I just saw this on FB.
http://eventingnation.com/the-mr-vs-rf-conundrum-when-rules-are-rules-for-a-reason/
Great article and I feel that it explained the concerns so many people had regarding this issue really well in an accessible format and can start a meaningful discussion.
Glad more attention is being brought to this situation.
Fantastic!!! It seems someone at EN was listening!! Great article!
My question is why Welly World is allowed to run such a high profile event without USEF sanction, oversight, and consequences. The FEI has passed new rules to cover such new formats; why not USEF/USEA? I have no idea what the dimensions of the Welly World format were, but in number of jumps and distance, it was very, very close to prelim. It was seventy meters short of minimum prelim distance and met the minimum number of jumping efforts.
I was much impressed with EN article, especially on the consequences of MRs at sanctioned competitions.
9 Likes
There are unrecognized Prelim and Intermediate HTs. Iām not sure USEF is really legally able or willing to get involved in preventing unsanctioned events.
3 Likes
If we are worried about expense and access by the little guy, the very last thing we want to do is try to force everything to be USEF rated/regulated.
1 Like
The little guy is nowhere near the Welly World competition.
The FEI has claimed a big stick when its stars compete in unsanctioned events. If the USEF were to limit its mandatory oversight to competitions that pay over, say, 50k, they wouldnāt have much work.
great article
I canāt help but wonder who the other person is that they mention, who had two horse falls within a year then proceeded to enter that same horse at Rolex, where they fell again.
That is a person Iād be inclined to steer far away from if I was looking for an UL coach or someone to buy a horse from.
1 Like
Information clarified below.
Based on the record, this must be Colleen Rutledge and Escot 6 (record here: https://data.fei.org/Horse/Performance.aspx?p=D6C72EA717292DD5F526818F7223F87)
From the EN article: āOne of the aforementioned 12 whose MR was incorrectly recorded as an RF went on to have a second MR within 12 months. If the first horse fall had been properly recorded as an MR, the two falls would then have triggered the USEFās loss of qualifications procedures, requiring the horse to drop back down to the Intermediate level.
Instead, the horse was then entered in his first four-star competition, where he fell a third time. Only then did he encounter both the USEF and FEI re-qualification requirements, having triggered both due to being eliminated three times in 12 months.ā
Escot 6 has an RF on his record 9/17/2015, which must be the alleged horse fall EN is referring to. The horse then picked up an MR 4/6/2016 (within 12 months), and was immediately redirected to Rolex a couple weeks later (4/27/2016), his first four-star run, where he picked up the second MR.
As EN states, if the first RF was in fact an MR, after the MR on 4/6/2016 he would have been forced to run at Intermediate rather than upgrading to four-star. This would have, theoretically, prevented his second (or third, depending on how you look at it) fall in less than twelve months.
Once he fell for the second/third time at Rolex, he was required to re-qualify, as he had three eliminations on his FEI and USEF record in the rolling twelve month period (two MRs and an RF).
3 Likes
To clarify, neither Tim Price nor Ryan Wood had horse falls at Rolex. Full Rolex results here, and they do clarify XC-FH (Fall Horse) and XC-FR (Fall Rider). The only other horse fall at Rolex this year was ML and Demeter, and her situation was extensively discussed in the EN article.
You are absolutely correct. The website I quickly found that had the Rolex results did not specify, other than E. I also misread the article and thought they were referencing the rider when they said āheā, which is why I thought the two men with an āEā at 2016 Rolex were in the running.
Thatās what happens when you do quick research on a phone. 
1 Like
Phones are the worst 
1 Like
Great article, and timely.
I do think the rider discussed anonymously should have been named. It is true that ML/Demeter and the Wellington Showcase were named because they are a current subject of public discussion, but, in fairness, the other entries and venues mentioned should have been named as well. Especially the pair with a record described in detail.
