Ok…I can buy this. Your points are valid and correct. And that is what you should have originally said.
I believe that our positions are not mutually exclusive.
If the judges gave those 0’s to 4’s appropriately, the the final score would be as you showed…and thus low enough to miss making the previous 60% MFS qualification score, negating the need to raise the score.
You know, if you want to have a personal conversation with me, pm me. Just as you can have an opinion where you think the judges are perfect, I can have an opinion that there is a halo effect in judging, and in regards to this rule, there is the opposite effect that the unwashed masses aren’t good enough to be allowed to do a freestyle. Judging is hard. I get it.
And I do know how the GP and everything is judged. So, when the snark appeared, I elaborated. When four, five six movements are literally not done, which I watched, and the score is 58%, there is a huge problem. They should get 0’s, or at least a 1 or 2. That was clearly not done because I know the math. Even if the other movements were getting 10’s, and she was not Isabel, so she wasn’t, the math still doesn’t work. I will not continue your snark by asking for your qualifications.
pluvinel restated my position, again. All of the need to save the horses from being abused, or the judges having to watch incorrect freestyles, or whatever the reasoning is behind the rule change is moot if they judge the regular tests accurately.
And to be clear, none of this is a slam on any of the riders. It is hard, and all of that wonderful riding you have at home can completely disappear in the ring and you don’t know the horse you’re riding.
Oh, and a my bad note. I thought I was watching a livestream replay of the show that is going on now. In looking for it today, I realized it was from a year or so ago, so thus the confusion about the judges.
5 out of 18. Not “the same”.
You would prefer that USEF members who decide dressage rules NOT be members of USDF? 5/18 “leadership” roles. Hardly “equal”.
Have you ever been in the corporate life? Ever done any training in organizational behavior or group dynamics?
You got 30% of the DSC as high powered USDF players and decision makers. The rest of the DSC are USDF members who are active competitors or active in the circles of the USDF hierarchy.
One of the problems studied by organizational psychologists is the concept of conformity to the group.
Conformity allows a person to feel like they belong and that they are part of the greater community. It gives a sense of comfort and safety to belong to a group.
Bottom line, people don’t like to “make waves.”
This was best exemplified by the fable of the Emperor and his clothes. Everyone conformed until a child said, “But the emperor has no clothes.”
It is very hard to be the odd person who would step up and say they disagreed with the DSC or its other precursors in the USDF.
This is true when you have the current and former USDF presidents and a couple of pretty high level judges in the DSC… especially if you are an actively competing rider.
This “conformity behavior” has been extensively studied by people with much better credentials.
I taught HS. And I was the one who made waves. Never got on the wrong side of the Admins, however. Guess my experience varries. (And if you ask folks in my GMO, or those who know me in other situations, I still am that person. )
Great post and unfortunately describes the problem perfectly! Exactly my experience…
I did the math.
With 6 movements not done and earning 0’s,
if this rider had the rest of the test filled mostly with 6s and a few 7s, it would easily go up to 58%.
If all the other scores would be 10s, the final result would be 86,956%
So, who would you appoint in the organization?
Why is in inappropriate for a USEF or USDF committee member to express their opinion on Facebook? When I have been on committees, the rule has been you are not supposed to discuss specifics of what went on in meetings (ie. who said what, who voted which way). But there has been no prohibition about talking about your own views on something once it is public.
Many of us, on both sides of the argument have expressed views on facebook. This includes people who are just members with opinions, those who have a vote/role I.e. committee members, PM delegates, GM delegates, and those who may have some other official role in USDF/USDF (i.e. judge, TD, regional director). I have been quite glad to listen to and discuss with those committee members who have chosen to discuss publicly – whether I agree with them or not.
You did your math, and your math needs work. No way is 6 movements getting 0’s plus even everything else 6’s and a few 7’s a 58%.
33 movements plus the rider score, 12 with coefficients, so basically 47 possible scores. Say 7 movements with a 0, because minimally 2 are coefficients. 35 with a 6 and 5 with a 7 equals 240, divided by 460 equals 52%.
I don’t think there is any issue with them expressing their opinions at all. I think the issue was, and I did not see this, there were some pretty rude things said. When I tried to get a conversation going and asked questions, I was dismissed and called rude because they did not seem to understand.
I think it would be wonderful if all of the powers that be would actually engage and converse on Facebook. I think it would alleviate a lot of the issues. They could see issues that aren’t in their sphere, get feedback, and sound out ideas with the unwashed masses.
Go on International Dressage Riders on Facebook. Some of them are on there discussing a few things. Anyone can join. The last post was on the German team protesting the loss of the coefficients and the conversation back and forth.
[35 x 6 + 5 x 7 = 245/460 = 53,260%]
33mvts + 1 rider score = 34 + 12 with coefficients = 46
And then you are now deciding that 2 of the 0’s scores are those with coefficient.
46- (6mvts + 2 coeff) = 38 x all 7s because I decide so … 57,826%
Which is still not a good score, despite being sufficient… It is not satisfactory.
