What is the rationale for this rule? Does it eliminate some sort of advantage you could have for crossing your tracks?
2 Likes
Are you referring to Show Jumping or Cross Country?
I suppose that showing the balky or spooky horse a jump and then circling back around to take it would waste some time but might prevent a refusal or runout.
My DD did this in her very first horse trial and was penalized. Then bitched in 13 year old fashion about how unfair the rule was. I told her that she needed to spend more time looking at the rule book.
3 Likes
Cross country. I noticed while watching Badminton how after an issue, riders struggled in the moment to try to figure out their route to not cross their tracks. Unfortunately Boyd crossed his tracks and had another 40 added to his score. I was wondering with all the new penalty rules added, what was the point of this one in the first place?
I rewatched his round again last night, and I couldn’t see where he crossed his tracks. I guess I need to go back and look at the illustration of that jump so I could see it.The 20 hurt, the 40 was crushing.
2 Likes
OK, so you are talking about crossing you tracks between elements of a combination of cross country.
A basic principle in modern cross country scoring is that penalties (except for falls) don’t count until you have “presented” to the obstacle, but once you have presented to the A element you are considered to have presented to all the elements. If you circle between elements it is scored as a refusal. “Crossing your tracks” is also considered a refusal. (I can’t give a specific rationale other than historical tradition. In the 1990 rulebook (when we still had penalty zones) crossing your track anywhere in the penalty zone was defined as a refusal.) If you look at the back of the USEF Eventing Rules (appendix 7, pgs 64 - 73) there are a bunch of diagrams with the associated penalties.
4 Likes
I don’t know for sure but I’d guess two reasons:
-
To have some sort of bright-line rule for jump judges, so the rider can’t argue they were “just circling” rather than having a run-out.
-
To preserve the difficulty of the combination as it was designed to be ridden.
Maybe some other reasons too?
6 Likes
Under current (USEF, not positive about FEI) rules, you CAN do that, as long as you have not yet “presented”. See diagrams 2, 3, 13, 14, 20 in Appendix 7 of the USEF Eventing rules.
My example is from almost 40 years ago. Sorry, I haven’t kept up with eventing rules for a long, long time.
1 Like
Yes, That was when we still had penalty zones.
1 Like
So, and let me clarify that I am a fan, I know him in person, my comments are not ONLY about Boyd.
That said… This sport has a lot of homework to it. I feel like ANY rider who doesn’t take the time to know the long routes and where all the options are at a combination fence (Anything with multiple elements) is doing themselves and their investment in competing an injustice. The sport is not easy. Crossing your tracks is easy to do and we all read our rulebooks yearly and know that there are penalties that come from making this very costly error.
The video of Boyd is here:
Not sure if everyone has it, but the Cross Country App has a great overview and drone shots of the actual lay of the land of the fence. It’s linked on the Badminton site. Here’s the link:
https://www.badminton-horse.co.uk/2024-cross-country-course/
You want fence 20ABC
The camera angle on the video of Boyd is very hard to see the details needed, but it looks like he crossed his tracks where he landed from the up bank B element, after he jumped the alternate C element. Since he had to do a 180 after the C alternate to get back on the gallop track I think he would have needed more of a jumper roll back turn on landing to have avoided that. But again, the camera angle is crap for knowing for sure.
Em
1 Like
But you can cross your tracks not within a combo - between speperatly numbered jumps. Which after the C, it should be crossing tracks between 20 & 21.
I think the rule he broke is A here - Passing around the back of any element of the lettered…
But I don’t think there was a way to get to the C element without incurring that penalty. I think that C was more an alternate after a runout at the direct C than a black flag option.
3 Likes
It still looks bewildering to me. I realize it is all over now, but I just don’t see it. Plus, I do not know why after he had the run out, and circled around on the top to jump the first element, then he went down and jumped up on the bank, he did not go on and jump that last element. Instead, circling around to jump the far away C element.
I agree with your assessment, both of the rule and the intent of the C element in this fence.
But I’m a little confused by the “penalized once” wording and how that might apply to other situations. (For example, taking a horse into water or into a sunken road following a stop at the B/in element).
I appreciate everyone trying to explain, though I’m still confused. And it wasn’t just confusing for Boyd’s issue. A few competitors landed in a slump after the drop fence and had a hard time figuring out the route to still go direct since they were way off their line. The commentators mentioned the crossing tracks issue at that drop fence. It makes it very confusing for spectators and it made me think, well what’s the point of it!
I noticed Harry landed in a heap and went the long way, but it didn’t look nearly as confusing as Boyd’s. (I am so glad I am not th only one!)
It is hard to ride the direct route the course designer intended. It is significantly less hard to loop around and jump A, B, and C individually. If the course designer wanted to offer the easier possibility, it would have been separately numbered 20, 21, 22. This is done at lower levels so riders can choose a route appropriate to the education level of their horse. But this is one of the hardest courses in the world. So it was numbered 20A, 20B, 20C - no looping allowed without penalty. After Boyd jumped the bank 20B, he looped left, passed behind 20C, continued looping counter clockwise, jumped 20C landed and crossed his line. The “legal” alternates also make it confusing. Boyd could have jumped the 20C at the top of the bank, a strength and honesty question. But having had a confidence dashing moment for him and the horse, chose the legal alternate 20C. Having already lost a chance of placing, he took a long, easy approach that cost him 40 penalties but helped his horse rather than slaloming between the trees. And finished with a sound horse and became the second person to complete all 7 5* events in history.
4 Likes
Did anyone jump the alternate C without penalty?
That makes sense, I guess the point of the rule is to make sure people don’t try to break down combinations into individual fences but I wish there was a clearer way to accomplish this? Adds insult to injury when you’ve had an issue and now get extra penalties trying to continue on.
1 Like
But the rules of the sport are clear. This isn’t like you get a surprise penalty because the fence judges didn’t like that you didn’t pat your pony after a tough fence.
It’s a rule all the way through the levels.
Em
6 Likes
