FitToBeTied,
In principle, I completely agree with you - don’t do something that isn’t supported by data.
So based on what data did the automatic-21-penalty rule get made in the first place?
I’m guessing it was not data-based, but rather “because we want to show that we are doing something for safety.”
[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]
The problem is that sometimes it IS clear that the frangible pin in no way prevented a fall or even a stumble. This is particularly true when it’s used over a drop or into water, and the horse might drop their hind end as they come over the log and give a glancing blow to the fence with their hind fetlocks or hooves. If the fence wasn’t pinned, they’d merely drag their hooves over the fence, which I think we have all seen quite often, and continue on without pausing. But the blow drops a pinned fence, even though it clearly did not alter the progress of the horse.
Look at these two videos.
Jessica Phoenix and A Little Romance
Jennie Jarnstrom and Cape Town
In the first one, the horse pauses and scrapes over awkwardly from the front end. I would award 21 penalties to this horse for the broken pin because it is debatable as to whether the horse would have been able to maintain her feet without the pin dropping. Maybe she could have, but since it is clearly not obvious, she gets 21 penalties.
However, the second video shows the same fence dropping upon being rapped smartly by the hind fetlocks. The horse’s movement is hardly impeded or altered with this motion, and he most certainly would have been fine without the pin breaking. If you watch more of the videos from the same show, you can see other horses rapping this fence in the same manner without a break of the pin.
The type of break that occurs in the second video is 100% why the ground jury should have the discretion to remove the penalty points. I don’t quite understand why you don’t see how frustrating (and expensive!) it would be to obtain 21 penalties at a CCI for this situation, making it non-qualifying. It’s not just the money. It’s the pounding on the horse’s legs for yet another season to run a CCI it doesn’t really need.
Divine,
The thought that came up when I watched your videos and read your post was: what if, by breaking, the fence doesn’t injure the horse - when a fixed obstacle would? ie. the horse hypothetically would not pass a jog the next day?
From a horse welfare standpoint, frangibles/clips are better on the above.
From a competitor’s standpoint, having a mandatory 21 points would penalize in one way rather than elimination.
Or, if competitors have their way with reversing this rule, they don’t get a penalty with the pin or clip engaging, go on their merry way, collect their qualification/ribbon…
I’m not entirely sure where I stand on this, but it is a question that we need to answer if we are delving into this.
[QUOTE=Divine Comedy;8043638]
The problem is that sometimes it IS clear that the frangible pin in no way prevented a fall or even a stumble. This is particularly true when it’s used over a drop or into water, and the horse might drop their hind end as they come over the log and give a glancing blow to the fence with their hind fetlocks or hooves. If the fence wasn’t pinned, they’d merely drag their hooves over the fence, which I think we have all seen quite often, and continue on without pausing. But the blow drops a pinned fence, even though it clearly did not alter the progress of the horse.
Look at these two videos.
Jessica Phoenix and A Little Romance
Jennie Jarnstrom and Cape Town
In the first one, the horse pauses and scrapes over awkwardly from the front end. I would award 21 penalties to this horse for the broken pin because it is debatable as to whether the horse would have been able to maintain her feet without the pin dropping. Maybe she could have, but since it is clearly not obvious, she gets 21 penalties.
However, the second video shows the same fence dropping upon being rapped smartly by the hind fetlocks. The horse’s movement is hardly impeded or altered with this motion, and he most certainly would have been fine without the pin breaking. If you watch more of the videos from the same show, you can see other horses rapping this fence in the same manner without a break of the pin.
The type of break that occurs in the second video is 100% why the ground jury should have the discretion to remove the penalty points. I don’t quite understand why you don’t see how frustrating (and expensive!) it would be to obtain 21 penalties at a CCI for this situation, making it non-qualifying. It’s not just the money. It’s the pounding on the horse’s legs for yet another season to run a CCI it doesn’t really need.[/QUOTE]
On the first video, the penalties hardly matter because of the stop right after. And, there’s even the possibility that the pin breaking caused the stop. I’m glad the pin dropped but I see no value to adding a penalty to that incident.
