2022 New Rules Proposed - MERs Required to Move Up

[Gardenhorse]

At the very bottom of the article that Jealoushe posted is a link to a survey about the updated rule proposal and an opportunity to provide comments. The survey itself is a little annoying because the options are only whether you think the number of MERs in each category are too many, too few, or just right but there is also a free form comment box.

I am also wondering what people think about the gap between unlicensed and B level. I really do think that people who have never gone Prelim before probably do need 8-10 MERs. But it just seems like there is also a set of experienced riders who have gone prelim on a couple of horses, and have maybe 10-12 safe prelims under their belt who are being treated exactly the same as someone who has never done a prelim. Would a 3rd category make sense?

Finally, I realized I don’t actually understand the requirements for an A level rider to take a new horse prelim. For prelim, it says “A competitors must have obtained an MER at four Horse Trials at the Training Level or higher.” But the definition of being an A rider means that you have 25 MERs at intermediate. And this doesn’t say anything about the horse. So does it mean an A rider could start a horse at Prelim without any previous competitions? Or am I just completely misreading that section? All of the other requirements in the updated rules mention the horse, but this one doesn’t.

[make_the_time]

Honestly the most attractive solution to safety issue is better training, better monitoring and maybe some sort of rider level or licensing system like they have in Europe.

It is odd that this high risk sport has no licensing requirement as such for Prelim, Intermediate, and Advanced competitors. In Sportscar racing, a license is always required. At certain levels (Formula 1, Indy, Prototypes) a Super License is required. An annual physical is required, including for some licenses a full stress test. Getting a license in the first place requires demonstrating competence, and completed training, as well as being “signed off”. Signed off means some professionals of good standing have gone on paper supporting the license.

By contrast, the eventing rules structure adopted seems to want to make things almost mindless, or algorithmic – just check these boxes and you’re good to go. One size fits all. One size applies around the country. Yet, no third party professional has to put their reputation on the line by formally “signing off” on your move-up. And, as all the discussion has shown, there are many edge cases with holes or which don’t seem to make practical sense.

It may be safe to say that we have all seen a competition where someone could complete the “check the box MER ratings”, but they are really a time bomb waiting to go off. And conversely, we’ve seen a competition where a competitor and horse make it look so easy, fluid and effortless. Each of those riders get the same MER points…

[ACMEeventing]

It would be great if some of the schooling shows counted towards the number. Understandably there would have to be an approval process. Our Warhorse Event Series here in NC runs on the same tracts with the same fences as the recognized events, they feel every bit like a USEA competition (in fact, last year they were as part of a special agreement to help with qualifiers for the AECs that didn’t happen).

I would rather see a licensing program for the green card to move up than run a horse’s legs off with unnecessary runs XC. A safe rider, on a safe horse, in a safe program ought to be able to “test out” of, say, 5 of those runs.

I haven’t left the start box in 2 years due to injury, illness and weather cancellations. FINALLY getting to run at Southern Pines and no matter the level I am PUMPED!!

[Janet]

@Gardenhorse

Finally, I realized I don’t actually understand the requirements for an A level rider to take a new horse prelim. For prelim, it says “A competitors must have obtained an MER at four Horse Trials at the Training Level or higher.” But the definition of being an A rider means that you have 25 MERs at intermediate. And this doesn’t say anything about the horse. So does it mean an A rider could start a horse at Prelim without any previous competitions? Or am I just completely misreading that section?

That is how I read it too, and I put it in the questions I sent to Sharon. If they want to say that an “A licensed” rider can take a horse Prelim as its first ever horse trial, then say so, and don’t hide it in circular requirements.

[Janet]

There is another new version up this morning

Update on Appendix 3 Rule Change Proposal

The biggest change I see is that now the 8 requires MERs can now include 2 MERS with no more than 20 penalties on cross country.

Also, the time frame for the MERs is not clear, The 8 years is the time frame for the A/B/unlicensed requirements

[Libby2563]

I prefer this new version of the proposal. Eight runs is more palatable to me from a financial and wear-and-tear perspective than 10, when you could also be training and practicing in so many other ways like lessons, clinics, schooling, and unrecognized HTs.

I do still think that if safety is the concern, they should consider requiring that a certain percentage of starts end with a certain successful outcome (clear XC? 20 penalties or less?), though that would have to be carefully thought out so as to not discourage people who meet the MER requirements from seeking out additional experience if they feel they need it, even if it risks lowering their percentages.

@Janet

@Gardenhorse

Finally, I realized I don’t actually understand the requirements for an A level rider to take a new horse prelim. For prelim, it says “A competitors must have obtained an MER at four Horse Trials at the Training Level or higher.” But the definition of being an A rider means that you have 25 MERs at intermediate. And this doesn’t say anything about the horse. So does it mean an A rider could start a horse at Prelim without any previous competitions? Or am I just completely misreading that section?

