In case there are any Canadian eventers here reading and getting ideas, larking is prohibited in EC competitions!
1 Like
Yes, it is âfrowned uponâ by many (not me) but there is no rule against it. That is why I said âcheck with the GJ/TDâ. I would like to see it more actively supported.
2 Likes
It seems larking would fall victim to the same argument that contributes to limiting official options on course. If jump judges have challenges with marked options I imagine you would get a lot of the same confusion when a competitor starts jumping random fences before/after the marked fences. Some events also cross flags on higher level options once the division finishes which limits an opportunity to school during your round.
2 Likes
I seem to remember that you used to be allowed to jump a flagged jump AT your level or below but not an unflagged jump or a jump above your level. When did that change or do I have heat stroke and it was never a thing?
There are some officials who have interpreted it that way, but that was never, AFAIK, in the rules.
In the 80s the rule was that you could NOT jump ANY obstacle that was not on your course. Sometime in the late 80s or early 90s that rule was removed. (And not replaced by any explicit wording about jumping obstacles ânot on your courseâ.)
There were SOME officials who insisted that jumping ANY obstacle not on you course was inherenty dangerous.
Other officials thought that jumping something lower was OK, but jumping anything unflagged, or at a higher level, was inheently dangerous.
But it was always within the officialsâ discertion in determining what is âdangerou ridingâ, not explicitly within the rules.
As an offiical, if a rider jumps an obstacle with people on or next to it (spectators or riders walking the course), I would DEFINITELY consider it âdangerousâ. But if there is no one nearby it isnât, to me, automatically âdangerousâ.
You would think so, but I would more often get questions âAre they allowed to do that?â than âThey are off courseâ.
Yes, the organizer can choose to cross the flags (though I wish they would not), which would limit your ability to school them. More often, in my experience, they just take the flags down.
One of the problems with larking is that you wonât know until youâre on course if there is anyone on, near, or behind the âoff courseâ jump you intend to jump. Spectators often rely on competitors taking the same path as one another when they are moving about the course.
3 Likes
Yes. You ned to be prepared to switch to âplan Bâ if there are people where you planned to âschoolâ.
One people have to remember is the cost to the host facility. Any clue how much a decent XC jump costs? anywhere from $1K -$5K. If people want to see this sport continue and want improvements to courses/footing, jumps etc, then theyâre going to have to help support them - and by that I just donât mean by showing up to compete. If your favorite local event has sponsorship opportunities - help sponsor - chip in and have your barn or a group sponsor a jump, volunteer lunches, prizes etc. I can promise you any amount is greatly appreciated by competition venues.
3 Likes
Yes, a decent jump usually costs hundreds of dollars in materials (itâs best to use treated wood and hard-wearing, heavy-duty hardware), plus the labour to build.
Iâm sure many organizers and course builders would appreciate an offer for $1,500 and a dayâs labour to help build a jump.
Water complexes are tens of thousands of dollars to build, between the liner, various types of rock and dust, pre-excavation, packing, and any banks built in.
Existing jumps require maintenance and/or complete replacement (and disposal!) at end-of-life.
In that context, an entry fee of $300 suddenly seems small.
5 Likes
The option/no option debate is stuck on linear thinking. For lower levels, the purpose/reason for the option is to prevent boredom and keep interest for horse/rider combinations who have mastery of the level but for a variety of reasons do not want to or for whom it is not feasible to move up. We do risk loosing this segment of participants. And the âmove upâ mentality is not safe/feasible for everyone and the suggestion to just go cross county schooling is just not feasible for everyone.
In contrast to the upper levels where the option is easier but more time consuming, for lower levels the option should be harder and more time consuming. So, the course would be built to standard. Then there would be an optional additional, harder fence (perhaps a âBâ element on a bending line) that would actually take more time. That would discourage people from trying it I they were new to the level.
This doesnât have to be an additional expense! Just design the normal course with one less jump and use that for the option. Or, the option can be with a permanent feature, such as the ability to choose a larger bank or larger ditch (cost=0).
I fence judge. Just put an experienced fence judge at the option fence. It is not that difficult. The itâs too hard for fence judges argument sounds flat because the upper levels have options and somehow the fence judges can manage.
1 Like
I find it quite counterintuitive to focus on increasing the technicality of XC rather than of the other phases, or to increase the technical difficulty of XC relative to the other phases. At both BN and N, horses are not asked for anything more demanding than a 20 meter circle in the dressage test. At BN, the show jumping course can only include one combination; at N, it can include two. Oxers are only allowed as the âinâ of a combination. âSimple technical questionsâ are introduced in training level show jumping courses. It just doesnât seem consistent to incorporate skinny fences and combinations on shorter strides (both things that have been discussed in this thread) in the XC course when the specifications in the other phases do not build and test those skills.
Note: Iâm not saying that BN and N should have harder dressage tests and show jumping courses, because I think that they are introductory levels â their purpose is to develop skills. But it really doesnât make sense to me to make XC more technical than the other phases at the lowest levels of the sport.
3 Likes
Not only are todayâs lower levels courses more technical than before, but all course must now be maximum difficulty for the level; no more move up courses. This is to ensure that everyone who qualifies for the AECs is prepared for the AECs.
The lower levels, in which most USEA members compete in, attempt to meet the needs of:
- Green horses
- Green riders
- Riders who are not green on horses who are not green, and who want to participate but not move up.
These three groups have conflicting needs.
