Fence Analysis at Red Hills…any way to see the fence analysis on EventEntries? Curious about the high number of stops in the two **.
I’m pretty sure that’s EventingScores you’re thinking of, unfortunately I don’t think Event Entries has that feature!
Is anyone else surprised that despite the number of frangibles activated, not one of them showed up as a penalty? I realize judges can review and remove, and I’m fine with that, but it seems odd that no penalties stuck.
Per EN summary of the event and Twitter feed, the following horses had frangibles:
“Joe Meyer’s Clip Clop, who put his front feet between the bottom two rails of #10A in the process of slamming on the brakes, and when he backed up he pulled the rail back with him. It was still strewn kind of diagonal in front of the fence, like a very large and poorly placed canter pole, when he circled back around for a second attempt and magically eked out a line to the fence.”
(First of all, maybe he didn’t deserve a frangible penalty for that as it seems obvious he wouldn’t have fallen, but it’s interesting to note that the frangible penalty specifically notes "¹*Each Athlete activating a frangible device will be awarded 11 penalties whenever the activation occurs as expected (i.e. activation by significant pressure exerted by the Horse which modifies the dimension of the fence). That means that like in show jumping, if you don’t alter the height or width of the fence, you don’t get the penalty. But is that the right tack to take for cross country?)
(Second of all, was it really safe for Joe Meyer to represent to a fence that has been deformed and has a large rail strewn in front of it like some awkwardly placed giant cavaletti? This was not a good decision on Joe’s part in my opinion and I’ll be interested to see if he picked up a warning card for it.)
“Shelby Brost and Crimson had a stop which required a frangible repair, were sticky but successful on second attempt but chose to retire after clearing #10B.”
(Please note that although she retired, it’s imperative for the jump penalty scores to be kept accurately if ERQI is to remain valid. This will require officials to review the frangible penalties of even those who have declined or failed to finish the course. Event Entries isn’t known for keeping fence by fence analysis but hopefully someone at US Eventing IS.)
“Erin Pullen and Tag fell the top two frangible rails at the first water but finish out the combination.” - EN Twitter
(This is one that surprises me the most. This pair deformed 2 frangible elements on one fence and yet had no frangible penalties? I’d like to see the video or photos.)
I think it’s time for Event Entries, USEA/USEF, and even Eventing Scores to evolve. Ideally even FEI, which records an R or an E but no breakdown of jump penalties in an official result. All scoring should include a breakdown of which fences a horse had issues and how the horse had an issue (Example: Fence 1: R1,R2, Fence 8: R1, Elimination, etc. etc.) Jump penalties need to be accurately recorded at every fence no matter the rider’s result ending in a number or a letter. Times the rider finished in should be recorded as part of the result so it can be studied if those coming in significantly under optimum on a regular basis are at any higher risk. (Most live scoring does this, but most federations and FEI only officially record time penalties.)
Also it’s my personal belief that the Ground Jury should be required to provide as part of the official show record a summary of which frangible and missed flag penalties occurred, as well as examinations of falls to determine if the horse fell or not and that each was examined with one line to show the ‘conclusion’. For example, a summary could read “Rider Name/Horse Name: Fence 4: Frangible, GJ watched replay on video and determined the horse activated the pin with hind end on a drop and would not have fallen without the pin. Fence 12: Missed flag, GJ watched replay on video and determine the shoulder of the horse was outside the flag. Fence 18: GJ were given photos of the incident and the horse rotated over it’s back on the ground and therefore received an MR.”
Doing the above would give the public transparency and clarity that the officials have reviewed each incident as well as verified the incident as best they can. I’m ok if I don’t always agree with their ruling, much like a referee. However I think it’s time the eventing world caught up to the rest of the sporting world and made it clear that each incident of questionable penalty and fall have been reviewed. I can see a ref looking at a replay in a football game so I know something is happening. We get none of that in this sport.
4 Likes
Very curious/surprised about the frangible scoring at Red Hill. Both David O’Connor and Mike Etherington Smith are/have been on the FEI Eventing Safety Committee. Also, they are both designers of the Red Hills Cross country courses. Chronicle of the Horse has a photo of Mike at the “troublesone 2 ** corner”. No explanation about the issues at this corner…and no explanation why the Ground Jury did not award the frangible pin penalty.
This is concerning.
I would be interested to know if Equiratings will get details on the frangible pins if they are not awarded a penalty. I would think that would be pretty important.