:rolleyes:
I’m truly sorry this whole thing is upsetting a lot of people but really, even you thought the 58% GP ride you saw was awful… You think judges are inflating the scores.
Imagine if the judges were really as tough as you would like them to be, and then think about your own overly inflated scores.
Don’t you find the be all and end all of facebook communication a bit deleterious?
There are USDF and USEF websites. There is email, which when used directly to board members, other officials, friends and competitors, can be extraordinarily effective. Facebook blather, not so much.
It seems that direct communication is more likely to ensure the participation of those people that are actually concerned, rather than those responding to a facebook feed that shows up via algorithm.
If you were in a position to make policy would you be reading every freaking facebook post?
I suppose it is off topic, but I am concerned that so many people are either unable or unwilling to research the detriments of facebook. Because of its convenience I think that many people do not do their due diligence and read the fine print… Those who communicate via facebook seem, mistakenly, to think that everyone else does so as well.
This is not the case, and participants are becoming fewer and fewer, for good reason.
Oh dear. You don’t know the rider score gets a coefficient? And you didn’t know the piaffe and one tempis were coefficient? I did clearly mention one whole p/p line, which includes the transitions, and the one tempi line were not done at all. If someone comes back in to argue points, I have to assume you know what a GP test looks like and how it’s scored. (If you don’t understand this, I suggest you not take part.)
So, is Canadian math different than American math?
So, because you decide, it’s 0’s and all 7’s now? Wow. So, if you’ve ever seen rides where the horse stops, or changes gaits repeatedly, hint, hint, the rest of the ride is not usually all 7’s.
I’m sorry you seem to be missing the point entirely. Let me make it as simple as I can, eh?
The committee raised the requirements to ride a freestyle under an extraordinary rule change, which requires that there be some harm if it is not changed. There was no harm. In fact, the recent letter says it’s causing harm. One of the things going around is the standards are too low, so they must be raised. So, if you go by that logic, all that is required is that they maintain the standard in the regular tests and the problem is solved. Do you get it?
So, the reason I brought this example is is because the judges complaining that people aren’t good enough to ride freestyles are inflating the scores where they shouldn’t be. If they don’t like to judge “bad” freestyles, then they need to do a more instructive job judging. The point was to show the hypocrisy.
And back to the whole point of the thread, and what is written out very well by CC earlier in the thread, there is no need to raise freestyle requirements if judges are doing their jobs in the regular tests.
They clearly see they did the extraordinary rule change illegally, and have proposed one to fix the harm they caused, which I think is a good sign.
Again, I suggest people keep writing them with the facts, and I think the personal stories about how it affects you are useful.
I think you have good points. I agree with direct communication, but I haven’t gotten a response back from a single person, and it seems few people have, so there’s not really much in the way of communication going.
I don’t suggest anyone should have to talk on Facebook, but I think it is a way to have some more casual back and forth conversation that might get things cleared up.
Oh. Well, it is a sad day when the PTB are beyond direct communication. I know they are busy, but that seems to be a “cop out” on their part.
Yes. I do… There are 11 mvts in the test that have a coefficient + 1 for the rider. = 12
And you didn’t know the piaffe and one tempis were coefficient? I did clearly mention one whole p/p line, which includes the transitions, and the one tempi line were not done at all. If someone comes back in to argue points, I have to assume you know what a GP test looks like and how it’s scored. (If you don’t understand this, I suggest you not take part.)
Yes, I do.
You’ve mentionned the first line.
P/P [4 mvts + 1]=5
1tempi [1mvt + 1] = 2
= 7
It makes 38.
So, is Canadian math different than American math?
We’re just more polite and have adopted the metric system.
So, because you decide, it’s 0’s and all 7’s now? Wow. So, if you’ve ever seen rides where the horse stops, or changes gaits repeatedly, hint, hint, the rest of the ride is not usually all 7’s.
Isn’t also rare to have all those 0s as well?
You suggested it yourself earlier.
And I’ve seen it happened, like it or not. More than once. Horses had metldown, regrouped and voilà.
I personally had a 4, 2, 1 and an 8, followed by 7s and 6s.
I’m sorry you seem to be missing the point entirely. Let me make it as simple as I can, eh?
The committee raised the requirements to ride a freestyle under an extraordinary rule change, which requires that there be some harm if it is not changed. There was no harm. In fact, the recent letter says it’s causing harm. One of the things going around is the standards are too low, so they must be raised. So, if you go by that logic, all that is required is that they maintain the standard in the regular tests and the problem is solved. Do you get it?
So, the reason I brought this example is is because the judges complaining that people aren’t good enough to ride freestyles are inflating the scores where they shouldn’t be. If they don’t like to judge “bad” freestyles, then they need to do a more instructive job judging. The point was to show the hypocrisy.
You presented an example of a ride with an inflated score. (which ended up still being a bad score)
You are saying scores are inflated where they shouldn’t be.
I say you should look at your scores too then because judges are not only inflating others scores.
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
