said person of standing to consider signing off someone, that someone would need to demonstrate capability of their riding as well as horse. That is subjective. And, it’s the province of the signer to say no, no matter how many MERs you have.

There is a discussion about having licensing. How do people think such licenses will actually be issued?

Also, we have what amounts to a subjective sign-off process for instructors. Right? People of standing sign off on you getting certified. Why not eliminate that and just have some mindless points system instead? /end sarcasm/

Have a great ride everyone!

2 Likes