US eventing rule change proposals

[Willesdon]

@Libby2563

I understand what you’re saying and don’t entirely disagree. But at the same time, the vast majority of us are eventing for fun. As long as horse and rider are safe, who cares how “adequate” their scores are? And is a horse who scores 45 in dressage really safer over fences than one who scores 50?

Safe = adequate. One must ride ‘adequately’ to be ‘safe’ in eventing, even if only doing it for fun. A fall can be life-changing at the lowest levels too. The USEA has a duty to ensure competitors are as safe as reasonably possible. A good deal of statistical evidence now indicates where that cut off point is between ‘likely to do ok’ and ‘unlikely to do ok’.

So only as an example, (I can’t look up USEA data since it isn’t published, unlike BE) the stats might indicate 45 in dressage and 96% subsequently jump round without falling but 50 in dressage and 73% jump without falling. So make 45 the minimum score achieved to proceed in safely. Numbers are fairly unambiguous and seem objective. Imagine if we all had to pass a riding test in front of trained judges before being allowed to proceed … Oh, yes, dressage. But like any boundary, where it is placed and what happens to individuals close to it but on the wrong side will always cause debate and unhappiness. Tax levels, voting district boundaries, school exams…

The other thing is that such boundaries are not fixed. Times past, a 40 in dressage at Badminton was deemed quite respectable. Today, more than 30 probably puts you out of contention and sub-20 is getting more common. Riders have worked very hard to improve dressage, not least because they have found it helps performance overall.

[Libby2563]

@Willesdon

So only as an example, (I can’t look up USEA data since it isn’t published, unlike BE) the stats might indicate 45 in dressage and 96% subsequently jump round without falling but 50 in dressage and 73% jump without falling. So make 45 the minimum score achieved to proceed in safely.

If the stats truly indicate that, I am totally on board. I just don’t think I’ve ever seen data to support that. Do BE stats show such clear support for cut-offs with respect to dressage scores?

From the link @knic posted, it does seem the CR rule is based on data, which is great! (“This rule was originally proposed by the USEA Safety Committee after they reviewed performance data over the past five years. There was clear indication that horses performing at or above the Training level suffered exponentially more falls on cross-country after having 16 or more show jumping penalties. Similar rules exist in other countries including the UK.”)

[Jealoushe]

@evntr95

Jealoushe- why do you say good about lowering the MER dressage score from 50 to 45? Honestly wondering.

The recent review of the data was showing a connection between higher dressage scores and issues on XC.

I personally hope it will prevent people from upgrading to levels just because their horse will jump anything at speed. It’s a big problem in the area I event in. People are praised for it too. As long as you “get around” XC who cares if you have terrible dressage and SJ. That’s the mentality. So for me, I hope it makes the people whose aim is a 1* or 2* or even 3* pay attention to their training, and focus on becoming better trained rather than just getting around on pure boldness. The issues start when they then try and upgrade again and the holes in the training become more and more apparent. Thats when falls and accidents happen. This is just what I have observed over the last few years.

[Jealoushe]

@Libby2563

I am totally on board. I just don’t think I’ve ever seen data to support that. Do BE stats show such clear support for cut-offs with respect to dressage scores?

There have been a few podcasts that have discussed this a little bit, I will have to do some deep diving to try and find the discussions.

[Blugal]

@Libby2563

suffered exponentially more falls

I doubt it is “exponentially”.

I’m not against a 5 rail CR. There are a few times I think it might have made some difference in forcing people to realize they needed help. I just don’t want knee-jerk rules made.

Here, I think it’s possible it is a knee-jerk. The Safety Committee, to my knowledge, is not made up of safety experts or scientists. At least half are recognizable to me as coaches/riders. Could be it’s much more than that.

WRT dressage scores, it’s been shown that the leader after dressage has significantly more likelihood of falling on XC. Don’t forget, there are other factors than raw scores at play. This particular scenario could be because horse and rider spend lots of time perfecting dressage and don’t school XC enough. Or, they know they’re winning and want a fast clear rather than a safe clear.

[Willesdon]

I was looking for the specific data under discussion, rather than the annual Safety Report on the BE website, but ended up taking an hour or so to read the entire BE Rule Book. I have come to the thought that the 5 rail CR could be similar to the 2 minute napping rule, in being both safety and functional rules

As horses are running at set intervals, with confirmed times, then a horse knocking every show jump into the next county, necessitating time consuming jump reconstruction, delays the next competitor even when there is no practical point to the 5+ rider continuing, beyond the personal satisfaction of/ increasing risk to that individual. For the competition to run smoothly, they need to go.

Similarly, the napping rule is not just about a disobedience on xc but also the risk to the following pair, running at a set interval (every 2 mins at the lower levels), being obliged to overtake the napper or being held up. Neither fair to the other riders nor particularly safe. For the competition to run smoothly, the napper needs to go home.

Safety really needs to be seen as part of a larger picture, not just in terms of an individual competitor.

[Jealoushe]

@Blugal

This particular scenario could be because horse and rider spend lots of time perfecting dressage and don’t school XC enough. Or, they know they’re winning and want a fast clear rather than a safe clear.

Which once again boils down to rider responsibility…but its been seen riders aren’t responisble at times, and thus rules need to be made.

I wish, more emphasis on rider responsibility was in our daily lives in regards to this sport. It seems we still a bit in the - upgrade as fast as possible and get it done no matter what ages.

[Jealoushe]

This was an interesting episode, David O Connor talks about the rule changes a bit and his role with the FEI

David O’Connor joins the Christmas show to discuss all things FEI! EP 2.24

[ACMEeventing]

Late to the party, per usual.

First, the dressage score. If you look at how scores are generated, you know that a ‘7’ mover that demonstrates the directives of each movement as written will earn a ‘7’ for the movement. If some component of the directives is lacking (i.e. accuracy, bend, balance, etc) than it will be downgraded. That same ‘7’ mover who displays the directives with superiority will receive a higher mark.

So, a ‘6’ mover who demonstrates all movements and earns a string of 6’s for the entire test will still earn a 40 (and we all know the big time riders are NOT on 6 movers). My point is that if on THAT day, you and your horse can’t pull out a 45, maybe it just isn’t your day. You still get to compete but it doesn’t count as an MER. Maybe the horse is slightly NQR. But you can’t convince me that not counting a 50 as an MER is a catastrophe. Even those “but my horse hates dressage” is probably at least a ‘6’ mover and should be able to get a mix of 5’s and 6’s for the necessary score. And, usually, people that say their horse hates dressage probably needs to rethink their training methods.

Stadium. Again, a horse bowling through the rails or stopping probably doesn’t need to be going XC THAT day. We keep harping about horse welfare and making decisions that protect our partners, and here one has been made for us. Unlucky day? Windy? Cheap rails? Of course, all of that can happen at any particular show.

Once is random, twice is coincidence, three times is a trend.

These rules aren’t blasting the amateurs trying to move from Novice to Training on a downhill heinz 57, they are in place for those going over great big jumps with ridiculously technical lines. I think the heart of most objections is that decision-making has been taken away from the rider. But I can’t help but to think that in most cases it is for the good of the horse.