I just talked to my rep, who talked to the company. It is under review, and they are suggesting we not use them at shows for now.
Per Bridle2Fit, this style is under review, so TBD?
Worst rule change ever. Actively bad for horse welfare, actively bad for amateurs pocketbooks, rolled out with insufficient thought and warning. I already emailed USDF, for whatever that’s worth.
What about where the cheek pieces connect to the bit? That’s what I’m thinking about. Anyway, I’m still looking for the old threads and reading other studies on the topic.
I did let her know that Fairfax has all kinds of research behind them proving that thier bridle design is kinder and more horse-friendly than the standard design but she wasn’t budging. She even noted that the padding over the poll area (which is the part that is called out in the rule wording) is uniform but the little bolsters that provide extra cushioning over those bony protrusions below the ears is what seemed to cause confusion as she wasn’t really sure what the decision should be so she decided to disallow it.
Since she took photos and sent them somewhere I will go find her tomorrow and ask if she’s heard back and see if more logical thinking prevails.
I do not believe buying a brand new bridle the night before a championship class and showing in it before it’s had a chance to be adequately broken in is a win for the comfort of the horse IMHO.
Not much different from a full cheek with keepers.
So, to add to the discussion (because clearly I have a dog in this hunt)…in the discussion over my stupid crownpiece, the TD brought around a Fairfax crownpiece and showed it to the folks in my barn that were admiring my crown piece generated yellow card…and told us it would be 100 percent illegal for the same reason my Waldhausen Gen X was illegal…it was not “one continuous piece of leather”…at which time I showed them one of my student’s MacRider bridles that was adjustable at the top (behind the ears). It was an older one, not padded. Technically, it was not one continuous piece of leather…it had buckles up there. But she said it WAS legal because it wasn’t padded. I was like, but, girl…my stupid crownpiece is not padded (it kind of looks padded, but it isn’t it’s just shaped that way)…and I was just eliminated for it. So she was like, yeah, but it is just different. I’m sorry, what? In the end I left it alone and went out and bought myself a new ill fitting $500 double there at the show. And seethed. Obviously, I am still pissed about it. I mean, come on. We are splitting hairs here. It is not like we are adding tacks to our crown pieces and trying to smuggle them in through TSA security in order to strangle airline pilots carrying orphaned children. We are talking about the padding on the straps of a bridle. And even THEN can we please not make vague and unclear rules right before regionals? And leave the competitors to stumble across these new updated mid year vague and amazingly stupid rules?
I just snort-laughed. Again, I’m with you and am so sorry this happened at a show!
USDF/EF- I wonder why our entries aren’t filling and there aren’t many new people getting into our sport? You know what will really help- make spur of the moment inane rule changes in the middle of regional championships (you know where there are a ton of people who support the sport)
This thread was making me nervous, I have a competition next weekend. Last night I took a picture of my crown piece and emailed it to USEF. This morning, I had a confirmation in my email that my crown piece was indeed still legal.
This seems like a much better way to get a definitive answer than speculation on an Internet bulletin board.
In case anyone was wondering, the Schockemohle Equitus Alpha anatomical crown piece is just fine
Yes and no. Everyone should definitely do this, but it’s not uncommon for people to get different answers, or for TDs to disagree.
I also got a response from UDSF this morning, saying the Bridle2Fit HP-5 appears legal but I should run it by the TD when I arrive at the show to be sure.
I wish I could say that it surprises me that the USEF instituted a rule change in the middle of regional championships. Especially since this rule went effective October 1st. So more than half the regions had already had their championships. So not even running regionals under the same set of rules for all regions. But it doesn’t surprise me. At all.
This is not a major safety issue that requires an immediate change. It is a minor tack rule change that easily could have waited for a December 1 effective date, like every other rule change usually has.
It does have a lever arm in the literal sense, but because of the way the reins act on it, the lever isn’t actually “leveraged”.
Think of it like you’ve got a big rock you need to lift so you go get a big ol crowbar and stick it under the rock. The crowbar helps stabilize the rock to keep it from wobbling back and forth, and then you grab hold of the rock (NOT the crowbar) and lift the rock. Did you actually use the lever to increase your lifting ability? No. It may have helped you get hold of the rock, but it didn’t actually apply, let alone amplify, the force you exerted on the rock to lift it.
I would hope that something in writing directly from USEF would hold presedence over differing opinions from TDs.
According to GR151, USEF has the right to review any decisions made by competition officials or competition management:
“Any question not covered by the rules of the Federation shall be decided by the Directors of the competition at which it arises. Such decisions by a Show Committee or Competition Management may be reviewable by the Federation. Show Committees and Competition Management are cautioned not to make use of the authority here granted unless completely certain that the Book does not cover the points in question.”
My interpretation of this would be that USEF has final say.
One would think so, but the response cited above shows them to be spineless wafflers who won’t stand by their own decisions.
I know someone who got flagged for their Antares precision bridle before their dressage test over the weekend, so it seems thats also included as well. Just so ridiculous
@albytb - FYI the Antares Precision bridle has been on the “no” list for quite a while. It’s called out as a different issue than the padding.
@eponacelt…can you find the written verbiage about the “one continuous piece of leather” new ruling that was added Oct.1? I am writing it up in an appeal for my own stupid crownpiece that I was eliminated for on OCTOBER THE 4TH. I mean, really. I can’t find those specific words anywhere.
Here’s the link to the rules. It’s on page 29 under Equipment, Section 3 - Bridle. I attached a screenshot and you can see the change in red.
https://www.usef.org/forms-pubs/F3p8pgrWgAo/dr-dressage-division
What do they say is the reason these bridles are not allowed? Why would the extended poll harm a horse? A horse with a sensitive poll might have pain while wearing a traditional crown piece.
crazy the antares isn’t legal, almost bought one of those too.
I heard back from Lauren Moore at USEF and she’s asked for a photo of the Fairfax crownpiece. I’ll take and send those tomorrow and update when I know more.
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