Perhaps Equiratings can extend their business and also do live results, including fences etc.
1 Like
Thank for addressing this, COTH.
http://www.chronofhorse.com/article/frangible-pins-cause-a-fracas-at-red-hills
I’m pretty baffled about the reasoning that Holling presents for not having a penalty for a frangible activation in national scoring. I’m baffled that they think it’s ok to incorporate untested, experimental frangible technology without the competitors’ knowledge. I’m baffled that they seem so casual about collecting data on how many frangible devices are activated and their importance to studying whether competitors who activate frangibles are either prone to doing it multiple times or if they are more prone to falls.
I do understand more now about Crimson and Clip Clop, as it sounds as if the ground rail was simply resting and not a frangible pin at all. I’m not sure how I feel about loose ground rails out on XC and if there is a potential for a horse to get their legs stuck, I would prefer the fence type be changed.
2 Likes
@Jealoushe and @Divine Comedy, I’m right there with you guys on this one.
From a data-collection standpoint, Equiratings specifically mentioned in their podcast that frangible pin activations are a key metric used to determine future risk profiles. That makes perfect sense to me. And yet, that data can be concealed/muddled because the activation took place at a national horse trial? I suppose conceptually I understand the argument that triggering an untested frangible device isn’t necessarily the fault of horse/rider - but to choose not to record a broken pin, MIM clip, or other tested and approved tech?? That’s just hiding facts, and potentially putting lives at risk in the long-term.
Along the lines of DC’s point, even if we accept that perhaps a rider shouldn’t be penalized for breaking an untested frangible device, why are these devices on course at all? I know Jon indicated that in theory, they should be at least as safe as the same fence designed without the frangible tech, but injuries can happen as a result of frangibles as well (ex. Bob the Builder at the European Championships, where the fence deformed and fell onto his pastern). If an untested technology, especially one a rider did not know was present, was to cause that… Horrifying :no:
Finally, simply from a results perspective: you mean to tell me someone can blast their way through an open oxer but still beat someone who jumped around nicely?? Come on.
1 Like
I’m even more concerned after reading that article.
I get that JH made the prolog and is upset its not in use, but man, either work on the technology or move on.
This is a disaster. What if someone was killed? Serious injury? Who would be liable. This is why they need safety experts on the committee and not riders. This willy nilly approach would be a joke if it weren’t actually dangerous.
If you break the pin, or activate it at all it should be penalized. Why are we adding more discretion to the ground jury and jump judges when they already have a difficult time calling the shots (bloody horses with ML, EW pushing a tired horse, ETC).
What a mess.
While I am very pro for having all the accurate data recorded, I do not want to have mandatory frangible penalties with no ability for the ground jury to remove them. I do think they should be applied regardless at the jump judge level of scoring, but I definitely think they need to be reviewed at the end of the day.
Why? Because sometimes, a horse drags their stifles and or raps their hind hooves on a frangible pinned hanging log as they drop down onto a landing that is lower than a fence. This often can happen on coffins, water entries, even fences that have a downhill landing. This is not the type of hit that should receive a penalty; the horse would not have fallen if the frangible didn’t activate. Similarly, a pin can be weakened through multiple raps from previous horses and you can be the unlucky recipient of being the straw that breaks the camels back when your horse raps it lightly. Jump judges cannot visually determine if the pin has been weakened, nor should we be spending the time to replace it after every rider. In instances like these, I very much believe the ground jury should have the power to remove the penalties, just as they have jurisdiction to remove penalties (either jump or time) in extraneous circumstances. Remember when Buck got Reggie’s jump and some time removed at his first 4* when the dog got loose from the crowd and ran at Reggie?
Having the power to review and remove penalties are important.
However, I do think it’s time to recognize our official scoring should include a column to indicate if a frangible has been activated or not, regardless of if the penalty is awarded or not, just for data collecting purposes. This could be separate from the penalty scores but would help indicate if a) a show had a high number of frangible incidents per starters (and shows would need to provide a data point of how many frangible devices per effort to make this information useful) and b) would accurately allow data companies to determine if someone activated a frangible to see if someone may have a history of hitting frangibles. In fact, it would even provide an additional data point: frangible activations determined by GJ to be incidental and not penalized versus frangibles determined to be impactful and therefore deserving of penalties.
1 Like
@Divine Comedy I can agree with that. I would rather them be on, then reviewed and taken off, then not put on at all.
I’m a bit shocked they can just make up rules as they go…does it not have to put to vote for scoring etc?