That is how I read it too, and I put it in the questions I sent to Sharon. If they want to say that an “A licensed” rider can take a horse Prelim as its first ever horse trial, then say so, and don’t hide it in circular requirements.

Yes, this is weird. There’s basically no chance it will ever affect me, but when you compare the A-level requirements at Prelim and Intermediate, it makes me wonder what their intent was and if they aren’t being as careful with the language as they should be.

For Intermediate: “A” competitors and the horse, though not necessarily as a combination, must have obtained an MER at three Horse Trials at the Preliminary Level or higher, plus an additional MER at the Preliminary Level or higher with no more than 20 Jumping Penalties at obstacles on the Cross Country test.

For Prelim: “A” competitors must have obtained an MER at four Horse Trials at the Training Level or higher.

A riders will have those 4 MERs at Training+ just by definition of being A riders, right? So that part apparently doesn’t mean anything? They might as well say “A competitors must be A competitors.”

[Janet]

@Libby2563

A riders will have those 4 MERs at Training+ just by definition of being A riders, right? So that part apparently doesn’t mean anything? They might as well say “A competitors must be A competitors.”

Exactly

[Hilary]

I agree that the newer version is better but I agree with Vali that the “as a combination” is a problem. You get 7-8 MERs and your horse becomes injured (or you realize he’s topped out at Training). You have to start over with your new horse, who may not actually be starting off at Training - so now you have a BN horse who takes a couple of years and then needs the 8 MERs. OR you are lucky and get another horse who is solid at T or above and you need 8 on him. but something happens and he can’t move up, so now you are on horse #3, and need 8 MERs… What about 8 total and 4 with the horse you want to move up on.

Also, since they are using the stats, can someone go through those falls and check out the records of those riders. How may would have not been able to be competing at that level if the new rules were in place? We have the data we need to really use it.

[mugsgame]

I am in UK and I have sat down and have just worked out I that I have done 27 qualifying result prelims from 2007 to 2019. Under USEF rules I would be screwed. I have 16 prelim qualifying results on 2 different horses from 2013-19. The reality is I did 5 prelims in 2013 and then the horse died, had some horses 2014-16 who just didn’t work out, and then I waited until 2018 to take my current horse prelim which has done 11 and is now lame.

I now have an up and coming horse and it will only need to do 4/5 training events before moving up as very talented. I would be going out of my mind if forced to do 8. I think the British MERs are a much better compromise. You don’t have to have done them as a combination until qualifying for Intermediate. That seems fair to me.

[MsRidiculous]

So I have a real issue with a particular scenario I saw today.

Pro rider (who would be licensed in the new system) has been eventing said horse since last summer. It was dead green when it started, not like it came from jumperland or something, so it didn’t have a head start in any way (it came off the track). In said 9 month career so far its had 3 20’s and an E out of 11 starts. Has done a Prelim every weekend this month (yup, 4 weeks in a row), and now is moving up to Intermediate next time out.

How is this not hella dangerous too? This is red flag central to me, and it’s something I’ve seen several times over. I hadn’t even considered wording or rules regarding timelines but now I’m thinking maybe that should be a consideration too, or perhaps some kind of clear rate/percentage should be factored in. I dunno. All I can say is yikes. I don’t care if you’re Jesus riding a unicorn, that is FAST and A LOT.

[Libby2563]

Interesting to see some other perspectives: https://eventingnation.com/perspective-is-the-new-qualification-rule-sending-eventing-down-the-wrong-path/

[skrosenthal]

As a show jumper, the idea that showjumping is a less expensive alternative is like, lolz FOR DAYS.

[Blugal]

@skrosenthal

As a show jumper, the idea that showjumping is a less expensive alternative is like, lolz FOR DAYS.

It depends. If I have to do 10 Trainings with MERs before going Prelim, it might be cheaper if I just want to jump around 1.10m jumpers without having a bunch of qualification BS. Especially if I then want to move up to 1.15m without again having to get another 10 MERs. Yes, A shows are very expensive. But, you can do quite a few rounds in a week, getting a lot of experience - whereas at an event, you are literally jumping only two courses for the weekend.

[luckycricket123]

I’m curious were the prelim attempts mostly clear and the problems were at training and below?

How does this rider even have the MERs for intermediate?

[MsRidiculous]

5 Prelims total. First was last fall which resulted in an E, bumped down and did another T, then a clear, a clear, a 20, and a clear.

[Jealoushe]

Is there not a way to incorporate some sort rating system using Equiratings data? They already work with the USEA. Their data has had good results in lowering fall rates in Ireland.

