USEF rule change about judges teaching

[Argo]

Thought I read somewhere that the rule change is an attempt to get equestrian in line with ‘all sport’. Is that because in ‘all sport’, an official cannot also be a coach, since there’s a perceived conflict of interest that really can’t be overcome? Like you never hear of a judge in figure skating ‘who also happens to coach so-and-so’. Or tennis umpires, or hockey referees. Is the rule change supposed to create a situation where someone cannot be a coach and an official at the same time? Has it always been a blanket ‘all sport’ rule, now coming for equestrian, that the PTB are now trying to ‘massage’?

Should officials only be volunteers, or only be paid by their Federations, not by shows? Should officials be restricted to coaching only levels that they do not judge? Or judging levels they do not coach?

Just trying to comprehend the spirit of it, though how it could ever be enforced in this industry as it is, is beyond me.

[LexInVA]

@SillyHorse

Next question: How does USEF expect this to be enforced? Seems to me they’d have to rely on tattle-tales.

Have they moved beyond the “If you want to file a complaint in regards to a rule violation, you must fill out a bunch of paperwork, pay an exorbitant fee, come to our offices when asked and multiple times if needed, and explain yourself through interpretive dance to a panel of individuals.”?

[DMK]

Once again I’m not surprised to learn people commenting online can be assholes (references to rude and nasty comments).

My impression of some (certainly not all or most!) comments here and elsewhere is that people start with the assumption that the staff who work at USEF woke up one morning with no other purpose in life other than to make these people’s sad little lives even more miserable. Not for a moment would they consider starting with the assumption that some well-intentioned people were trying to make a level playing ground for all of us, and maybe they just didn’t get it 100% right the first time.

In other words, this is why we can’t have nice things.

[MHM]

@DMK

Not for a moment would they consider starting with the assumption that some well-intentioned people were trying to make a level playing ground for all of us, and maybe they just didn’t get it 100% right the first time.

I think the most significant thing is that the USEF reacted so quickly to the member response, and is in the process of trying to come up with a new draft for it. Within what, a week or so? That’s pretty impressive, really.

[DMK]

Agreed! And honestly, I’m sure they were already looking at it as soon as a few judges pointed out this seemed like it might have some unintended consequences.

It’s a bit of a pain, but maybe the best thing is to align with the FEI 90 day requirement (and clarify the 1:1 clinic issue). I can’t see too many people taking a 90 day hiatus just to go to one show.

[Knights_Mom]

It’s nice that USEF responded quickly but truth be told being it was big wigs like Janet Foy and other judges complaining loudly so I’m not at all surprised there was a fast response. Given this change directly affects the money “judge practitioners” (coaches/trainers) make doing a combo of judging and teaching I’m sure USEF heard from just about all of them.

Were the outrage to come just from amateurs would the response by USEF come swiftly? I’m skeptical.

That being said I appreciate people who do thankless jobs. Been there, got screamed at for that.

But the fact that the rule makers didn’t know instinctively that this change was untenable makes me go ???

[Ghazzu]

@Knights_Mom

But the fact that the rule makers didn’t know instinctively that this change was untenable makes me go ???

Seriously.

[MHM]

@Knights_Mom

But the fact that the rule makers didn’t know instinctively that this change was untenable makes me go ???

I don’t disagree, but I’m guessing that they intended the word “permanently” to mean the client could not go right back to the trainer/judge the day or week or month after the show in question, which may be valid.

However, the word actually means, you know, forever, which they seem to have somewhat inexplicably overlooked.

[Knights_Mom]

I’m not ready to go with that. They have 30 days mentioned. Just changed the time frame. If they changed it to permanently then that’s what they meant to say.

Me, I would have picked a time frame that would be appropriate to the spirit of the rule change. So time frames like 6 months, 1 year etc appear far more in line to the spirit of the change and what it wishes to accomplish.

[lorilu]

Judging by how quickly this group jumped on and discovered all about that 4th level young horse… well…

[Knights_Mom]

It’s no secret how “observant” horse people are LOL

[lorilu]

This is the other part of the rule that is problematic indeed.

[lorilu]

@Knights_Mom

and what it wishes to accomplish.

What do you think it wishes to accomplish? What exactly does not allowing me to train with a judge I have ridden under until 6 months have passes (in much of America, that means the entire season) accomplish?
WHat if I ride under a judge, and qualify for Regionals? THose judges arent announced much ahead of time. Heavens, what if I make it to Nationals, and judges local to me are invited? Rigth now there is close to 30 days between last qualifying show and Regionals, and about the same between the last Regionals and Nationals. BUt 6 months??

[Knights_Mom]

@lorilu

@Knights_Mom

and what it wishes to accomplish.

What do you think it wishes to accomplish? What exactly does not allowing me to train with a judge I have ridden under until 6 months have passes (in much of America, that means the entire season) accomplish?
WHat if I ride under a judge, and qualify for Regionals? THose judges arent announced much ahead of time. Heavens, what if I make it to Nationals, and judges local to me are invited? Rigth now there is close to 30 days between last qualifying show and Regionals, and about the same between the last Regionals and Nationals. BUt 6 months??

I’m not judging the rule change or offering personal opinion on it in regard to it affecting me at all.

I think the rule as written now with its permanence is a huge mistake. I think people are going to keep freaking out.

[DMK]

I’m assuming the only people freaking out are there ones who haven’t figured out that the proposed language is being reworked. I’m pretty sure there’s a Venn diagram where they intersect with the people that lost their mind about language that had been in the active rule and draft rule.

[Knights_Mom]

Or maybe it’s the ones that make up the majority of riders, the amateurs, and they’ve decided to take their hard earned money and spend it somewhere else.

[trubandloki]

To me this change in rule seems like it will add the problem of more expensive shows too.

To get a rated judge that is not the coach of anyone in the area during that long of a time frame will require shows to import judges from further away.

They also need to add some type of refund policy for riders who register when the judge is someone they can ride under and something changes and it becomes a judge they are not allowed to ride under.

[endlessclimb]

The above mentioned points are why I don’t think extending the time frame is a good idea. Instead, limit the number of times it’s allowed to happen in a rolling 12 month time period, to target the people who do this habitually.

[yaya]

@endlessclimb

The above mentioned points are why I don’t think extending the time frame is a good idea. Instead, limit the number of times it’s allowed to happen in a rolling 12 month time period, to target the people who do this habitually.

Either way, how is this supposed to be monitored in order to be enforced?

[endlessclimb]

It’s the responsibility of the rider. I don’t think it needs to be “monitored” outside of tattle-tales. Be honest and forthcoming to the rule and there are no worries.