Please note the sign in the bottom left portion of the picture. I wonder if Buck might have a few words with Phillip later on :eek: regarding the type of jumps he’s sponsoring.
Given the slight uphill approach it would appear more like a vertical to my eyes.
[QUOTE=JP60;8853357]
Given the slight uphill approach it would appear more like a vertical to my eyes.[/QUOTE]
You see that as uphill? I see it as slightly downhill.
[QUOTE=JP60;8853357]
Please note the sign in the bottom left portion of the picture. I wonder if Buck might have a few words with Phillip later on :eek: regarding the type of jumps he’s sponsoring.
Given the slight uphill approach it would appear more like a vertical to my eyes.[/QUOTE]
Haha; I know–that was a bit ironic.
I did do a group course walk with Boyd and Chris Ryan (the announcer who was very knowledgeable) but I don’t remember if that jump was up or downhill.
I would be interested to know what happened there, since as I said, Buck was on a very experienced horse.
[QUOTE=vineyridge;8853274]
Honestly, RFs don’t really bother me nearly as much as horse falls, and it’s rotational horse falls that frangible pins are targeted to prevent. Sounds as if the frangible pins are working if the only result of a hard knock is a rider fall.[/QUOTE]
by RF I meant Rotational falls…just clarifying.
[QUOTE=groom;8853455]
You see that as uphill? I see it as slightly downhill.[/QUOTE]
Declination is in the eye of the beholder 
If the phrase red on the right, white on the left and insanity in the middle still applies (Oh EN what happened to you?) then looking at the photo, I see a rising hill behind the fence. It could be the eye is fooled and it is more a flat spot with a slight decline after before going up the hill again. Whatever we see, the horse and or rider saw something that didn’t work, that is for sure.
[QUOTE=Jealoushe;8853550]
by RF I meant Rotational falls…just clarifying.[/QUOTE]
RF stands for rider fall
MR stands for mandatory retirement (horse fall)
That jump looks like a standard, ho hum, regular old log oxer/trakhener. Jumped plenty, and plan to jump plenty more. It does not look like a terrain question. There may be a slight slope but heck, there usually is.
Shat happens.
Horse was fine.
[QUOTE=JER;8852544]
As with many workplace issues, this is a more complex situation than you might realize.
While it’s easy for you to type a sentence like the one above, it’s not so easy – nor is it always advisable or effective – to position yourself as a refusenik in a workplace situation made up of a more nuanced chain of relationships and interdependencies.
:)[/QUOTE]
I agree it’s a complex situation for everyone. If the course designers are still going to demand certain jumps, the builders are going to build the jumps without question, the riders are still going to show up to jump these jumps, and the people are still going to watch, why do we think anything is going to change?
[QUOTE=Winding Down;8854355]
RF stands for rider fall
MR stands for mandatory retirement (horse fall)[/QUOTE]
yeah I know…lol
thats why I clarified my post.
This rider got off lucky…
http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/blog/simon-grieves-eventing-blog-fate-dealt-hand-wasnt-597917
Interesting article on Eventing Connect summarizing conclusions drawn from a course designer forum. All quotes unless otherwise stated are from this article. The contrast between the thinking of the course designers as compared to the thinking on this thread is…stark.
http://eventingconnect.today/2016/09/25/course-designers-are-not-setting-you-up-to-fail-2/
[QUOTE=NeverTime;8773889]
According to the rider’s FB page, the accident happened at a low, very wide, open oxer. While many horses, including her first ride, jumped it fine, she felt that this horse (who she described as an experienced XC horse) misread it and tried to put his feet down in the middle, thinking it was a bounce. She asked that FEI and NFs consider a max width of open oxers and making wider/Max oxers covered, like tables.[/QUOTE]
Open oxers and open corners are becoming more popular – Fence safety mechanisms such as frangible pins and MIM clips, help prevent falls at fences with hanging logs or rails. But there is a limited amount of safety mechanisms available for solid tables and corners. Therefore, we are seeing more course designers including open oxers and corners because they are safer than they were in the past. Additionally, riders still pay plenty of respect to these types of fences because activating a safety device results in an automatic 11 penalty points and horses are unable to bank across open fences.
Fences are being built with more upright profiles for a reason – Upright fences are less forgiving and riders know this, so they spend more time setting up their horses to ensure a clean jump. Mike says that course designers are utilizing fences with upright shapes to encourage riders to slow down so their horses can jump in a round shape. Riders tend to jump ascending fences at greater speeds, which can be dangerous because horses start jumping flatter increasing their risks of hanging a leg and falling.
I can see the point they’re trying to make re: building more vertical/upright faced fences, but I’m not sure the logic is totally sound, and I don’t know that there is evidence to back it up.
They want riders to slow down and set up more for the fences, so they intentionally build fences that are less forgiving in hopes that riders will ride more carefully and horses will jump more carefully. That is great … Until the rider misses or the horse makes a mistake, in which case they find out just how unforgiving they are.
Is there evidence anywhere showing that having vertical faced jumps, especially vertical faces on tables, decreases the likelihood of bad accidents? I would think the recent data showing the most bad falls happening at tables tends to contradict that… If I’m wrong, someone point me in the right direction!
I’m all for jumping wide square oxers during my SJ schools and including them in gymnastics because they do require a horse to jump carefully, and maybe having one or two wide tables with very upright faces on a course is a fair question, but having upright-faced table after upright-faced table IMO just increases the odds that a mistake will eventually occur at one of them.
