Does this rule change prohibit Micklem Bridles? Why is it being proposed?

[poltroon]

US Equestrian

2. For Training, First and Second Level tests and FEI Pony tests, a plain snaffle bridle is required with a regular cavesson, a dropped noseband, a flash noseband (a combination of a cavesson noseband and a dropped noseband attachment) or a crossed noseband. Except for the FEI Pony tests, a crescent noseband is also permitted at these levels. Except for the crescent noseband, buckles and a small disk of sheepskin, which may be used in the intersection of the two leather straps of a crossed noseband, the headstall and cavesson/noseband of the bridle must be made entirely of leather or leather-like material. A padded cavesson/noseband and crownpiece are allowed. A browband is required, and except for the parts that attach to the crownpiece or headstall, is not required to be made of leather or leather-like material. The crownpiece of the bridle must lie immediately behind the poll and may extend forward onto the poll, but it may not be fitted to lie behind the skull (see diagram). Bridles are not permitted in which the noseband is connected to the bit or cheekpiece below the level of the browband.

The diagram is of course not included at this time.

The Micklem has the noseband connected to the cheek below the browband.

Given that I understood that the Micklem had explicit approval before, I’m wondering what new information the Committee has that concludes that it is harmful and against the spirit of dressage.

[islgrl]

Huh, I’m curious also…

[ToN_Farm]

[QUOTE=poltroon;8372799]
https://www.usef.org/documents/ruleChanges/444-15.pdf

The diagram is of course not included at this time.

The Micklem has the noseband connected to the cheek below the browband.

Given that I understood that the Micklem had explicit approval before, I’m wondering what new information the Committee has that concludes that it is harmful and against the spirit of dressage.[/QUOTE] Is this unclear or what? Is it asking too much for them to explain the reasoning for their rule changes? Saying things like “this is for the betterment of the sport” etc. doesn’t tell us much. It is possible (hopeful) that the rule above has to do with the using of bit clips, but I doubt it. Some of these rule changes require people buying new tack. Like the 2k worth of tophats I have that can no longer be used.

Another thing I’ve asked before and never gotten an answer. Who appoints the members of the USEF Dressage Committee? Why as members of the USDF don’t we have a say in who is on the committee? Why as members of the USDF don’t we have a say in much of anything?

[Pipkin]

I’ve noticed a prejudice against Micklems here. Don’t know why. Perhaps because they could be associated with a horse that has issues in the contact? But I’m still scratching my head over some of the rules here in the UK. Some of the spurs look like they belong on a cowboy - in the last few weeks I have seen SEVERAL horses with minor spur injuries at dressage. One was bleeding, but they managed to pack up and leave before I could find the steward.

There is a certain breed of judge that is opposed to any change, even if it’s progress.

[WNT]

I saw something that said Micklem bridles were ok because the crown sits immediately behind the ears on top of the poll. There are some new, supposedly “super-ergonomic” bridles where the crown sits a couple of fingers behind the poll, and drop down lower below the ears and browband. I think Stubben and some Swedish(?) company make some like that.

[poltroon]

The reason I read this rule as prohibiting a Micklem is because the noseband is attached to the cheek. The crown is fine.

“To further clarify rules with new advancements in equipment being released on the market” is a good answer for the rule change about the kinesthesiology tape etc, but I think in this case, they need more than the boilerplate text that was used for multiple rule change proposals.

[alibi_18]

I supposed it is more because the bit is attached to the noseband and gives an extra advantage/leverage.

The bit is way more stable as the cheek pieces don’t give/follow when the rider pulls on the reins;

It can certainly hide contact problems.

It also pulls on the noseband, creating an action on the nose. Like a kineton would do. So ultimately, the contact is not just with the bit but with the whole face of the horse.

[GrayCatFarm]

The bit attaches to the cheek piece with leather straps, not the nose band. Bit clips attach to nose band and are not permitted

[LarkspurCO]

[QUOTE=GrayCatFarm;8375709]
The bit attaches to the cheek piece with leather straps, not the nose band. Bit clips attach to nose band and are not permitted[/QUOTE]

Hmm…

Yes, but the cheek piece and noseband of the Micklem are one continuous piece, so the bit is somewhat connected to the noseband:

http://www.horsewellness.com.au/uploads/3/1/1/6/31166091/s232832684415594828_p37_i5_w1072.jpeg

I’m not sure whether that would create leverage, but if that were a concern then what about a full-cheek bit with leather keepers? These are legal and exert some leverage on the poll.

In any case, if this proposed rule would in fact prohibit a Micklem, where is the corresponding proposed rule to cross out out the language that explicitly allows the Micklem in the current rulebook?