Options could be a way to meet everyoneâs needs in this regard. People who are up for a challenge can choose the harder option; all others can skip it.
As for the AECs: USEA could issue a guideline that says donât enter the AECs unless you are confidently and competently jumping all the harder options on your courses.
Or, another approach to ensuring that participants are ready for the AECs could be to make the option easier and significantly more time consuming; that way, riders who take the easy option would likely get time penalties and not place high enough to qualify for the AECs.
1 Like
Two issues there. 1) At the speeds at starter and BN, at least, it would require a LOT of space to make the options lead to time penalties in most cases. And riders would be tempted to make up the time in other parts of the course. 2) Riders going at very different paces on course can lead to overtaking (which can happen now when there are disobediences, of course), which is not ideal for riders, officials, or jump judges.
It is very hard to satisfy everyone; I certainly agree with that.
1 Like
But the entire discussion started not as a âscores are too lowâ or âcourses are too easyâ but as âhey, thereâs a subset of people who desire to jump more technical questions but donât want to jump biggerâ.
And as one who started this convo, Iâve never envisioned this having a place in recognized competition per se - rather being its own series or similar to the CCE type competitions. A BN or N course, but with a skinny, or a jump in water. A down bank, a few strides to an inviting fence - or hell, a down bank to a skinny. Just - at small sizes. These are all questions Iâve schooled on my horse going N, but I am also lucky enough to live in Ocala, and even so, I think âwow a full course like this at my height would be a BLAST.â
BN and N are intros to the sport for many, sure, but thereâs that third subset that this is aimed at - to experience something they might not ever if they donât aspire to (or never have the horse, money, health, you name it) to ride at an UL.
1 Like
I hear that. I guess my response is that the skills to compete over more technical XC courses should be built and demonstrated in more technical dressage and SJ phases, at least within the sport of eventing.
I agree that there could be other avenues for providing a more technical XC experience outside of the progression of levels and skills in eventing. I remember seeing the CCE founders writing whether not having a dressage phase made the new sport less safe:
For some, the absence of dressage will be very appealing. Others will make a specious argument about cross-country being dangerous without dressage. What they should be saying is that cross-country can be dangerous without trainingâand they would be correct.
Impressive movement, flawless submission, and a stunning appearance are not needed in CCE, nor will those qualities improve safety. Dressage, or training, when translated from French, is required in CCE. Control, adjustability and responsiveness all come from dressage training. Training improves jumping and makes it safer, and any serious show jumper will attest to that. CCE is no different.
They have clearly given thought to what will make their sport safe and educational, and what training challenges and skill progression it offers. I think it sounds interesting and fun â I have nothing against the idea that it â or something like it â might offer something to riders who feel like they arenât appropriately challenged by the lower levels of eventing but arenât interested in moving up. But I also think itâs important that the entire set of rules for the sport have been designed with a logic and set of rules and scoring system that are different from eventing and therefore there are different risks and benefits to more technical courses at lower levels in that sport than there are of just making the XC courses at the lower levels of USEA events more technical.
(I also think sports like working equitation provide technical challenges without introducing big jumps, though of course they are very different than eventing or cross country riding. I think itâs a good thing that there are lots of horse sports out there with different challenges that appeal to different horse and rider combinations!)
3 Likes
I think that misses the point.
If you want more challenge, or to prepare to move up:
- For the dressage phase you can go to (recognized or unrecognized) dressge shows, and ride a higher level test. (or just ride a higher level test at home with your instructor)
- For the show jumping phase you can go to (recognized or unrecognized) jumper shows, and ride bigger classes. (or just ride bigger courses at home with your instructor)
- For the cross country phase you can do- WHAT?
It has nothing to do with changing the level of difficulty of the cross country course AT the competition.
5 Likes
Options discussed so far have been bigger fences and narrower fences. Considering the premise is that people donât wish to move up, bigger options seem inappropriate. A narrow option sounds like a good school. The biggest problem with increasing technicality is that it is often done with stride length at the upper levels. If you show up at an advanced, your 15h better be able to open and your 17.2h better be able to collect. At BN a 14.2 Haflinger may be in a division with a 17h OTTB. It is not possible to design a 2 or 3 stride distance that would be safe for both.
Not necesarily.
At the lower level, a mild corner is often an option to a table (or may be on the next -level-up course, at the lower level height.) Also a ditch as an option for a log, A jump out of water as an option, or supplement (aka âlarkingâ) to a simple water crossing. A bank down as an option, or supplement to a bank up. Etc.
Well, most of this discussion has focused on increasing the difficulty of the course at competitions. Which seems misplaced.
For cross country â you can school. I realize that not everyone has easy access to schooling facilities, especially to facilities with lots of different fences at the lower levels. But I think that is the answer that obviously corresponds to the steps you endorse for dressage and SJ. Yes, it requires hauling for most people, but so does competing.
As for how to school more varied jumps â you can, when schooling, jump fences that match the specifications of different levels. You create combinations by adding a SJ fence before or after an XC fence. And you should try to introduce new concepts for the first time when schooling as opposed to competing.
Other options include riding in XC derbies and entering clinics with clinicians who focus on more technical questions (Lucinda Green would be a good choice). Again, I know that not everyone has access to these opportunities, but they are some of the things Iâd look for. But they do not seem to have been the point of this thread, which was explicitly focusing on people who do not want to move up, and on proposing ways for increasing the technicality of competition courses 
1 Like
