FEI Riders: oppose automatic 21 penalties for breaking frangible pin

[Blugal]

Deadline is March 10th to sign the Event Riders International petition available here: [URL=“http://eventingriders.com/2015/03/frangible-pin-rule-changed-by-fei/”]explanation and petition at end.

In December 2014 the FEI introduced a return to the original wording of Eventing Rules Article 548.1 (Annexed at end of this page) regarding the penalties awarded for “breaking a frangible obstacle/device” along with revised guidelines for the award and removal of the penalties.

This revision has applied an automatic non-appealable 21 penalties for “breaking a frangible obstacle/device” in the cross country phase.

Some of the reasons this is not good:

1. (a) Pins have broken in the past because of several hard rubs by previous combinations - not fair to the one that “broke the straw” so to speak.

2. (b) We don’t need more Burghley 2013s that are decided by a court rather than on the field of play. I think this would be a field day because riders would be trying to show “unexpected mechanical failure” if they really need a qualification or want a result.

3. Many top XC course designers have already commented “off record” that they are less likely to use “deformable devices”. Designers have said that they will now seriously consider using fewer devices based on the possible effect a breakage has on the outcome of a competition. Under the new rule automatically adding 21 penalties will have a massive negative impact on the results of the competition.

4. At present a horse can crash through a cross country jump that is not designed to “deform”, damaging that cross country jump in such a way that it will need repair but potentially no penalties will be awarded. However if a horse damages a cross country jump that is designed to deform with impact, then 21 penalties will be awarded.

[anon40672407]

What a damned fool idea. Horses used to be able to climb over the fences via brute force if they wanted. Now we build things to fall down and we want to penalize people when that happens? Ridiculous.

[Blugal]

I can’t tell if you’re being serious.

Here is my thought: we need to keep striving to make better courses. Better courses aren’t courses with trappy awful combinations that have frangible pins so they are “safer”. They aren’t. Case in point, there were some awful jumps at 2014 Burghley - airy, flimsy and trappy - built with frangibles.

So really… design basically a show jump fence combined with XC questions, with terrrain - that would never be built in a SJ ring - encourage horses to fall over - and it’s OK because there are frangible pins? Then penalize the riders when they break?

[JP60]

Blowing in the wind

In principle I would completely agree, but in reality I think you’re pissing into the wind. The FEI does things never for the interest of the rider or horse. Those are just side thoughts which tend to more cloud, than clarify their central need which is to make money. To make money today one needs people and people will only come when there is something “exciting” to watch.

Trappy, tight, death defying courses…FEI loves em for the crowd ooos, aaaas, and cheers when another brave rider makes it through the gauntlet. Breaking a pin takes time away from the event and time is money so…don’t break a pin or it will cost you (the rider) a lot. The crowd bitches and moans and cries “unfair”…and still goes to the show.

Cynical for sure, but I’ve not seen or read much from the upper levels of this sport of late that has shown otherwise. The sport I love is centered in the lower levels and I would/will fight to ensure the tint of FEI lucre does not trickle down on it (re: supporting the blocking of USEA/F rule changes for lower levels). Whatever it has become in the top levels is in part the tacit acceptance of riders, owners and spectators. If they don’t like the rule one simple approach could be to just not participate. Get enough top names to “just say no” and the FEI may listen. However, there are enough rosy-eyed kids that think fame and fortune await at the finish line of a modern 4* event that the FEI will be able to just ignore the protests of a few malcontents and continue to serve up gladiators to the coliseum.

Edit: All that said, I signed the petition and made this comment

I fully support the idea that a rider/horse combination should not penalized for the breaking of a pin that’s sole purpose is to ensure the safety of the team. Since a break cannot be determined to be caused by dangerous riding, weak material, multiple hits, or just a plain mistake it is not credible to penalize the team that causes a break. At worst the rider, jump judge, builder, and observers should be pulled in for a debrief to determine cause and look at potential ways in which future breaks may not occur.

I wish the best outcome, but my initial feelings stand.

[poltroon]

Penalties would be appropriate if you get some advantage from crashing through a fence. I think most of us would find the distraction and the loss of momentum from such an incident penalty enough.

[halt]

i wrote the following, pulling ideas from poltroon as well:

I am writing to voice that I strongly oppose the automatic 21 penalty points for breaking frangible pins rule.

As it stands now, destroying a non-deforming jump does not incur penalty points - there should be no distinction between the two fences. Secondly, previous riders on course can damage the integrity of the pin’s structure without having the jump deform – a competitor could come along that barely raps the jump (as opposed to earlier rides, which may have incurred severe contact with the fence) and the jump could deform. It is unfair to penalize that rider when other riders passed through the jump without incurring penalty points. It has been demonstrated quite clearly that the frangible pins can be quite arbitary when it comes to destruction – it has also been demonstrated that each successive hit is compounding on the pin’s infrastructure, meaning that other riders could pass through and damage the structure without it collapsing. It seems grossly unfair that a later rider/horse pair on course could accumulate penalties just because a jump met its threshold with their passing.

