[QUOTE=greysfordays;8742988]
Other question: Maya Nayyar did not sit the trot on exiting at the end of the last test. Am I incorrect in thinking that is a major fault and should have placed her below her the other three?[/QUOTE]
I was thinking that as well… It was a called for part of the test, yes? It should at least drop her one spot, I would think
[QUOTE=greysfordays;8742988]
Other question: Maya Nayyar did not sit the trot on exiting at the end of the last test. Am I incorrect in thinking that is a major fault and should have placed her below her the other three?[/QUOTE]
Ahh, yeah!. So I guess to win in the Hunterdon you don’t have to actually complete the test??? I don’t think it would be poor sportsmanship to pitch a fit over that. This is the kind of thing that makes me insane. This sport is really, really f’d up at times.
I also would have thought that not sitting the trot out would have been considered a major fault.
Same regarding Maya Nayar. Her test was exquisite, but she didn’t execute the last element. Not sure how that wins…
I would challenge that. I mean I can’t even; it’s all on tape. It’s not poor sportsmanship to require the winner to execute the test is it?
Who are the judges?
[QUOTE=capalypinto;8743007]
Who are the judges?[/QUOTE]
Frank Madden and Ken Smith.
Seems there may be a conflict of interest within the judging panel
Frank Madden and I didn’t see who the other was. I think an interview with both of them would be appropriate. All the kids watching at home, not to mention the competitors, deserve an explanation. It’s ironic that the announcers were criticizing people for relaxing their reins on the way out as this is the eq, not the hunters. What a joke! At least you have to find all the fences in a hunter class to win.
At the very least judges should not be judging their own students.
[QUOTE=capalypinto;8743022]
At the very least judges should not be judging their own students.[/QUOTE]
I don’t believe any of the judges’ students did the hunterdon. The judges were also different in the hunters
[QUOTE=ohnoO;8742981]
Well, it used to be a rule. I don’t know if it was a AHSA/USEF rule or a Medal/Maclay rule.
Yes the did switch horses, but they rejumped the same course they had just jumped on their own horse. IIRC[/QUOTE]
You are thinking of USEF rule EQ104 Judging
4. No rider can be asked to perform a test on another horse before he has performed the same test on his own.
The test was to canter directly to jump 3, jump 4, counter counter 5, jump 6, jump 1 and canter a long approach to the pink flowers (the last jump) and sit trot. I got a chance to go to the press conference and hear the judges speak. They said they were clear about the last jump being executed on a long approach. The first rider had trouble with the counter canter. The second and third rider both executed roll back turns to the final jump, and the last rider executed the long approach but walked out. They explained that the order stayed the same because nobody executed the test without fault, and the leader won round 1 & 2 and had a sizable lead prior to the test. I hope this clarifies the test. I was not able to watch the streaming, so I am not sure if the test was announced on it or not.
[QUOTE=Stacia K. Madden;8743271]
The test was to canter directly to jump 3, jump 4, counter counter 5, jump 6, jump 1 and canter a long approach to the pink flowers (the last jump) and sit trot. I got a chance to go to the press conference and hear the judges speak. They said they were clear about the last jump being executed on a long approach. The first rider had trouble with the counter canter. The second and third rider both executed roll back turns to the final jump, and the last rider executed the long approach but walked out. They explained that the order stayed the same because nobody executed the test without fault, and the leader won round 1 & 2 and had a sizable lead prior to the test. I hope this clarifies the test. I was not able to watch the streaming, so I am not sure if the test was announced on it or not.[/QUOTE]
Thank you for coming on. If you feel comfortable discussing, didn’t the first rider get a flying change instead of landing the counter canter? The test was read out several times on the streaming, and the announcers remarked on the trot not being executed. I think the concern is that an element of the test was left out of the winner’s ride.
The first rider actually landed on the counter lead and the horse swapped to the correct lead almost immediately. She then had to ask for the flying change to perform the counter canter test.
It was a good test - riders had to listen to it then go warm up on their own on a strange horse. They all rode beautifully and deserve congratulations!
No one is saying anyone didn’t ride beautifully:) The question is that an element was left out from the winner’s ride and that’s quite confusing to the audience if it beat a perhaps flawed but complete ride. The commentators remarked on it as well. These are the people setting an example to others.
[QUOTE=Stacia K. Madden;8743271]
The test was to canter directly to jump 3, jump 4, counter counter 5, jump 6, jump 1 and canter a long approach to the pink flowers (the last jump) and sit trot. I got a chance to go to the press conference and hear the judges speak. They said they were clear about the last jump being executed on a long approach. The first rider had trouble with the counter canter. The second and third rider both executed roll back turns to the final jump, and the last rider executed the long approach but walked out. They explained that the order stayed the same because nobody executed the test without fault, and the leader won round 1 & 2 and had a sizable lead prior to the test. I hope this clarifies the test. I was not able to watch the streaming, so I am not sure if the test was announced on it or not.[/QUOTE]
Ahhhh! That makes so much sense, thank you for clarifying. I had not listened carefully about the approach to the last jump when the test was announced but I could see that being a similar fault to not trotting before exiting the ring. Particularly in light of the point spread. Amazing what all four young ladies were able to do on unfamiliar horses. Congrats to all of them!
[QUOTE=sixteenhands;8743034]
You are thinking of USEF rule EQ104 Judging
4. No rider can be asked to perform a test on another horse before he has performed the same test on his own.[/QUOTE]
Thank you, sixteenhands, at my age you have to check your memory sometime!
I went back and read the specs for the class and it does say (I’m paraphrasing) that after the 4-10 top riders are determined they will change horses (in the ring, which they didn’t do) and jump a third course designated by the judges using components from the first two courses. So I guess it supersedes the USEF rule.
It also states that any deviation from this rule has to be approved by the USHJA. So I guess they got approval to switch horses outside the ring.
It’s their equitation class, I guess they can do what they want.
It was a good class. Great horses!
It seems so odd to me that they would get such high test scores if they “didn’t complete the test”. Emma’s test score was an 85 and Taylor’s was a 82 I believe? They were only announced at the presentation. Maya’s was even higher than that.
I’m interested to go back and watch the entire top 20 again. I’m not understanding how at least one, and I thought two, swaps could get a score of a 90.
Don’t think I’ve ever seen such enthusiastic and energetic horses in a hunter class! Awesome to see!
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
