SJ rules question- rider pulling up because a fence on course was not numbered

[Duramax]

Weird situation and not sure about the rule:

Unrecognized show. First rider of the day on the course was coming to the last fence on their SJ course when they noticed that it had no number (turns out that the number had fallen over). Rider pulled up and told judge that it did not have a number. 10 minutes of discussion followed that involved the judge and TD. Final decision was that the rider was eliminated. Had this been a recognized show, what would the official ruling have been in that situation? .

[Thoroughbred_in_Colo]

I don’t know the rule, but that seems like a ridiculous overreaction by the rider. I mean, come on… it’s the last fence. Just jump it.

[Duramax]

[QUOTE=Thoroughbred in Color;7814081]
I don’t know the rule, but that seems like a ridiculous overreaction by the rider. I mean, come on… it’s the last fence. Just jump it.[/QUOTE]

Very helpful!

Keeping in mind that there’s a rule in the “Deviations From Course” section of the rulebook that says “jumping an obstacle which does not form part of the course” is cause for elimination.

Wasn’t looking for opinion whether rider was right or wrong, am looking for the rule that would address it.

[3dazey]

I would very seriously doubt there is any more detailed rule than the one you quoted. There was likely a course map that noted all of the obstacles to be jumped, and the rider likely had an opportunity to walk said course when the offending number was not blown over. So that jump was absolutely a part of the course, whether the number fell over or not, and thus the decision to eliminate the rider was probably the only decision that could have been made. A hard lesson to learn, of course.

[Highflyer]

This would be my guess as well. It happens quite a bit (things blowing over). Generally if there is a last minute change to the showjumping course they will remove the extra fence altogether or put a pole across it to make it unjumpable.

[QUOTE=3dazey;7814135]
I would very seriously doubt there is any more detailed rule than the one you quoted. There was likely a course map that noted all of the obstacles to be jumped, and the rider likely had an opportunity to walk said course when the offending number was not blown over. So that jump was absolutely a part of the course, whether the number fell over or not, and thus the decision to eliminate the rider was probably the only decision that could have been made. A hard lesson to learn, of course.[/QUOTE]

[fooler]

Dealt with this several years ago as a TD. The PGJ agreed with my response in that the rider is responsible for reviewing and walking both the XC and SJ courses. The organizer plus the officials must make certain course maps are available for both XC and SJ plus have both open for the competitors to walk.
Edited to say - there is no specific rule for this situation as the rule book would be enormous if a rule was written for every possible situation.
First information noted in the Rule Book:
[B]EV101 Introduction

1. GENERAL. An Eventing Competition includes one or more tests from the following branches of equitation: dressage, cross-country and jumping. The Federation and the USEA recognize three types of Eventing Competitions: Tests (Individual or Combined), Horse Trials, and Three-Day Events.
2. RESPONSIBILITY. A competitor is ultimately responsible for knowing these rules and complying with them. The appointment of a steward or official, whether or not provided for in these rules, does not absolve the competitor from such responsibility.
3. CIRCUMSTANCES NOT COVERED IN THESE RULES.
   a. For any circumstances not specifically covered in these rules, reference should be made to one of the following publications of the FEI:
4. Rules for Eventing
5. Rules for Dressage Events
6. Rules for Jumping Events
   b. Every eventuality cannot be provided for in these rules. In any unforeseen or exceptional circumstances it is the duty of the Ground Jury to make a decision in a sporting spirit, and to approach as nearly as possible the intention of these rules.[/B]

As long as the competitor had both course maps plus an opportunity to walk the courses - whether he/she actually did walk - then the penalty stands.
In my situation the competitor was charged with a technical refusal. The rider was “counting” the fences, rode past a fence with the number blown down and when they saw the next fence understood they missed one. So they circled back in order to take the fences in order.
The fence numbers and some decorations were being blown down thanks to a major weather front which included strong, steady winds.

[JP60]

I’m with Color in the respect that if one walks the course (x times) and the number is there and then on the actual run the number is not there, but the jump is still in place (with red and white markings?) then you jump it and protest an opposite ruling. The other thought is that if they made a last minute change to the course it would either be on the course map or the stadium steward would be telling riders that a jump was removed.

[Janet]

First, looking at the rules, there is a requirement that each fence have red and white flags, but there is no stated requirement that each fence have a visible number. The only place a number is required in on the course map.

Second, there is a provision in the rules (EV 152.9.c) for a rider to stop on course if the rider thinks a jump is “incorrectly built” (e.g., wrong dimensions), or for “unforseen circumstances”. Time is stopped, and the fence is checked. If the fence is wrong, it is corrected, or if the judge agrees that the “unforseen circumstances” justify a time out, and the rider continues with no penalty. If the fence is correct, or if the judge does not agree that the “unforseen circumstances” justify a timeout, the rider is penalized with a refusal, and an additional 6 seconds, and continues the course.

If I were the judge (or the TD) in the situation described, I would probably treat the number falling over as “unforseen circumstances” that did not justify a timeout. I would have allowed the rider to continue over the last fence, with one refusal and an additional 6 seconds.