Comparing the Micklem with the PS of Sweden I just ordered, notice that the bit hangs on a separate cheek piece and the noseband is independent:

http://www.horsewellness.com.au/uploads/3/1/1/6/31166091/s232832684415594828_p37_i5_w1072.jpeg

Clear as mud.

[LarkspurCO]

Woot! My PS of Sweden bridle arrived tonight, and it’s beeyoootiful! I cannot wait to try it out tomorrow.

Wow, that was fast. It arrived in six days.

[poltroon]

IMHO, there’s no more nose pressure from the action of the bit in a Micklem than with a drop or flash noseband. The bit connects to a ring and the leather cheek is totally unable to transmit lateral force to the noseband while bit stays in the horse’s mouth. If they wanted to say N inches above the noseband that might be equally able to exclude what they had in mind.

[Janet]

[QUOTE=LarkspurCO;8375730]
Hmm…
I’m not sure whether that would create leverage, but if that were a concern then what about a full-cheek bit with leather keepers? These are legal and exert some leverage on the poll.[/QUOTE]

No.
A full cheek with keepers does not (CAN NOT) produce any leverage on the poll.

If you do not believe it, put one on a cooperative horse, and put your fingers under the crown piece while someone pulls on the reins.

[ToN_Farm]

I emailed the USEF contact person and asked about the Miklem. Just received her email reply. Here it is:

Thank you for your e-mail. There will be another draft of this rule, as well as a diagram. Micklem bridles will still be permitted. An example of a bridle that would not be allowed is the Dyon Difference bridle. This bridle is not permitted by the FEI either.

Thanks!

Hannah

Hannah Niebielski| Director of Dressage, National Programs
| t 859 225 6918 | f 859 231 6662 | e hniebielski@usef.org | w usef.org
| United States Equestrian Federation

[mvp]

[QUOTE=ToN Farm;8375934]
I emailed the USEF contact person and asked about the Miklem. Just received her email reply. Here it is:

Thank you for your e-mail. There will be another draft of this rule, as well as a diagram. Micklem bridles will still be permitted. An example of a bridle that would not be allowed is the Dyon Difference bridle. This bridle is not permitted by the FEI either.

Thanks!

Hannah

Hannah Niebielski| Director of Dressage, National Programs
| t 859 225 6918 | f 859 231 6662 | e hniebielski@usef.org | w usef.org
| United States Equestrian Federation[/QUOTE]

I think those bridles that really avoid the poll are the object of this exclusion. But I don’t know why that’s so. Why does DressageWorld require a well-trained horse to have a strap over his poll?

(And along these same lines, I do think a Micklem works as alibi_18 and poltroon say: The bit is stable, particularly with respect to the front of the horse’s skull/upper jaw. That would mean that pressure comes to the front of the horse’s face as well as his mouth. I can’t see why pressure going exclusively to the lower jaw (and all of the nosebands that let you tie the horse’s mouth closed) are to be revered, especially. Perhaps they just want to say “enough is enough” to the modern, strappy, techno bridles that have gotten positively fugly with those poll-avoiding jobs.

But then you know that I consider all tack just systems of signaling the horse. And I don’t think it should matter which physical language you teach him. But all horsemen should share the universal goal of making our signals more and more discrete, soft and non-disruptive to the horse. I wouldn’t care if a horse were ridden in a spade bit or a grooming halter or a neckstrap, so long as he got the job done and was happy. I’m a tad unorthodox. Y’all stand warned.

[LarkspurCO]

[QUOTE=Janet;8375858]
No.
A full cheek with keepers does not (CAN NOT) produce any leverage on the poll.

If you do not believe it, put one on a cooperative horse, and put your fingers under the crown piece while someone pulls on the reins.[/QUOTE]

Okay, I tried it with a full-cheek mullen mouth and you are right!

I’m glad I did that little experiment because what I discovered was quite a lot of poll pressure created from the horse simply moving the bit around in his mouth. No discernible from pulling the reins, though.

I have another full-cheek bit with a separate slot for the cheek piece that might result in a smidgen of leverage, but even if it did I doubt that it would result in any poll pressure, at least not enough to rival what the horse creates himself just be working the bit.

All of which makes me even more excited to try my new PS of Sweden today.

[poltroon]

I am relieved to hear that they didn’t intend to prohibit the Micklem and that they’ll be redrafting the rule.

I have to say that I don’t really understand the objection to the Dyon type bridle that moves the pressure point away from the poll. I’m not in a hurry to buy one, but if a horse has some particular issue there (for example, an old injury), I don’t see how it’s harmful or an unfair advantage. I am interested if perhaps the committee has seen it used for evil in some way, or if they just think it looks funny.