At a horse show this weekend, there was a scoring situation where everyone had different opinions. Would love to have the collective COTH chime in.
In the puddle jumpers a very green horse came in and trotted the first fence, then ran sideways (never backwards) toward the in gate. The rider got him going straight towards the fence and he jumped it, though he had the rail. Green horse then stopped at fence 2 after the rider got him going straight and proceeded to back for 5-6 seconds. Judge then buzzed the rider out. When the rider / trainer brought this up to the steward, the steward said that the horse had two disobediences, the rail and the stop, and therefore was eliminated???
While obviously the steward was wrong in that bizarre interpretation, what say you on scoring this?
I can’t speak to the scoring technicalities but I think they did the right thing in excusing the horse from the arena because this is not going to end well otherwise.
The rail isn’t a disobedience but maybe steward misspoke.
Sure, but you also have to follow the rules. This was a girl from my barn, and horse has actually shown at several other venues. This place blew his brain!
Steward was abundantly clear about the rail, which is why the rider stopped trying to pursue anything about it.
Also I mis-typed - rail at fence 1, napping towards gate and stop at fence 2.
My guess is that the judge scored the dive towards the gate as either the horse crossing its own path or a break in forward motion which holds the same penalty as a circle or refusal. It may not have looked to you or felt to the rider that they didn’t go backward, but that could still have been the judge’s interpretation.
A rail is definitely not a fault that would eliminate a rider. However, the judge and the steward have the ability to eliminate riders if there is concern for safety and well-being regardless of how they normally ride/show. I would be confused as to why the steward noted the rail in their explanation but without being there it is hard to know, potentially things just got lost in translation.
Best of luck to your barn mate with their greenie!
Two disobediences are cause for elimination under the current rules. So I would guess that the sideways maneuver looked like a disobedience to the judge, followed by an actual refusal.
If you had a video of the sideways maneuver, it could be interesting to just glance at it out of curiosity. But the final decision rests with the judge, who probably had a different line of sight than anyone with a video camera.
The rail was irrelevant in a conversation about elimination.
Almost any horse of any experience can have a melt down in the right (or rather wrong) circumstances. Officials have to go on what they see. If horse is losing their mind, officials don’t calculate “oh he’s green give him another chance” or “oh he’s usually calm and steady give him another chance” or “he’s new to this venue give him another chance.” They just act on what they see.
As has been made clear in other threads, even little local competitions are not there to train a horse. If your horse turns up that day refusing to participate then you don’t get to spend ten minutes talking him through the issues. You just withdraw or get DQ. That’s the game.
Honestly from the ground that would look to me like a super scary shtstorm and the kind of situation where riders get hurt if it’s allowed to continue. Running backwards is often a prelude to rearing and rearing is often a prelude to a horse flipping backwards and an air ambulance being called in. No one wants that.
I myself would see the big sideways run as a major evasion, and I don’t know how it could happen without a “crossing his own path” moment. But then refusing and running backwards at the second jump after that is clearly a horse having a meltdown.
I know in the moment the rider will have a “get 'er done” mindset and be thinking “I just need a chance to try.” Stewards are there to protect us from ourselves. That round would have ended in rider injury if allowed to continue.
I’d be interested to see the video, just out of curiosity. They often show videos of wacky things that can happen and how to score them at the USEF jumper judge clinics.
But I totally understand if the rider prefers to keep it private.
The rail at 1 is definitely NOT a disobedience.
The top at 2 is definitely a disobedience.
The question is about the “napping toward the gate”
You say he never say “went backwards”, but did he ever halt? Did he ever go past the line of the fence he was to jump? Did he ever turn his back to the fence he was to jump?
Any of those would make it a disobedience under the rules.
JP139.5
Circling. Any form of circle or circles whereby the horse crosses its original track between two consecutive
obstacles (start and finish included), or stops advancing toward or turns at least 180 degrees away from the > next fence, or finish line, except to retake an obstacle after a disobedience, is considered a disobedience.
This is a judgment call. (NOTE: Coming sideways or zigzagging toward an obstacle does not constitute a > disobedience unless the horse passes or turns its back to the next obstacle or the finish line).
Here’s a diagram I drew that may help. This is not the course map from the day, but one handy on my phone that may help. Fence 6a is where fence 2 was placed. Horse drifted through the turn and broke to the trot before stopping at fence 2, but never broke the plane of the fence, imo.
When the horse stopped, did it immediately back up, or were those two separate movements?
I’ve seen eliminations from a horse refusing a jump, and then the rider backing the horse up (in an attempt at some sort of training) before picking up the canter to attempt the jump again. In those cases, the judge counted the refusal and the backing as two separate events resulting in elimination.
Why is this brutal? Horse is saying no loud and clear.
The idea of a competition is you should be able to do the things to a certain level. You take a very green horse in a show and he loses his mind. Lesson learned. He needs more time and work.
I’m pretty alarmed at the steward’s remarks. The steward does not appear to either know the rules or does not communicate well.
A rail is not a disobedience.
Like others have said, if the horse stopped or walked in the “napping” incident, then yes, that is a disobedience, so along with the refusal, that’s two and there you are.
Horse backing up, at the jump, after a refusal, is not a separate disobedience. Judging it as such is silly. What’s the horse supposed to do? Turn on the haunches, like reining?
Wow, jumper scoring is supposed to be easy ;)!
I’ll agree that the steward was certainly muddying the waters here, as the rail is entirely irrelevant.
I would guess that the napping incident perhaps was more dramatic than said here or from the judge’s perspective the horse lost its forward or crossed its path. That plus the stop is a done deal.
A video would be interesting, especially since the steward is such a wild card here so I’m expecting it to go one of two ways: the round was spiraling out of control from the very first fence (from the perspective of someone who doesn’t know the horse and who is partially responsible for keeping everyone safe), or there was a genuine greenie moment that wasn’t that bad but looked to be two disobediences from the judge’s booth. Then the steward became involved and didn’t know exactly what they were talking about/things got very lost in translation.
I’m starting to wonder if we’re having a communications breakdown on this thread.
Was it a USEF horse show with a USEF steward? Or was it an unrecognized horse show with a person who was maybe a ring steward of some sort? That might explain a steward who seemed to be so unfamiliar with the rules.
There could be a loss of forward momentum even if the horse didn’t go backwards. The path drawn on the diagram doesn’t tell us whether the horse continued with forward momentum between fences 1 and 2.
It kind of sounds like just misspeaking. Cleary two things happened that appeared to be disobediences. The stop is obviously one. Possibly something about the path between fences 1 and 2 was the other.
Also did the horse trot right up to fence 1 or possibly
Lose forward momentum before fence 1, taking the rail in the process? Possibly that was the first obedience.
All this is impossible to say without seeing the round.
