So I didn’t get to watch the whole class but I did pull off the side of the road to watch the testing rounds. Not sure where I am with the final result - I keep telling myself I’m not watching from the judge’s position.
Congratulations to all who made it and jumped around today. That’s an accomplishment in itself for you to be proud of for a lifetime.
I’m so glad I’m not the only lunatic who does this.
I’ve also found myself super grateful for modern technology when I’ve had friends or local riders go off at a time where I had to be out of the house. I’ve watched more than one trip standing in the middle of a mown hayfield, where I was out doing trot sets until my phone alarm went off and told me it was time to dismount and turn on USEF Network. My horse deserves a Best Horse award for putting up with my nonsense this time of year. (This will be the first year we haven’t ridden the test the next day… he retired, so now he’ll judge the juniors when they try it.)
That there was typically just one – I think it was Diane who asked him how many they typically had braided and ready to go. He said, IIRC, usually just one if they needed or someone else did.
I hope he finds time or gets invites to do more commentary; he was great!
You know, when Jordan got robbed a couple years ago, the judges gave some excuse about how far ahead Emma was in the standings, that her mistakes didn’t drop her down any further.
We will probably get some version of the same explanation this year, though I don’t know how they can explain away the retest when the results were pretty clear.
Maybe to avoid speculation like this, the Medal and the Maclay should have scores posted after each round like the WIHS and USET.
Maybe if they have to make scores public, then judges will also stop placing riders that ignore instructions to hand gallop above those that take the risk and actually complete the test asked. Personal pet peeve of mine that’s happened in multiple finals over the years.
Back to the course: Kudos to the course designers for this year’s course. I thought the course was very fair and straightforward. This course let the strong riders show themselves and let the newer/weaker riders have a decent experience. It’s been a shame in other years when lots of those riders ended up with stops, etc.
Not sure that having 3 judges was a successful idea. Few people (if any!) have experience judging like that, and to try it in a national final may not be the best way to try the concept out…
Standard press release from the horse show, including some comments from the judges:
http://www.panational.org/news_detail.php?id=219
Standard press release from USEF:
Comments from the winner:
Chronicle write up:
This is the video of the second round with the top 25, and then the initial test of the top four. The test of the top four starts around the 1:10 mark if you want to skip to that point.
This is the final test of the top two when they switched horses.
All the first rounds are also posted on the website, divided into sections of 50 based on the original order of go.
For the judges on this thread - how do you score an eq rider who clobbers a fence versus a rider who really messes up a counter canter?
I prefer Graces position as a rider over Zayna and if they were close enough to need the 2nd test I suppose it came down to the final test. I am not a judge but I would personally rank a fudged counter canter over a massive jumping fault. Neither of them had a perfect test but multiple rails down on the first jump would be lower to me than a failed execution of a test on the flat. (But only slightly!) I’m curious how a trained judge views these - looking to be educated and learn perspective, not start an argument!
I think both girls ride beautifully and both had excellent days.
I wish they had kept one of the experienced judges on the commentary through the 2nd round and work-offs (in addition to Taylor). Not necessarily to discuss the result, but I would have enjoyed the comments on the individual rounds. I’m sure they would have picked up on things that I missed. I realize some of them also had kids in the class, so were otherwise occupied.
As a general judging rule of thumb, a mistake that requires activity from the jump crew is usually a bigger error than a mistake that does not involve the jump crew. 
Not the same category where a horse just barely touches a rail and it comes down, but an actual mistake by the rider that causes the rail(s).
In a situation where the riders have swapped horses with no chance to warm up, would you place equal weight on all parts of the course (i.e. treating like any other round), or place a heavier weight on errors later in the course?
To me, it seems like it would be treated like any other round. Part of the test is to see how well the rider can adapt to a different horse, and the rider is judged from the moment they enter the ring until the moment they leave the ring.
Yes that is my thought too - a jumping fault where she took down multiple rails (IMO she was too weak to the first fence) is a heavier fault than a fudged counter canter (and it was fudged clearly). But I am a lowly amateur so I am always curious to learn how the real judges weight these things! Are we talking 65 vs 60? 68 vs 55? I have a feeling the scoring in the fourth round was low - but close.
Got it. Thank you.
The way I explained it to my IHSA crew after they had questions about judging (in this case doing 5 and a “swim step” in a line pinning lower than picking up the wrong lead with a couple deep distances) was that a fault that is “dangerous” or has the potential to lead to a dangerous situation is penalized harder than a fault that wouldn’t cause harm to horse or rider. In the case of Medal Finals, it sounds like she really clobbered jump one, which could become a dangerous mistake if the horse were to tangle in a pole, trip because of it, etc. whereas a mistake in the counter canter is simply a mistake in your flatwork aids.
Yes. Another way to put it is that anything that makes the judge gasp is probably not going to get a high score. Lol.
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