[Thames_Pirate]

Here are some ideas:

XC scored competitions. They do this in Germany. You only do XC, and it is scored by judges. Not a full HT, no dressage, no SJ. Just come in, salute and wait for the bell, then start from the start line (no box), and ride the course for a score (and placings, but mostly for the score). These would be cheaper to run than a full HT, give people more miles, and because they are scored rides, could be used for qualification as well as feedback from the judges. This could also be an opt-in or an automatic part of specified HT in each area. So if I am at Training and my area runs 12 events total, maybe 3 of those are “scored” events. At those events, I am also scored (not affecting the placing of the HT in general), and that score could be part of the qualifying requirements. You could require two scores of 70% or better, for example. This prevents the rider with the saintly horse from moving up before they are ready.

Germany also has licensing. You do a licensing prep clinic, then are tested at the end. You need an initial license to show even at the BN level. They require a dressage test (WTC, part with no stirrups, and lots of sitting trot) at which your seat and general ability are scored. There is a jumping test (BN sj course), also scored. There is a theory test, which includes self-evaluating your rides as well as knowledge of rules and showing procedures, understanding the training pyramid, horse anatomy, illnesses, etc. This gets you a Level 6 (good for BN-T). You need another test for Level 5 (good for Prelim). After that you have the option to be moved up based on placings or on another round of testing. You can also be different levels in different disciplines–an eventing 6 but a jumping 5 and a dressage 5 or a 6 in eventing and sj but a 3 in dressage.

Something similar could be implemented in the US. Having more than 3 levels of rider would certainly be a good thing. For example, a friend went Intermediate with the horse she brought along, who was then retired from competition (and no, she didn’t have enough to be a B rider). She was riding, but not competing, for two years, then got a ride on an experienced Prelim horse. I get the necessity of doing a bit of T as a combination to get a feel for each other, but he was an older horse who did not need the pounding, even over two years, and she was a bit poorer. Why should she pay for 10 or even 8 Ts just to get the combination requirement? A level or two in between would be helpful.

I also don’t think 2 seasons and 6-8 MERs is unreasonable, but I would like to see qualifications from prior horses counting with only half being with the current horse. And the 8 years rolling is not explicit. The recent competition piece is also a bit complicated when trying to enter events. So that detail would also need to be ironed out. And yes, I believe that some sort of judging or other subjective measure should be implemented to prevent the scary rider on the saintly horse from moving up.

All of that said, I also have concerns about two other factors:

–The widening gap between the top and the base (I hesitate to say pro/ammy because a lot of mid-level pros are equally impacted while many amateurs compete at the same frequency as pros in some areas). This rule change proposal makes that gap evident on both ends.

–We should be looking at things like how the sport has changed. I don’t just mean the classic format vs. the new format, though that is of course a biggie. I mean things like the availability of schooling shows and access to XC courses. The number of riders in warmup without a coach is very different from in the past from what I have seen. And what about indoor eventing? How will indoor eventing affect the future of the sport? How many horse trials are run over one, two, or three days?

I think the top riders and amateurs alike have a goal of a safer, more accessible, and inclusive sport, and how to balance all three of these goals effectively is the unenviable job of our national and international governing bodies. We come from a wide range of backgrounds and experiences, both within the horse world and outside of it, and finding ways to think outside the box AND get those ideas out to the powers that be could be the silver bullet.

[Beam_Me_Up]

I commented on their FB as well, but I don’t think this is the right data.

This chart shows that less experienced at P/I riders are more likely to fall at all levels P-A, which is no surprise. We could say any of these percentages are too high, but what we really want to know is how the rules might have improved them.

USEA must have also looked at the stats associated with these specific proposed changes. Do B level riders have statistically significantly fewer falls at their first few (5?) move-up events if they had 7 MERs not 4? Does it matter if those MERs were achieved as a combination or not? What percentage of UL riders met the 10 MERs as a combo requirement when they moved up, and were their results different from those who didn’t have 10 MERs? Or who had 10, but not as a combo?

Those are the types of numbers that would support this change. Just saying people without 25 prelim MERs are more likely to fall at prelim than those with 25 MERs doesn’t really support or contradict these specific proposals.

My thoughts (though data could change my mind) is that it’s the “as a combination” that is the real challenge. I don’t think anyone should be going prelim after 4 trainings, or even probably 6. But 2 situations where this seems really restrictive:

1. Upper level (I/A) unlicensed rider buys upper level (I/A) horse, then has to do a ton of trainings and then prelims as a combination.