I think it’s remarkable that both those videos are of the same fence, and of horses that appear to have a very clean, safe, unremarkable approach. How common is it for a frangible pin to drop at the same fence multiple times in the same event?
Fairly common, Poltroon. Fences with pins are jumps that meet the designer’s criteria for an FP fence – which could be big oxers, jumps in combinations, etc. I have volunteered at several XC venues where the FP broke in the same fence more than once during the day.
Interesting comment from Bruce Haskell (who is ERA President) on the unintended consequences of an the FEI rule
http://www.eventingworldwide.com/latest-news/bruce-haskell-makes-a-personal-plea-regarding-the-21-penalty-rule/
[QUOTE=Blugal;8043741]
Divine,
The thought that came up when I watched your videos and read your post was: what if, by breaking, the fence doesn’t injure the horse - when a fixed obstacle would? ie. the horse hypothetically would not pass a jog the next day?
From a horse welfare standpoint, frangibles/clips are better on the above.
From a competitor’s standpoint, having a mandatory 21 points would penalize in one way rather than elimination.
Or, if competitors have their way with reversing this rule, they don’t get a penalty with the pin or clip engaging, go on their merry way, collect their qualification/ribbon…
I’m not entirely sure where I stand on this, but it is a question that we need to answer if we are delving into this.[/QUOTE]
I still think that it is very difficult to argue that the horse would be injured without the pin dropping in the second video.
However, to me the qualification is more important than the ribbon. Make it 19 penalty points if it must be mandatory. Then you do end up with the wiggle room to at least obtain your qualifier but you are knocked out of the ribbons.
Honestly, I’d still rather see it revert to the previous rule where the Ground Jury gets discretion. I don’t think the rider in the second video would deserve the 21 penalties.
I finally got around to watching the videos posted. In the Jennie Jenstrom video the horse actually bellies the jump before hitting it with the hind feet. So there were really two impacts on the pin in that one jump.
If one wants to apply penalties to it, why not start by making it the same cost as a rail in show jumping? And then you still have the option for a dangerous riding penalty.
How many times has a horse activated a frangible pin and finished with a top 5 result?
The frangible pin was specifically designed to prevent one specific type of fall: the ‘slow, rotational fall’ that carried with it a 29% chance of death or serious injury to the rider.
When TRL and Liverpool did the original R&D, this was the specific goal. The frangible pin was not in any way intended as a panacea for eventing’s various dangers. And while we all might like a panacea for our beloved sport, there is only so much a frangible pin can do. An imposing obstacle is not rendered harmless by a frangible pin.
Then there’s the matter of 21 points. You get more penalty points for a frangible doing its job than for you and your horse not doing your job – i.e., a stop or run-out.
This is a deeply stupid rule.
Keep in mind I come from the H/J world so my experience with upper level eventing is purely as a spectator. My understanding of the frangible pins existence in the first place was to make the sport a safer one by decreasing the chances of rotational falls. What I don’t understand is why the rider is being penalized by breaking the pin? Isn’t the point of it being there is to be broken so that a catastrophe is avoided? And as I have read through this thread, if after horse after horse hits the fence deforming the pin, some unlucky soul will be the one who causes it to break, but may not have been the one to “truly” break it.
As JER also stated, there’s the matter of the 21 points. In showjumping, we used to be penalized 3 faults for refusals and 4 for knockdowns. Well, that just seemed stupid. Penalizing more for attempting to do the job rather than not - so now it’s 4 for both. Why so many points? And when you have to go to the GJ and others to looks at tapes and make opinions, it’s no longer an objective phase, but more like dressage - someone’s opinion.
It makes no logical sense to me to penalize someone for using what is there for their safety. I’m with Mike E-S on this one.