[QUOTE=Marigold;8862515]
Interesting article on Eventing Connect summarizing conclusions drawn from a course designer forum. All quotes unless otherwise stated are from this article. The contrast between the thinking of the course designers as compared to the thinking on this thread is…stark.
http://eventingconnect.today/2016/09/25/course-designers-are-not-setting-you-up-to-fail-2/[/QUOTE]
The whole point of a XC fence is to be able to jump it out of stride with minimal set up.
It’s the fighting before a fence that almost always causes a fall.
This is our course designer logic? No wonder people are dying every other month. 
And unless the author simply didn’t mention it, not a word about the horse part of the pair.
I realize this sentiment has been massively OBE, but there was a time (~'90s) when the thought was that increasing technicality would make courses safer. There was worry about riders going too fast, not setting up their horses, getting around by the seat of their pants time and time again, and the idea that a few skinnies and more technical questions would get riders both to train for control and ride more sanely on x-c.
This probably worked, you don’t see that kind of ride at the UL anymore, but obviously at far too great a cost. Unintended consequence, for sure.
[QUOTE=Beam Me Up;8862929]
I realize this sentiment has been massively OBE, but there was a time (~'90s) when the thought was that increasing technicality would make courses safer. There was worry about riders going too fast, not setting up their horses, getting around by the seat of their pants time and time again, and the idea that a few skinnies and more technical questions would get riders both to train for control and ride more sanely on x-c.
This probably worked, you don’t see that kind of ride at the UL anymore, but obviously at far too great a cost. Unintended consequence, for sure.[/QUOTE]
Certainly.
With modern technology, we might be better to go back to the gallop fences, and have riders wear something to measure the MPM - the most consistent giving you a bonus - pp or something…
Quote from CMP’s VIP H&H article today:
Last week I was at Vairano, near Milan, where I designed the courses for a CCI3*, a CICO3* Nations Cup and a CIC2*. Building far from home always makes me nervous, especially as we had no frangible technology there. But I was surprised that so many riders appreciated big, old-fashioned fences. Even more surprising was how well the vast majority rode it.
Many people have said for a long time that the greatest aid to a “safe sport” is riders respecting the fences. In a way, it makes me want to try to turn the clock back in terms of size of timber and groundlines. Could it really be that in their subconscious riders have less respect when they are wearing an air jacket and when a fence is frangible and has a large groundline?
[QUOTE=vineyridge;8863035]
Quote from CMP’s VIP H&H article today:[/QUOTE]
Many people have said for a long time that the greatest aid to a “safe sport” is riders respecting the fences. In a way, it makes me want to try to turn the clock back in terms of size of timber and groundlines. Could it really be that in their subconscious riders have less respect when they are wearing an air jacket and when a fence is frangible and has a large groundline?
I cannot believe the utter disconnect I read in this statement. First and foremost he never once mentions how the horse may read a fence. Then, the idea that a rider, going on a 4* course does not “respect” a fence is ludicrous. Even the most basic “let up” fence is such that you do not ride it with anything but full concentration.
Also, I’m alittle confused, because I was under the belief, we even talked about it here that if you designing a course for the FEI (I think CIC fits under that rank umbrella) that you are bound by not just their guidelines, but their safety rules. How then do you build a CICO3* or CIC2* without frangible pins?
Still good ol’ Captain has given us the perfect solution to the problem, ban air vests and frangible pins. By God we need the good ol days when vests were optional and then we’ll see riders respect those fences. Oh, forgot groundlines, hell if you horse can’t see their spot without, they should not be on my course.
What. Utter. BS.
I think he is also coming to conclusions that are not necessarily caused by the data. His logic is: “Nobody fell or died so therefore the riders respected my course design and therefore my course design was good.”
His previous logic has been, along the same lines, “Somebody fell and died but it is the rider’s responsibility to ride responsibly, so therefore nothing about my course design contributed to this death.”
Sigh. I haven’t read all the posts, but I just had to add my two cents. It is all so depressing. It’s turned into show jumping on an “outside course” at speeds at which no show jumper would go. Stop and start. I evented successfully through Prelim in the '70s thru '87. During that period I had two good horses. More credit to them than me for whatever success I had. I, as an amateur, finally stopped eventing because I didn’t want to be in a position where my error would injure my horse. The big but galloping courses I had ridden, with reasonable questions or alternatives became so complex I didn’t feel up to the risk. I still like to watch, but I’m beginning to feel I need to watch them the way I watch the Triple Crown races: record them and only watch if nothing horrible has occurred.
[QUOTE=JP60;8863101]
I cannot believe the utter disconnect I read in this statement. First and foremost he never once mentions how the horse may read a fence. Then, the idea that a rider, going on a 4* course does not “respect” a fence is ludicrous. Even the most basic “let up” fence is such that you do not ride it with anything but full concentration.
Also, I’m alittle confused, because I was under the belief, we even talked about it here that if you designing a course for the FEI (I think CIC fits under that rank umbrella) that you are bound by not just their guidelines, but their safety rules. How then do you build a CICO3* or CIC2* without frangible pins?
Still good ol’ Captain has given us the perfect solution to the problem, ban air vests and frangible pins. By God we need the good ol days when vests were optional and then we’ll see riders respect those fences. Oh, forgot groundlines, hell if you horse can’t see their spot without, they should not be on my course.
What. Utter. BS.[/QUOTE]
I think going back to hunt caps with no chin straps will help as well.
Think about it, if riders of EVERY level start out with no safety equipment and scary fences right from the start, we shouldn’t have any problems!
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
