Jumper Scoring

[Rel6]

Interpretation 1: Horse has rail at fence 1, gets a little gate sour and has a greenie moment and stops at jump 2. Greenie backs up slowly, rider is confident they can represent and continue to finish on a positive rider but gets buzzed out. Steward was in error - should have been scored as 4 faults for the rail, 4 for the stop (plus any resultant time faults), and allowed to continue.

Interpretation 2: Horse has a rail at fence one, starts bolting side ways towards the gate, then stops at fence 2. Maybe rider asks for forward momentum and horse goes backwards. Even if the rider didn’t mean to, that could count as two refusals. Or the entire situation was bad enough the steward rings them out. Or the “has a rail” was more “crashed through the jump.”

A lot of people seem like they’re assuming some variation of interpretation 2. My guess is its something in the middle, but would also be curious to see video (although totally understand why someone would not be comfortable sharing!)

[MHM]

@Rel6

Or the entire situation was bad enough the steward rings them out.

The steward doesn’t ring anyone out. That is the judge’s decision.

And just crashing through a jump is not actually a cause for elimination, unless it involves a fall of either the horse or rider.

It is also completely the judge’s call whether a crash involves a refusal or an attempt to jump.

The steward may have been the intermediary who tried to (perhaps incorrectly) explain the judge’s decision to the exhibitor who asked about it.

But the judge is the one who makes the decision about elimination in the ring due to performance issues at any USEF horse show.

[Arzny]

Your first interpretation was correct. Horse tapped the first fence with a hind foot. The whole reason the steward was involved was that the rider was curious why they were rung out, and you cannot directly approach the judge.

[Rel6]

Sure, I mispoke on steward vs judge. But a judge does have discretion to eliminate a competitor and my point was that the “rail” could have been more than a tick of a hoof, and rather an overall picture of a horse and rider that needed to be rung out.

[MHM]

There are a lot of possibilities, and without seeing the video, it’s pure speculation to try to guess what actually happened. It would still be speculation after seeing the video, but with a little better information. Lol.

Plus it’s completely water under the bridge at this point anyway. The judge’s decision was final.

[trubandloki]

@MHM

Plus it’s completely water under the bridge at this point anyway. The judge’s decision was final.

It never hurts to try to understand what happened in life so it does not happen again.

[MHM]

@trubandloki

@MHM

Plus it’s completely water under the bridge at this point anyway. The judge’s decision was final.

It never hurts to try to understand what happened in life so it does not happen again.

It doesn’t hurt, but I don’t think there’s any way to know for sure from this discussion, given the available information.

Again, the video might be helpful to clarify what happened, but without that, it’s just guesswork for the moment.

[hoopoe]

I have not dug through the jumper rules, never lived them either.

First. A steward serves as a go between for an entrant communicating with a judge. Obtaining permission and facilitating.

Second. I wonder if there was a “danger to rider” judgement. Is there a rule allowing for stopping a rider perceived as being at risk? At what point did the clock start for resistance to jump/ delay start? When the horse resisted forward by skirting out to the gate or when it started backing?.

Personally I think horse and rider welfare came in to play here.

[Alterrain]

Agree, need to see video to know for sure, and maybe not even then. My first instincts are:

1. the “rail” was in fact a scary long 3 legged winger where the horse smashed through the jump, then stopped at the next jump, and the judge chose to use their discretion in terms of safety.

2. the “wiggle” was in fact, a cease in forward movement and/ or it turned away from the jump, so the refusal at the second jump was in fact the second refusal.

3. there is another reason we don’t even know about, did the horse have on an inappropriate martingale/ the rider wore a collarless shirt, carried a dressage whip, etc

[Arzny]

After further conversation with rider:

A refund was given for the class by show management, which further supports that it was an inappropriate elimination.

Unfortunately after some of the comments here, rider does not want video shared of her nice young horse having a green moment. I will say, eliminating for rider or horse “safety” in this instance would have been entirely inappropriate. At no point was it dangerous, just green imo.

[Rnichols]

@Alterrain

the “rail” was in fact a scary long 3 legged winger where the horse smashed through the jump, then stopped at the next jump, and the judge chose to use their discretion in terms of safety.

