One extraordinary rule change proposal being put forth before the USEA Board of Governors (BOG) is to EV122 Cross-Country Phase Definitions of Faults. This rule in its current form has been in existence as-is for 11 years of operation. The proposal is that falls will be counted anywhere on course, following the same criteria under which FEI competitions operate on. As previously written, falls only counted if the fall occurred during the jumping of an obstacle, but with this change falls would be considered a fall no matter where on course it occurred. Also, all falls at Beginner Novice and Novice would be penalized by elimination, where currently at those levels if the rider lands on their feet they assess 65 penalties but can mount up and continue on course.
If I understand correctly, this is a proposal not a formal change at this time.
Clearly eventing at the USEA level is undergoing regime-change. Not just a change of names, but a change of governing philosophy. And probably a change of what eventing is.
When regime change happens in any nation or organization there can be a whiplash effect of reversing previous laws. Things had been done a certain way, suddenly that is rolled back or changed.
New laws may be added that are an eyebrow-raising surprise to many in the population. Who arenât part of the regimeâs insider clique (which is small).
The changes are usually all in a certain direction to achieve a certain agenda, whatever that is. Sometimes itâs personal power and longevity in office. Sometimes the agenda includes changing the values and ideals and maybe even the lifestyles of the populace.
It can be hard to stop now or later reverse these changes because the new regime normally ensures their ascendancy before launching such changes.
In order to have any effect the opposition needs to be unified in vision and purpose, organized, effective and relentless. (And well-funded.) But if that were the case the new regime might never have achieved power in the first place.
Speaking generally. Just an observation from over here in the bleachers.
BE has had tough rules about falls for some years, very similar to these proposals.
In BE rules, a fall, by competitor, horse or both, in the dressage phase, in the show jumping phase or in the xc phase will result in elimination. No ifs or buts. In the warm up for each phase, a competitor, horse or both who fall must be seen by a doctor and/or vet before they can be allowed to progress to the competition. It is increasingly recognised that ALL falls have CONSEQUENCES. It is possible to get concussion when landing on oneâs feet, for example. As riders can have severe judgement failure, possibly as a result of head injury, BE removes the risk.
Correct, it is a rule change proposal.
It was voted on (and approved) by the USEA BoG on Sunday morning. The discussion there was primarily to make sure you could still dismount on course (e.g. to adjust tack) without penalty other than time.
It will then go to USEF, where it will appear on their web site as a rule change proposal (some time this week I was told). All USEF members will then have an opportunity to comment on it, and it would be voted on by the USEF at their January meeting.
If approved as an âExtraordinaryâ rule change it would go into effect (IIRC) in May 2023. If as a âRegularâ rule change proposal it would go into effect Dec 1 2023.
The primary reason for getting rid of the âland on your feetâ provision is because recent research has shown that you can sometimes get a concussion even if you land on your feet.
A fall is defined as an âinvoluntary dismountâ. If you come to a halt, put both reins in your left hand, swing your right leg over, and slide to the ground, it is pretty clear it is a VOLUNTARY dismount.
So basically you need to make sure this happens in a place where someone sees you doing it?
From a practical perspective, if NO-ONE sees it, no one will know about it (whether a fall or a dismount).
But nowadays, most cross country courses are open enough that SOMEONE can see you on most of the course.
Also call out to the nearest course official, probably a jump judge (especially a jump judge with a score sheet), âI AM VOLUNTARILY DISMOUNTINGâ. Make sure they hear you and acknowledge. If they donât respond right away, you can spend time being sure they know before dismounting. A rider voluntarily dismounting on course isnât in a hurry as they should be out of the lane of travel.
Communicating verbally when you are doing something on course that isnât the standard course most riders are riding helps avoid misunderstandings about scoring.
Long ago I was a jump judge at a recognized event when a young lady voluntarily dismounted close to a jump. Her horse had refused the jump twice and was being unruly, although he wasnât totally out of control. But she decided the better part of wisdom was to call it a day and walk him back to the barn.
She did not notify my of what she was doing. I couldnât see it clearly (heavily wooded spot), but registered that she was off the horse and standing beside him. I marked it as a âfallâ, figuring the horse must have finally wiggled her off the side or something. This was before the rule change that standing âfallsâ didnât count as falls.
