USEF rule change about judges teaching

[Salty]

The proposed rule changes are USEF, so if arena eventing is sanctioned by USEF it would be affected.

[Texarkana]

@Salty

The proposed rule changes are USEF, so if arena eventing is sanctioned by USEF it would be affected.

I think @gardenie meant in terms of FEI Gen regs Annex J, not the subject of this thread.

I don’t believe the Aiken Grand Prix is a USEF event, I think it’s a charity event. And it’s neither a 3 day event nor a jumper event, so I don’t think there is any problem with FEI riders competing in it (as opposed to them competing in an unrecognized 3 day event or jumper show). But I really don’t know the answer.

[gardenie]

Yes Texarkana, that was my question in terms of Annex J

[Djones]

In what capacity did you “look at this?”

[LexInVA]

@Djones

In what capacity did you “look at this?”

I was looking at competition information that anyone can find on the Internet. Horse and rider/listed owner and listed judges for competitions. I wasn’t even looking specifically FOR that, but the pattern was noticeable when I was combing through the information and put it in chronological order.

[MHM]

@JenEM

Also, if you’re teaching clinics, you generally have auditors. Who you may not ever even meet or interact with. But they’re learning from you, so would also be excluded from ever riding under you as a judge.

The clinic exception is still in the new wording.

[starrunner]

“Unless private instruction is given”. So in this definition if a clinician gives a private lesson then they are now an instructor?

Or is it more like if you are the only rider for that clinician at the facility?

[SillyHorse]

@starrunner

“Unless private instruction is given”. So in this definition if a clinician gives a private lesson then they are now an instructor?

Or is it more like if you are the only rider for that clinician at the facility?

This is why I think dressage, and other disciplines as well, are unfortunately caught up in something that is aimed at the H/J world. Typically, dressage clinics are one on one, while H/J clinics are conducted in groups.

I’m hoping that the letter-writing campaign bears fruit, and that this proposed rule will not pass, at least not in its current form.

[merrygoround]

OK, so they want to dumb down dressage.

Some of our best rider are also judges, and some of them are excellent instructors.

Idiotic rule!!

[DMK]

Honestly, if you read the current rule it’s a mess. Last year I was trying to figure out if I could show under a judge later in the summer after taking a clinic under that judge in spring, but in an entirely different discipline, with the added complication that I’m in a usef program (in that other discipline) and the judge is on the selection committee. I remember figuring out I could but only because the 30 day clause was the only moment of clarity, otherwise I was hopelessly confused with all the caveats and subparagraphs (if I’m a hunter jumper rider on a saddlebred showing at a dressage show on the third Tuesday of the seventh month…). So one clear concise rule can only be a good thing.

That word “permanently” though… That looks like something that was not an ideal bit of wordsmithing to say the least. I have every degree of confidence that usef didn’t want to make a permanent class of professional judges with no other source of income in their chosen field of expertise because very few people would be able to afford showing if our entry fees had to support a full salary (instead of a nice supplemental income). Maybe they meant to address one issue and failed to see exactly what the actual words appeared to say/imply.

My best guess (and it really is a guess) is they were trying to define certain relationships as permanently over, like those of business partners or full training clients or ongoing sales partnerships, not that those had just taken a 30 day hiatus. That’s just me taking a wild stab at things certain horse people would absolutely do it they thought they could get away with it, and that would have prompted a rule in response.

But regardless, that wording isn’t helpful and possibly more confusing. I’m trying to figure out how I permanently terminate a relationship with the person I bought my horse from. They are both still alive. Get rid of the horse? Get rid of the judge? Or do they mean that any transactions related to the purchase (payments, promises of future breeding rights) are concluded at least 30 days prior to showing?

SO. MANY. QUESTIONS. <— never a good sign in a proposed rule

[SillyHorse]

@merrygoround

OK, so they want to dumb down dressage.

No, I don’t think it has anything to do specifically with dressage.

[SillyHorse]

@DMK

I’m trying to figure out how I permanently terminate a relationship with the person I bought my horse from.

Never buy another horse from or sell a horse to that person. Never teach that person. Never get instruction from that person. Never board a horse with that person or board that person’s horse. Etc., etc. It’s not hard to understand; it’s just ridiculous.

[Jealoushe]

@BigMama1

Usually Canada follows USEF rule changes but in this case, with such a small pool of riders and even smaller pool of judges here, literally nobody would be able to compete.

This is what I’m thinking about, this would literally kill dressage in Canada. And Eventing if they followed. And with Canada usually following the US’s lead…

[Jealoushe]

I believe the arena Eventing is run under FEI, have to double check but I know the FEI is involved in deciding which riders can ride in them.

[MHM]

@DMK

(if I’m a hunter jumper rider on a saddlebred showing at a dressage show on the third Tuesday of the seventh month…)

This made me laugh.

I’d like to watch that test. Lol.

[roseymare]

But there are many breeds who are. Arabian. Morgan.
American Saddlebreds.
Maybe this would be an impetus to break free.

I don’t know but this rule is insane.

[Jarpur]

I trained for years with S and R judges in my area, regular frequent lessons (usually weekly, but sometimes 4x/week when I was preparing to go ride in Europe). They are both active in giving clinics, too. Now they’d have to totally give that up to continue being judges - that’s unrealistic financially for them I would think, and would be a real hit to our local (and regional) dressage community.

I understand that that there shouldn’t be a conflict of interest, or the appearance of a conflict of interest, but this seems draconian.

[roseymare]

Here’s an ancedote. Not USEF but I think it is pertinent to this discussion.
One year my husband was ringmaster at our local fair. I happened to hear some clients talking about how in the open Western Pleasure class they were going to have “Mandy” ride their mare because earlier that spring she had interned at the judges barn. They didn’t place. It was a deep class placed to six. Anyway I was joking with hubby after the show about how that plan didn’t really work out for them and he says. “Hahaha when the class was pinned and everyone was walking out the judge said something like. Mmm that girl on the big chestnut kind of looks familiar but I can’t place her. She may have interned with me” So he didn’t even recognize her and they thought it was going to be some big score for them to have her show the mare. Another judge story is a friend with a halter horse that kept showing to the same judge. He went grand the first few shows and then just was barely in the ribbons. Friend asked judge. Judge says when queried- the more I see that horse the more I find I don’t like about him.
If people think judges are rewarding people just because they cliniced with them that is pretty much ridiculous.for the majority of judges. And to forbid it down the road is insane.

[Knights_Mom]

People who have lesser performances also get dinged harder if the judge knows they know better.

[roseymare]

Yep. In my experience with judging multiple things this is the case. You are harder on your students than others.