[QUOTE=sockmonkey;8047338]
Keep in mind I come from the H/J world so my experience with upper level eventing is purely as a spectator. My understanding of the frangible pins existence in the first place was to make the sport a safer one by decreasing the chances of rotational falls. What I don’t understand is why the rider is being penalized by breaking the pin? Isn’t the point of it being there is to be broken so that a catastrophe is avoided? And as I have read through this thread, if after horse after horse hits the fence deforming the pin, some unlucky soul will be the one who causes it to break, but may not have been the one to “truly” break it.
As JER also stated, there’s the matter of the 21 points. In showjumping, we used to be penalized 3 faults for refusals and 4 for knockdowns. Well, that just seemed stupid. Penalizing more for attempting to do the job rather than not - so now it’s 4 for both. Why so many points? And when you have to go to the GJ and others to looks at tapes and make opinions, it’s no longer an objective phase, but more like dressage - someone’s opinion.
It makes no logical sense to me to penalize someone for using what is there for their safety. I’m with Mike E-S on this one.[/QUOTE]
Watching a video and making a determination of whether the rider should be penalized is a most subjective approach and generally negates the argument for the penalty. How many times was it hit before that next rider puts just that little extra weight on it? Something went wrong on the approach for this one jump and now the rider gets screwed. That way outside that of fair an objective scoring.
In reading Mr Haskell’s letter I could only think the upper levels are a cluster-f#$k of issues, the least of which is getting hit with 21 points on system that according to folks over in BE, was shown to not be reliable. I think it is also telling the little interest this is gaining in the professional world
There are already a growing number of very high profile eventers supporting this movement from around the world. Trust me there are some pretty impressive names on that list. Yet there are a huge number more that haven’t even expressed an interest.
CYA, NIMBY. However you tell it it seems that professionals don’t or won’t speak up until it directly affects their own wallet. This rule should be a no brainer, because it will grab even a good rider by the ass one day. Worse is how professionals wont speak up publicly about the direction of this sport is going unless of course they are okay with some acceptable limit of death and injury, love overt technical questions, and compressing the sport into indoor arenas or making it looking like Eventing Lite.
[QUOTE=sockmonkey;8047338]
My understanding of the frangible pins existence in the first place was to make the sport a safer one by decreasing the chances of rotational falls. [/QUOTE]
This understanding is incorrect.
The purpose of the frangible pin is to prevent a horse and rider from having the same trajectory in a rotational fall, not to eliminate the fall itself. Serious rider injury or death is highly likely when a horse falls on top of a rider which is what happens when a rider falls directly in front fence moments before a horse falls directly in front of a fence as happens especially in a slow rotational fall. When the pin breaks the now dropping rail creates forces in a different direction and the rider is subsequently thrown more off center and out of the way of the horse.
So no, it was not designed to prevent horse falls. However, video replay seems to show in some/many instances it does. The rider is being penalized because the mechanical intervention prevented a fall that would have caused elimination. We don’t want a rider to be rewarded if without the intervention there would have been at the very least elimination.
Unfortunately we also get what you might refer to as false positive–the pin breaking for reasons other than a potential fall. The old rule allowed adjudication to identify these false positive results, and the new one penalizes everyone even those that broke it for different reasons.
There are practical implications to this FEI rule.
When fence judging, we check frangible pins frequently to make a visual assessment of any movement or deformation of the pin. There is no objective measure of any mechanical or physical change: it is done by eye, based on experience. When in doubt, and most certainly when a change is detected, we call for the pin to be checked or replaced by the course building team. This can hold up the competition for several minutes. On some fences the pins might move or bend multiple times, even though no horse has has hit the fence hard enough to break them.
To be as objective, consistent and as fair as possible, when I fence judge at an international event should I now call for pins to be automatically replaced after any and every brush, knock, tap or sideways squint, no matter how trivial? Otherwise cumulative - but invisible - damage might result in a later rider incurring 21 penalties for broken pins as a result of yet another brush or tap.