[Frivian]

Did the rider stop, leave the ring, and then say the jump wasn’t numbered? Or did they stop, yell over to the judge, and possibly could have continued with the jump had the judge given the okay? If it was the first situation, I agree with eliminating the rider. If the latter, then I agree with Janet.

[Duramax]

Latter. Pulled up to a stop near fence, yelled to inform judge and get clarification as to what she was supposed to do next. (Sidenote, judge chastised rider for not having walked the course. Sigh. Rider walked it twice. Kudos to her for noticing such a small detail as she was jumping prelim sized show jumps.) Did not leave arena until almost 10 min later after much discussion amongst judge and TD who were still very wishy-washy on official rules.

[Duramax]

Thanks Janet!

[Jealoushe]

[QUOTE=Duramax;7814343]
Latter. Pulled up to a stop near fence, yelled to inform judge and get clarification as to what she was supposed to do next. (Sidenote, judge chastised rider for not having walked the course. Sigh. Rider walked it twice. Kudos to her for noticing such a small detail as she was jumping prelim sized show jumps.) Did not leave arena until almost 10 min later after much discussion amongst judge and TD who were still very wishy-washy on official rules.[/QUOTE]

Sounds like both parties over reacted.

[fooler]

[QUOTE=Janet;7814274]
First, looking at the rules, there is a requirement that each fence have red and white flags, but there is no stated requirement that each fence have a visible number. The only place a number is required in on the course map.

Second, there is a provision in the rules (EV 152.9.c) for a rider to stop on course if the rider thinks a jump is “incorrectly built” (e.g., wrong dimensions), or for “unforseen circumstances”. Time is stopped, and the fence is checked. If the fence is wrong, it is corrected, or if the judge agrees that the “unforseen circumstances” justify a time out, and the rider continues with no penalty. If the fence is correct, or if the judge does not agree that the “unforseen circumstances” justify a timeout, the rider is penalized with a refusal, and an additional 6 seconds, and continues the course.

If I were the judge (or the TD) in the situation described, I would probably treat the number falling over as “unforseen circumstances” that did not justify a timeout. I would have allowed the rider to continue over the last fence, with one refusal and an additional 6 seconds.[/QUOTE]

In my example the competitor asked for the penalty to be overturned using the same rule (EV 152.9.c) Janet noted above. Again using Janet’s post, there is no requirement for a number on each SJ fence.
Which means the fence in both situations was properly built, period. And as Janet stated, the competitor should be awarded with a technical refusal plus 6 seconds.
Competitors should also be aware of rule EV150.2.d:
d. If a competitor jumps an obstacle correctly which has been improperly rebuilt, he incurs no penalty; but if he knocks down this obstacle he will be penalized.
This rule gives the competitor the option to jump the fence as is. Whether the number is face down, has been turned over or is missing completely - with no penalty provided it is negotiated cleanly AND in proper sequence. The competitor can then notify the judge and/or steward of their concerns about the fence once their round is complete.

[shea_smom]

Raise of hands… Who knew, beside maybe Janet, that numbers were not required. I’ve been competing since 1978 AND I read the rule books, but did not know this.

[kcmel]

[QUOTE=Jealoushe;7814422]
Sounds like both parties over reacted.[/QUOTE]

I agree. It was a schooling show. I have not been eliminated when my horse hopped out of the dressage ring at a starter trial. It is suppose to be a positive experience.

[bambam]

Elimination seems unnecessarily harsh even if it is permitted (not required) under the rules, especially for an unrecognized

[merrygoround]

It would have seemed reasonable to have given her one refusal, and allow her to carry on. But since they too were confused, and wasted time, they seem to have forgotten to do so, and simply eliminated her.

As it was a schooling show, it wasn’t worth contesting.

[Hilary]

Could she have been E’d for ‘outside assistance’? One interpretation was she was asking which fence was next. And that is cause for elimination.

It does sound like everyone over-reacted but numbers blow over all the time and next time, she will know to jump the fence.

It’s a good reason to go to the occasional jumper show where there are no numbers - I got a big reality check the first time I did that and realized how reliant I am on the numbers. Now I am better at knowing my course based on what the fences look like, not reading the numbers.

[Darkwave]

[QUOTE=shea’smom;7814687]
Raise of hands… Who knew, beside maybe Janet, that numbers were not required. I’ve been competing since 1978 AND I read the rule books, but did not know this.[/QUOTE]

Aside from a visitor from hunter-jumper land. Way back when, I was showing in a junior jumper course that had two verticals side by side. I was first to go, and had walked the course (jump crew was still finishing up when we walked).

I knew from walking the course that I was supposed to jump the right vertical first, and then the left later in the course. But when I came around the turn, the numbers for the two were swapped. So…I jumped the vertical to the left, with the correct number. And was eliminated for being off course.

I then pointed the issue out to a steward, and after some discussion, was told that the jump numbers were decorations only.

I’m guessing it’s similar in the eventing world for the show jumping phase.

[bornfreenowexpensive]

Jump numbers are not what matters…course map is. I have jumped courses were the numbers blew down. Jumped a couple xc where the number and flag had been knocked off too. I think the issue of the flag being knocked off is a bigger one than the number. I think I personally would have jumped the jump and finished my course and THEN mentioned the number was down.