Much later she saw the score and wanted to clear the record up, not have a âfallâ designation. So there was a big process and back & forth communications to work that out. I told the TD that her account was possible as I didnât have a clear line of sight to where she dismounted. She got her voluntary retirement on course.
It may be time to have my eyes examined, but I canât recall any time I confused someone voluntarily dismounting thinking they fell off or visa versa . Iâve seen plenty of riders continuing on with a piece of tack broken, often thinking they need to pull-up but continue on.
@Baybear Years ago, about 1 minute before his start time, I saw a rider get reared off, setting off his air vest, while putting him on his back on the ground. He had been calmly walking around near-ish the box, after having an uneventful warmup. He discarded his air vest, remounted, and made his start time, and did the Intermediate XC course fine. He was not penalized or stopped. The rules for falls talk about âon cross countryâ. He wasnât on XC until he left the start box. And, I guess falls in warm up also donât count.
Good point about falls in warm-up. Related to a jump or not.
I believe that a steward or any other official can signal to a TD if they think there is an issue. In some cases there could be a closer watch on that rider as they are on course.
Can a TD use a warm-up fall as a reason to tell a rider âone stop & outâ on course?
Iâm not sure that a warm-up fall should eliminate a rider. Iâve seen a few that were followed by an uneventful XC round. Warm-up can be the place where horse & rider work out the weird silly behavior on both sides.
Not for that alone.
Of course, if it is deemed to be dangerous riding the rider can be eliminated, but that would be up to the Ground Jury, not the TD.
If the rider is apparently injured, it would be different.
@Janet yep. Thatâs right. Ground Jury could act in this fall before competing case. Falls in warmup do get peopleâs attention, but as always it depends on the circumstances. The case I mentioned was legal, even by the currently proposed rules, since he wasnât âon courseâ. It was amusing because the rider is an avid safety advocate and his first act was to discard the air vest (note to self: groom brings spare air cartridges to warm up).
Lots of years back at an event I was at, the TD told a person who fell off more than once in stadium warm-up that they could not continue. (The horse kept refusing, the riding would go flying.) It caused quite the child and parent temper tantrum and they did not like being called unsafe.
That brought back a memory. On a very windy cold winter day at a schooling horse trials, a first-time âvery-beginner speed-bump levelâ child was barely able to control her horse through the dressage test. In fact, âcontrolâ is an overstatement, some movements were barely performed, and at times the child didnât really know what to do. At that venue the dressage arena is on grass and on open ground.
The childâs trainer and parent were hovering next to the ring in suspense, watching if the test could be completed. Technically it was completed. There wasnât really a final halt, more of a horse-dance while trainer and mom carefully approached to hold the reins.
The judge called over the TD. There was an in-ring conference while the judge explained very vigorously that it was unthinkable to allow this child to ride at all in these conditions. Especially not on cross-country.
I donât know everything that happened, but between the judge and the TD, the trainer and parent - and child - were convinced that today was not the day. Entry withdrawn based on lack of control of horse during dressage test.
That was several years ago and since then the child has grown into a pretty fair eventer. 
Always better to go home saying âgee, maybe I could have done thatâ than to go home saying âdarn, I definitely shouldnât have done thatâ
Janet, please clarify EV 113 for me. EV113.4 states that the GJ, TD or CD âhave the authority to stop an Athlete on the Cross-Country course for Dangerous Riding.â EV113.5 goes on to say that the GJ may deputize certain qualified persons to also have this same authority. Does this mean that these other officials & deputies have authority to stop and charge, and then the GJ must confirm?
Dangerous riding can occur in any phase, or between phases.
As I read it, only the Ground Jury can determine the penalty.
But (ONLY on Cross Country) other people (TD, Course Designer, other âdesignated deputiesâ) can stop an athlete on course for Dangerous Riding. But it would still be up to the GJ to determine the penalty. The other officials and deputies only have the authority to stop the athlete, and report it to the GJ. Only the GJ can determine the penalty.
Outside of cross country, anyone can report suspected dangerous riding to the GJ, who will determine the penalty, if any.