A break in the pin cannot always be pinpointed to a specific fault in the rider/horse’s approach or riding – it seems farfetched to assume that the break in a frangible pin is only caused by negligence on the rider’s part. The frangible pin was designed for the safety of all riders in mind. It was not designed as another penalty feature on an already challenging cross country course.

Furthermore, I feel that penalties would only be appropriate if the rider/horse pair sustained some sort of benefit from destroying the fence. As it stands, the loss of momentum, time, and focus (as well as potential injury) is penalty enough for riders. No rider or horse is actively seeking to crash through a course.

Please do consider that we as riders are only striving to better the sport, and that our concerns for our sport should be appropriately recognized.

[subk]

I don’t know.

What I like about the frangible pin/penalty issue is that because of the penalty every break is now being looked at by officials to determine whether the break actually prevented a fall. There ARE some objectives judgements made on XC other than this now (especially at 3 and 4 starts) so that part of the arguement doesn’t work for me. I like the hoopla around these breaks.

As I said after Burghley XC the frangible pin is now being used by course designers to create more dangerous fences instead of better ones because it gives designers a pass of sorts. We need to figure out how to hold CDs responsible (even if it only by damaged reputations) for poorly designed fences. Unfortunately the outrage over multiple pin breaks on a single course or single fence doesn’t compare at all to the potential outrage if there are multiple rotational falls and a death here or there. We need to figure out how to avoid the deaths without it giving designers a pass.

I don’t think it would be good for the sport AT ALL if someone goes on with a good placing after have their life preserved on XC because of a frangible.

[netg]

Just dock each course designer 10% per broken frangible pin pending investigation or something.

I agree with the many reasons why this is a terrible idea already given above.

[Divine_Comedy]

[QUOTE=subk;8041732]
]
What I like about the frangible pin/penalty issue is that because of the penalty every break is now being looked at by officials to determine whether the break actually prevented a fall. There ARE some objectives judgements made on XC other than this now (especially at 3 and 4 starts) so that part of the arguement doesn’t work for me. I like the hoopla around these breaks.

…

I don’t think it would be good for the sport AT ALL if someone goes on with a good placing after have their life preserved on XC because of a frangible.[/QUOTE]

Yes, but what you’re describing is how the rule worked through 2014. The rule has now been changed, and an automatic 21 penalties is assesed, and can only be removed if it is proven to be a mechanical failure. Now, I’m a mechanical engineer, and I think Doug Payne is, and there are a few others I’m sure who have the scientific background to prove mechanical failure, but I think even we would be fairly hard-pressed to prove mechanical failure occured out in the field on the day of, particularly if we have horses to deal with in the barn. Unless they come up with some sort of criteria that defines mechanical failure, they are heading for later decisions, possibly in a court room.

I completely agree with you, it was good to have the GJ looking and assessing the frangible breaks. If the horse maintained his footing because the pin broke, then penalties are deserved. But if the horse lightly rapped it his hind hooves and it falls, as in the video posted above, it really doesn’t deserve the penalties. And those penalties, being 21 instead of 20, can be critical if you are trying to obtain a qualifier at a CCI. You get maybe two of those a year, one for each season, and it becomes a big deal if you don’t get it because your horse tapped a fence on XC. Ironically, you could still use that CCI as a qualifier with a 20 for a stop, but not with that frangible penalty!

As I said before, the frangible penalty is deserved if it prevents a fall, and you don’t deserve a top placing in that situation, or even a qualifier. But the GJ needs to look at each and every break, and this new rule allows them to wash their hands and point to a broken pin.

[subk]

[QUOTE=Divine Comedy;8041923]
But the GJ needs to look at each and every break, and this new rule allows them to wash their hands and point to a broken pin.[/QUOTE]
So basically, we had a FEI crappy rule that was changed back to a crappier rule? Seems par fo the course for the FEI…

[Lord_Helpus]

I understand the the purpose of the frangible pin was to lessen the chance of rotational falls. Has this happened? Are there statisitics showing the number of rotational falls at these obstacles (is there a list of what kind of obstacles must use frangible pins?) before and after the introduction of the pins?

If the pins are making a real difference, then I agree that the penalty for breaking one should be higher than the penalty for a refusal, IF the severity of the penalty really is changing behavior.

FEI riders should be able to tell several strides out if they are in deep doodoo on their approach. The rules are now written to encourage a rider to pull out rather than jump from a disasterous spot. Is this happening in the real world? Or are riders still forging ahead, even if they know that the chance of getting safely over the jump is below 50%.

Bottom line: Are frangible pins, and riders’ reaction to the possible 21 penalty points for breaking one, really changing behavior and safety?

If not, then… well… we know what the definition of ‘insanity’ is.

[JP60]

[QUOTE=netg;8041820]
Just dock each course designer 10% per broken frangible pin pending investigation or something.