One reason horse falls may have been recorded as rider falls is nit-picky detailed analysis of video, based on the rule stating that the shoulders and quarters must touch the ground at the same time. If there is a roll - a possibly more dangerous horse fall, actually - maybe video showed that the flat side of the shoulder wasnāt quite in contact at the same time as the quarters, because the horse was bent by the force of the fall, in motion in the roll from one end to the other. Maybe, just after the motion comes to a stop, a horse resting on its belly before getting up, at least one elbow and one hock both in solid contact with the ground at the same time, in and of itself doesnāt count as a āhorse fallā by the rules?
Another reason horse falls may be recorded as rider falls - and I personally suspect the real reason for any nit-picking of the rule that might be in play - is that reverse qualifications interfere with the competition plans of professional BNRās, as well as the expectations of both their paying owner-clients and the organizers of future events. In the past there has been resistance to rules that could potentially hold back BNRās generally, and maybe that sensibility is still on board. As I understand it, that is why there is no reverse qualification of riders, because it would have to be applied to everyone, and top pros ride more entries and have more chances to incur it.
Could there be individuals who can affect the scoring who believe that avoiding reverse qualification is better for the sport, even better for the horse? Who are taking pains to avoid several things: the interruption in a BNRās/professionalās schedule; the runs to re-qualify; the public reputation and discussion of horse and/or rider; and the absence of an expected entry at an important venue ā¦ all due to reverse qualification?
I donāt know if that is the case. There is no way to prove it and it is easily denied. But the divisions that are being mentioned with the objectively incorrect classification of MR to RF are those that many proās / BNRās dominate.
Is the same thing with MR/RF scores being seen in the LL divisions with ammys & juniors?
Your average LL horse is probably not as athletic as your average UL horse. Therefore, if a LL horse is going down it is more than likely going to be a straight forward fall. The UL horse is quite athletic and probably has a better chance of recovering before they actually fall (both shoulder and hip down). This is where things can get sort of grey as to whether or not the horse actually āfellā.
Iām sure there are plenty of people that would disagree with me, but if you are jumping an obstacle and any part of the horse (other than the bottom of their hooves) hits the ground, I consider it a fall. Even at the lower levels.
3 Likes
The rule does say that the shoulder and hip must be on the ground at the same time. Iād prefer a rule that says āhip OR shoulderā on the ground.
Hell, in a rotational fall, the fall hasnāt happened within the rules until itās over.
2 Likes
I also believe that the unnamed horse and rider referenced in the EN article are Colleen Rutledge and Escot 6. If you scroll to the bottom of this page
http://akdragoophoto.zenfolio.com/p633295749
(Which I found by searching āEscot 6 Plantation Field 2015ā) you can see photographs of the fall sequence.
I mean to cast no aspersions on the volunteers in question or imply any sort of conspiracy theoryāIām sure it happened very fast at the timeābut from the photos, it is clear to me that this should have been recorded as an MR.
1 Like
As I look at the photos, the horseās shoulders are down, and in one, heās even turned turtle but his hindquarters havenāt hit the ground yet. In another, his hindquarters are down and heās turned right side up so his shoulders are up. The rule says both at the SAME time. This is very obviously a horse fall as anyone one sane would define a horse fall, but it might not fit exactly within the rule if the photos are used to determine it. Sheās just lucky he did not turn over on top of her.
I donāt care how you dice it, that was a horse fall and should have been an MR.
So is the problem
1 ) the language of the rule in defining what a horse fall is
2 ) the application of the rule by jump judges and TDs
3 ) application of the rule with intent to err on the side of ācovering upā some horse falls
I have to think the ROOT cause may very well be in the language of the rule. We can see a clear sequences like the link in this thread where the horse falling precedes and precipitates the rider falling, but the horseās shoulder and hip donāt appear to be on the ground at the same time. I would like to think most jump judges and TDs want to make the right call, but unless they are sure the shoulder and hip of the horse were both on the ground at the same timeā¦?
Would it not be simpler to have RF and HF as the codes instead of MR for HF? Can anything else result in an MR besides a horse fall?
1 Like
