FEI Riders: oppose automatic 21 penalties for breaking frangible pin

[LAZ]

Just a nit-pick–this is a Mim’s clip, not a frangible pin.

[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]

[Divine_Comedy]

[QUOTE=LAZ;8049044]
Just a nit-pick–this is a Mim’s clip, not a frangible pin.[/QUOTE]

Ah, I didn’t realize that. But the MIM clips is still subject to the same penalties. Still, thanks for catching that!

[JP60]

[QUOTE=LAZ;8049044]
Just a nit-pick–this is a Mim’s clip, not a frangible pin.[/QUOTE]
In watching these two videos my first thought was, what a horrible question. I’m not saying that from the LL I’d be pissing in my pants level of rider, but just from the view of what you have to do with the horse from the coopish looking jumps that seems to need a forward ride to this … mess … that requires a large change in stride, power, position, and balance.

A hanging log (from the camera angle) bounce into a drop into water. From DV post it seems that these two were not the only ones to get a hit on the front log. Jessica was practically pulling up until the last stride and given the horses reaction to the alternate it didn’t seem all thrilled about jumping into water anyway. Jennie sat back more but still was holding back just to make that bounce work.

Take away that releasing log and imagine what could have happened, a rotation possible on the first, an unseat or RF on the second since the horse, got a break in the drop. I am all for frangible pins or a Mim’s clip, but from one viewpoint it looks like it allows a CD to create bad questions and have the safety equipment bail them out.

In either case neither should have gotten 21 points (had it been pins) for in the first the rider got a refusal at the drop and in the second the rider was able to complete the complex well.

I also ponder this dichotomy of viewpoints that can say on one hand "horses are delicate creatures in regards to their legs (referencing comments from the Red Hills thread), yet we are unfazed or quite accepting of hard raps/taps/ and bangs on their legs as par for the course. Somehow all that energy of the forward motion being slammed into a solid object, even with a guard has to have some impact on the bone or soft tissue. Do it enough times and is there not a chance for that weakness to be exploited?

Truly there are many variables involved in this question, but these two videos don’t argue for or against a return of 21 points as punishment, they just show how demanding and to my eye, unfair even advanced is becoming.

[goodmorning]

Sloppyness in both of those videos. Cape Town was not jumping well, Jessica’s horse wasn’t presented well & stopped next element. Bad presentations, sloppy jumping - this stuff causes major problems. It’s a part of life, and pins are there to decrease the physical ramifications of mishaps.

IMO, the vast majority of the time pins are falling due to ugliness. I always thought 21 was an odd score, but, in a sport with so much risk, I’m willing to accept the results due to a few unlucky pins falling for the greater good. Maybe for 4*s could not have the automatic 21, but everyone else, keep those penalties. Possibly change the penalty score. ESP when XC is so often last! A horse lazy with the hind end may drop a couple more poles if SJ was last after bumping around XC.

If course designers are worried for whatever reason about putting a pin on course when they would have in the past, they shouldn’t have a job.

[subk]

[QUOTE=poltroon;8048324]
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.[/QUOTE]

I’m not sure I understand you’re complaint with my post. I wasn’t particularly trying to defend the rule either way. I was trying to explain that someone’s fundamental understanding of the purpose and function of a frangible pin was wrong.

There is no “shoulda had a fall.” Its “WOULDA had a fall” that concerns me. If we pretend everything is hunky dory because a pin broke AND it prevented a fall there is NO follow up accountability. No discussion about fence construction, course design, rider performance, horse preparation. No black mark on a course designer’ s record. (AND yes, if a single course has multiple rotationals in addition to multiple pin breaks that prevented falls we should identify the CD and tar and feather him…or at least boycott him.) When falls happen we examine these things…we become aware of these things. When a pin breaks and prevents a fall it does NOT reduce the need to proceed with a course of examination. Unfortunately it is not seen as serious.

I am comfortable with a Ground Jury checking video and making a determination as to whether or not, in their opinion, a particular incident of a pin breaking prevented having additional penalties added to the XC score–even if I may not alway agree with their decision. I am NOT comfortable congratulating some lucky schmuck all while pretending we don’t need to look into why by the grace of modern technology they didn’t get their ass handed to them.

I want horse falls to be investigated and go on the designers’, courses’, horses’ and riders’ records and I want pin breaks that likely prevented those same falls on the same records. I don’t care what the rule is or what the penalty is as long as that’s done. I think the FEI did a poor job before the rule change and the new rule blurring the distinction between the two types of pin breaks pushes things from bad to worse.

If the rule stays and every break is 21 points then EVERY excuse in hindsight will be that it was a malfunction. You see a 21 on a horse’s record you’d like to purchase? Let me ASSURE you it wasn’t because he was going down. Yeah, right. Selective memory because the record won’t be clear.

I’m disgusted with the FEI.

[LAZ]

Someone said something about why the penalty was 21 PP–I believe it is for the same reason a fall is 65, which is differentiate the penalty from others. Disobediences are on even numbers, falls/pins on odd. I’d think among other things this would make tracking such things easier.

As someone who has been in the sport for a long time, and helps at some of the bigger advanced shows, attends the safety meetings and course builders meetings at the annual meeting, I’ll say I think the frangible technology is very helpful to limiting injuries and that the activation of the frangible material does not always mean the horse would have fallen. We had a frangible fence (mims device) at the HOTL last year that was bumped hard enough to bend the clip several times but in no way was the horse in danger of coming off its feet.

i think deployment should be tracked for information purposes but rides should be assessed on an individual basis for having a penalty assigned.

[retreadeventer]

To that effectively LAZ there would have to be properly recording cameras from several angles running at those fences for all competitors. That’s the only fair way to assess a penalty in such cases.