I agree with the many reasons why this is a terrible idea already given above.[/QUOTE]
Not even pending. Defending any reason for a penalty does not make sense. Knocking a rail in stadium is quite clear but there is no, none, nada, clear sense of how why a pin may break in that moment on cross country. The benefit of the doubt belongs to the team. Either that or make jumps that do not need such technology. Find one team that wants to break a pin to win, that thinks banging is good for the horse. Penalize the people who built the damn thing, see how that goes.

[retreadeventer]

This seems like a reaction to a political problem and not necessarily about the frangible pin. I think it’s about protesting and the annoyance thereof. Just sayin’.

[SnicklefritzG]

What kind of scientific studies, if any, went into the development of the frangible pin? Knocking a rail down in SJ is one thing, but frangible pins are a completely different issue.

Who is to say that the frangible pin broke because of the horse and rider team that were negotiating the obstacle at that time? Were there any studies to determine the force required to break a pin after being hit repeatedly but not broken by previous riders?

[FitToBeTied]

I don’t think a ground jury can really watch a tape of a horse breaking a frangible pin and make a call whether or not it would have caused a fall because what one horse can recover from another can’t. So having a ground jury reviewing tape just introduces a lot of politics into the final result of the event.

Given that if the frangible pin was not in place, you may have had a serious fall and not walked away, then 21 points is a pretty light penalty.

It was just a few years ago people were screaming for technology to make the courses safer and now we have some complaining about a penalty over the same technology. What do you want points or elimination because I’d have no problem declaring a broken pin an elimination because it may have just saved your life. So maybe the FEI riders should say thank you and live to compete another day.

[Blugal]

[QUOTE=FitToBeTied;8043172]
I don’t think a ground jury can really watch a tape of a horse breaking a frangible pin and make a call whether or not it would have caused a fall because what one horse can recover from another can’t. So having a ground jury reviewing tape just introduces a lot of politics into the final result of the event.

Given that if the frangible pin was not in place, you may have had a serious fall and not walked away, then 21 points is a pretty light penalty.

It was just a few years ago people were screaming for technology to make the courses safer and now we have some complaining about a penalty over the same technology. What do you want points or elimination because I’d have no problem declaring a broken pin an elimination because it may have just saved your life. So maybe the FEI riders should say thank you and live to compete another day.[/QUOTE]

Well I don’t agree. I think we should continue to strive for better safety. I just finished reading Oliver Townend’s editorial in this week’s Horse & Hound - titled “deaths are not acceptable”.

This rule does NOTHING to increase safety. What rider is purposely riding to break a frangible pin? What rider would want to risk a fall, in the hopes that the pin would save them?

Secondly, adding penalties for the breaking of the pins is not a safety outcome. It just shifts “blame” to the rider. It does nothing to encourage safer design or as I stated above, safer riding and jumping. As both subk and I noted, Burghley last year appeared to have more dangerous fences because they were pinned. I’ll have to return here later & link a video.

Back to “safer jumping”. The horses don’t know the fences are pinned. The amount of force required to break a pin is significant - IF it’s the first time the pin’s been hit. There are anecdotes about pins that seemed to break easily due to previous force having been applied.

So some horses are hitting pinned fences and the fence isn’t breaking - they might tidy up their jump at a subsequent fence, or not. Others are hitting them full force and the fence is preventing a rotational fall - often times these horses fall anyway, it’s just not rotational (which is the stated function of the pins).

Lastly, some horses are hitting them without a lot of force, the pins are breaking and the fence breaks as the horse is jumping. The horse might not notice - or it might - does it learn anything from that? Here’s another example. There was a drop into water that was pinned. Some horses are used to catching their stifles on these jumps, that usually have rounded profiles. I presume that amount of force is not supposed to cause the pin to break - but I recall (maybe at Badminton?) that it did for one horse and the rider commented on that.

[Willesdon]

Background to research and development of frangible pins
http://www.britisheventing.com/asp-net/page.aspx?section=902

[FitToBeTied]

There are anecdotes about pins that seemed to break easily due to previous force having been applied.

That is a problem isn’t it, its all anecdotal. So what are FEI level riders doing about sponsoring a scientific study?

As far as force of hits causing the pin to break, not all hits are the same. It depends on force, mass, angle, acceleration, etc. So what appears to be a glancing blow may actually be delivering a more forceful blow than is being thought. You can’t tell that from watching a video. Same with repeated hits on a fence.

I don’t think anyone is riding a course with the idea of banging on fences, pinned or not. So it really has no part of the conversation.

If people are designing bad fences they are designing bad fences. They should be judged on good versus bad regardless of the underlying safety technology. If a TD looks at a fence the judgement should be made of good/bad without thought to the safety technology.

[JP60]

Deja vu?

http://www.chronofhorse.com/article/fei-overturns-rule-about-automatic-penalties-broken-frangible-pins
A good quote

At the time of the original controversy, BE chief executive Mike Etherington-Smith said: “We’re completely against [penalties] for breaking a pin, as we were for elimination. You cannot penalize people for something they cannot control—we have data to support the fact that pins weaken.”

[FitToBeTied]

Except when you follow the links back, no data is ever presented. The “data” is just more anecdotes. Now if someone knows of a real scientific study that was done I’d be interested in reading it.