It’s been already said that this isn’t what happened. It was said that the horse tapped the first fence with his hind leg. A FAR cry from the dramatics that are being fantasized about here.

@Arzny totally understand the rider NOT wanting her video put up here for everyone with fingers and the ability to type on a keyboard to pick apart. I hope the rider has success and fun at the next outing

[MHM]

@Arzny

Unfortunately after some of the comments here, rider does not want video shared of her nice young horse having a green moment.

So the rider has watched the video and still does not know why she was eliminated?

[RAyers]

If in the backing for 5-6 seconds, at any point the horse took a step forward and then went back again, there is the second disobedience (JP196.4). Thus a horse can stop at a fence and step back. So long as they only go back that is 1 disobedience. If they back for an hour it is still 1 disobedience. However, if they back and the rider either makes the horse take one step forward and then backs again, there is a second disobedience.

Thus, the smart thing is once a horse stops to turn away going forward. Never even give the idea of representing. If a horse takes a step back, then forward, then back, then forward, you are eliminated even if the horse only stopped at the fence once.

As for the steward, I am finding many stewards who really don’t know the rules they way they are expected. Sorry for the miscommunication.

JP139 Disobediences

1. Refusal. Stopping in front of an obstacle to be jumped, whether or not the horse knocks it down or displaces it, is penalized as a disobedience. Stopping at an obstacle without knocking it down and without backing, followed immediately by jumping from a standstill, is not penalized. However, if the halt continues, or if the horse backs even a single step or circles to retake the course, a refusal is incurred.
2. Run-out. Evading or passing the obstacle to be jumped or the finish line or jumping an obstacle outside its limiting markers is penalized as a disobedience.
3. Resuming the Course. After a run-out or refusal the competitor must, before proceeding on course, re-jump the obstacle at which the disobedience occurred or be eliminated. If the flag, standard, wing, or obstacle has not been reset when the competitor is ready to jump, they must await the signal to start or be eliminated. (For Option Fences, see JP138.9)
4. Loss of Forward Movement. Halting or stepping backward after crossing the start line, (unless due to a refusal, run-out or an order from a judge due to unforeseen circumstances such as a fence being blown down), will be penalized as a disobedience. Loss of forward movement on banks will not be scored as a disobedience unless the horse takes a step backwards.

[fivestrideline]

People (myself included) tend to err on the side of the professional (aka the judge) in situations like this where it’s a game of he-said-she-said without any real data. And we have all seen the videos of someone gushing about a ride or questioning the judging, and then ride itself was terrifying. Not that this is what happened here, but the judge theoretically should know the rules better than anyone. Theoretically.

I would bet good money that there was a forward and back movement and that was the additional disobedience to the refusal. The refund itself doesn’t guarantee that the judge was wrong (it’s easier to refund a class fee than argue with a competitor or trainer for ages), but the steward confusing things certainly didn’t help.

Edited for tone.

[MHM]

@fivestrideline

The refund itself doesn’t guarantee that the judge was wrong (it’s easier to refund a class fee than argue with a competitor or trainer for ages), but the steward confusing things certainly didn’t help.

That thought definitely crossed my mind.

Hopefully it was a fluke green moment for the horse that won’t happen again.

[skydy]

Scribbler is not a judge.

[Scribbler]

@skydy

Scribbler is not a judge.

Of course I’m not. I said as much in my first post. I didn’t have the rules at hand. I missed that snip, had to skip back to see where it came from!

I have however watched way too many gong show epic fail jumper rounds with some combination of green horse or green rider or both. I’ve also seen enough people try to push through a horse in escalating melt down and come off and get hurt. If the horse is losing his mind at that new venue, as the OP said originally, that’s a good reason to just withdraw.

I am an increasingly risk averse older person that is less and less interested in cowboying through an event or exercise with a horse that’s losing the plot because I think it’s not long term useful.for building the horses confidence and can also escalate fast to rider Injury.

[Rel6]

If the video shows a single rail and a single refusal, the rider would have no further insight to their elimination from watching it.

[MHM]

Not if that’s all the video actually shows.

[trubandloki]

Sometimes it does not hurt to just answer the question given.

(Which some people did.)