2.Student would like trainer (B or unlicensed) to move up their (qualified with 10+ MERs) horse to prelim to give it a couple confidence building runs before student tries. Trainer has had horse in their barn for 5 years, but if they are not licensed A would spent another season getting qualified.

[Marigold]

@Janet

The revised version drops it from 10 to 8 MERs for an unlicensed rider to move up, and that you have 8 years to do it. It also changes the requirement for the most recent MER from 6 weeks to 8.

I’m a lot more comfortable with this. I do think we may still hear from others with more knowledge of the situation about the “as a combination” part (I’ve never been in a position to buy something going, nor is it something I’m personally interested in) - I can see that being a bad fit for an experienced horse partnering with an experienced rider, as @vali says here:

@vali

I have a serious problem with the as a combination part. I’ve competed for decades at Prelim on more than one horse, but I don’t want to have to do an additional 8 events on every new horse, including horses that have already done prelim or intermediate. I also have an older prelim mare I have leased to a couple of teens, and I think it will be an immense amount of wear and tear on experienced horses to have to do 8 more trainings and 8 more prelims with each new rider. It would make the sport much more elitist and exclusive, and put up and coming riders far behind riders in the UK and the EU, which do not have such an onerous rule.

I think the real issue we’re trying to address here is quality, not quantity. We don’t want someone entering 35 Trainings to come away with 8 MERs. To address that, I’d still like to see the powers that be consider incorporating an Equiratings metric like the XCJ10 (percentage of cross country jumping clears over your last 10 runs) and have a minimum standard there. Or the ability to indicate to a TD that you are considering an upgrade, so that they may indicate approval or otherwise. Something like what @Thames_Pirate was mentioning:

@Thames_Pirate

XC scored competitions. They do this in Germany. You only do XC, and it is scored by judges. Not a full HT, no dressage, no SJ. Just come in, salute and wait for the bell, then start from the start line (no box), and ride the course for a score (and placings, but mostly for the score). … This could also be an opt-in or an automatic part of specified HT in each area. So if I am at Training and my area runs 12 events total, maybe 3 of those are “scored” events. At those events, I am also scored (not affecting the placing of the HT in general), and that score could be part of the qualifying requirements. You could require two scores of 70% or better, for example. This prevents the rider with the saintly horse from moving up before they are ready.

Germany also has licensing. You do a licensing prep clinic, then are tested at the end. You need an initial license to show even at the BN level. They require a dressage test (WTC, part with no stirrups, and lots of sitting trot) at which your seat and general ability are scored. There is a jumping test (BN sj course), also scored. There is a theory test, which includes self-evaluating your rides as well as knowledge of rules and showing procedures, understanding the training pyramid, horse anatomy, illnesses, etc.

All that said, at least the rule as it has been revised feels more appropriate to me.

[woodhillsmanhattan]

My horse is 17. We did the 1.30m jumpers previously and made the switch to eventing in 2018. We moved up to Prelim last year after a total of 1 Beginner Novice, 4 Novice, and 4 Training events. This does not include the number cross country schooling and unrecognized events (at least 1 at Novice and 2 at Training…I might have done more, I can’t remember…plus 2-phases). Yes, we may be an exception, but that is why these are MINIMUM requirements.

I think an increase to 6 MERs would be sufficient, improve safety, and remain attainable for eventers in more isolated parts of the country. I also think 10 MERs TOTAL, but 5-6 of those are with the same horse would be an excellent means to increase safety but, again, without making the upper levels unattainable (especially for those in the central US).

By making such a dramatic increase to 10 MERs as a horse/rider combination, you will have a trickle down effect where people move up to Training before they are ready (in hopes of getting MERs early on) and thereby increasing the likelihood of accidents/fatalities at the Training level. Soon we will be talking about how to make Training level safer. Speaking from my own experience, my horse and I were a team with a lot of jumping experience in another discipline. Had the number of MERs been higher, I potentially would have made a poor decision and started at Novice instead of BN, or moved up to Training sooner than I did…and because cross country is so different than our previous sport, we could have ended up in an accident or not built a solid foundation that we have now. Yes, that is ultimately my decision and responsibility…but stricter qualifications would have put a more imminent timeline on our goals (because my horse is older). Plus the argument that it is the trainer and riders responsibility to make sound decisions also applies to those who choose to move up before they are ready simply because they have completed the current minimum number of MERs.

Increasing MERs will encourage people to gain experience at the competition rather than at home (if they have the financial means to do so), again in hopes of getting lucky and achieving an MER early on. I would rather competitors prepare more diligently prior to competition. I DO think people need more experience in order to be safe and successful, but to pretend that USEA is SOLELY motivated by improving safety is not true. This requirement will likely be the death of unrecognized events…(which are typically over the same cross country course as the recognized events).