Under BE rules, there is no penalty for breaking a safety device. Why penalize a horse when the safety system works but not penalize it for totally wreaking another fence that isn’t pinned? That makes my job of FJ objective, straight forward and do-able. It also helps the competition to run to time, a not inconsiderable benefit over the course of a 10 or 11 hour day.
Maybe I’m being thick, but why can’t a broken pin just result in a review by the GJ to see if DR penalties need to be applied?
I assume the FEI imposed the 21 penalties in the first place because if the pin breaking prevented an accident, they feel that this should not be a QR. I agree with that. So dangerous riding is basically the point anyway, and if the GJ found that the pin saved your keester, the 25 pt penalties would serve the correct intention - and have more serious consequences.
[QUOTE=subk;8047565]
This understanding is incorrect.
The purpose of the frangible pin is to prevent a horse and rider from having the same trajectory in a rotational fall, not to eliminate the fall itself. Serious rider injury or death is highly likely when a horse falls on top of a rider which is what happens when a rider falls directly in front fence moments before a horse falls directly in front of a fence as happens especially in a slow rotational fall. When the pin breaks the now dropping rail creates forces in a different direction and the rider is subsequently thrown more off center and out of the way of the horse.
So no, it was not designed to prevent horse falls. However, video replay seems to show in some/many instances it does. The rider is being penalized because the mechanical intervention prevented a fall that would have caused elimination. We don’t want a rider to be rewarded if without the intervention there would have been at the very least elimination.
Unfortunately we also get what you might refer to as false positive–the pin breaking for reasons other than a potential fall. The old rule allowed adjudication to identify these false positive results, and the new one penalizes everyone even those that broke it for different reasons.[/QUOTE]
I really appreciate your post and representing those thoughts here, but on the other hand I find it a little distressing to hear the assumption that the rider deserves elimination… with the implication that it was a bad ride, or a dangerous, willful action, and that the rider should be grateful it was 21 penalties and not death or dismemberment.
Frankly, every time a pin breaks and horse and rider go home for another day, we should all be glad. No “he shoulda been eliminated by a fall.” I know that’s not what you meant but I also think the mindset is going in a regrettable direction.
The fact is we have all seen championship performances that had a sticky moment where the horse clambered over an obstacle in a scary way but finished clean, performances that were top 3 at major championships, and by veteran competitors. I never heard anyone say afterwards that they deserved to be eliminated for the fall they almost had.
The idea that the pin is an “intervention” that prevented elimination makes no sense when you consider that small changes of any kind to any obstacle on the course could prevent elimination - the choice of decorations, choices in design that seem inconsequential when they are made, as well as deliberate choices. The course is never truly the same for every competitor, given changes in footing, lighting, and even just intelligence of how the course is riding.
We need horses and riders to come home safe. That’s the priority. Tell me why this 21 penalties makes that more likely.
Update: here is a PRO blog post with opinions of several top riders on the rule.
(includes Tim Price, Pippa Funnell, Ian Stark, Ludwig Svennerstal, Clark Montgomery, Alison Springer)
Lots of opinion no facts in the PRO blog. Several riders posting “known facts” that are only opinion. why dont PRO and ERA ante up some money for real scientific study?
I agree that there have been far too many human and equine deaths and it is tragic, but not every time a horse hits a jump does it fall. How many videos are there on you tube of “amazing save” that would be an elimination if it broke that pin? I think we see more 5-legged horses than we hear of deaths and those saves shouldn’t be penalized.
As for false positives, is that really acceptable? I’m a veterinarian. Let’s say I see 100 animals in a week and I think 25 have rabies, so I kill them. Unfortunately, 20 were false positives. Oh well, that’s part of the sport. Unacceptable. If this were my livelihood, I would say completely unacceptable, particularly if it meant the difference between qualifying and not qualifying, placing vs. not placing, having owners vs. not having owners, etc.
I’m confused about BE not charging penalties. Isn’t this an international question or just an American thing?
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. You may also receive promotional emails from The Chronicle of the Horse. You can opt out at any time.
For Customers
Company
Terms of Use
