Interference penalties

barjon

barjon

Rookie
Joined
Aug 2, 2020
Messages
3,879
It does look bad from the side-on replay and was exaggerated by Tom Marquand forcing his mount through a diminishing gap, but the appeals panel did say "We do not agree with that analysis. Even allowing for the fact that the head-on view is not in fact truly head on, we consider that any drift to the left is imperceptible" which Kevin Blake has ignored in his quest for copy, and (imo) the panel were correct in their interpretation, and a 10 day ban unfair on Rob Havlin.
 
The stewarding in this country is pathetic but it's those further up the chain of authority who are the root problem.

The whole notion of 'the best horse should keep the race' is fundamentally flawed and it makes UK racing a laughing stock.

Tilsit, for example, should have been disqualified last week and there are incidents every day which should lead to disqualification but don't so riders allow horses to interfere rather than check momentum, knowing the horse isn't going to be disqualified. A couple of days' holiday for the rider isn't a deterrent.

A lot of the incidents in this country would never be tolerated in France and certainly not in Hong Kong.
 
Desert Orchid said:
The stewarding in this country is pathetic but it's those further up the chain of authority who are the root problem.

The whole notion of 'the best horse should keep the race' is fundamentally flawed and it makes UK racing a laughing stock.

Tilsit, for example, should have been disqualified last week and there are incidents every day which should lead to disqualification but don't so riders allow horses to interfere rather than check momentum, knowing the horse isn't going to be disqualified. A couple of days' holiday for the rider isn't a deterrent.

A lot of the incidents in this country would never be tolerated in France and certainly not in Hong Kong.
Click to expand...

I was on the second in the Tilsit race and it probably wouldn’t have won if Tilsit hadn’t stopped it in its tracks (as the stewards concluded). Seems to me that’s beside the point which is that it was denied the chance to do so by the interference.

Ps: probably thinking too much about the damage to my wallet I forgot the point about it being outright dangerous.
 
Last edited:
barjon said:
I was on the second in the Tilsit race and it probably wouldn’t have won if Tilsit hadn’t stopped it in its tracks (as the stewards concluded). Seems to me that’s beside the point which is that it was denied the chance to do so by the interference.

Ps: probably thinking too much about the damage to my wallet I forgot the point about it being outright dangerous.
Click to expand...

Impossible to say with certainty that Tilsit would have won regardless but, in the interests of fairness, that shouldn't even be a consideration. As far as I know, it doesn't enter the argument in Hong Kong.

I like to draw analogies with other situations when trying to analyse one. It's a bit like saying a second yellow card shouldn't be given because it would mean the player gets sent off and he isn't really a dirty player.

The debate has been aired on this forum more than once over the last 20 years and there's never been broad agreement; rather it's been broad disagreement. If we as punters can't agree on what's right and fair then the sport as a whole has no chance.

I reckon we can pretty much trace the argument back to the 1974 Queen Anne in which the first three were rightly disqualified and the fourth horse awarded the race. There was outcry as it was unprecedented and allowed a lesser animal to win a prestigious race and the lily-livered authorities soon started to introduce mitigating circumstances to allow transgressors to go unpunished.

There was another incident in the Juddmonte in 1998 when the first three jockeys were penalised for excessive use of the whip but there were no disqualifications and little, if any, interference. Slightly different circumstances, admittedly, but rules were broken and, if memory serves, the only reason there weren't disqualifications was because the stewards didn't want another Queen Anne. (Not a direct quote from any of the stewards, just a general interpretation of the mood in the racing media and among the racing public at the time.)

We've been going downhill pretty much ever since. (In my opinion.)
 
Desert Orchid said:
Impossible to say with certainty that Tilsit would have won regardless but, in the interests of fairness, that shouldn't even be a consideration. As far as I know, it doesn't enter the argument in Hong Kong.

I like to draw analogies with other situations when trying to analyse one. It's a bit like saying a second yellow card shouldn't be given because it would mean the player gets sent off and he isn't really a dirty player.

The debate has been aired on this forum more than once over the last 20 years and there's never been broad agreement; rather it's been broad disagreement. If we as punters can't agree on what's right and fair then the sport as a whole has no chance.

I reckon we can pretty much trace the argument back to the 1974 Queen Anne in which the first three were rightly disqualified and the fourth horse awarded the race. There was outcry as it was unprecedented and allowed a lesser animal to win a prestigious race and the lily-livered authorities soon started to introduce mitigating circumstances to allow transgressors to go unpunished.

There was another incident in the Juddmonte in 1998 when the first three jockeys were penalised for excessive use of the whip but there were no disqualifications and little, if any, interference. Slightly different circumstances, admittedly, but rules were broken and, if memory serves, the only reason there weren't disqualifications was because the stewards didn't want another Queen Anne. (Not a direct quote from any of the stewards, just a general interpretation of the mood in the racing media and among the racing public at the time.)

We've been going downhill pretty much ever since. (In my opinion.)
Click to expand...

Agree with all that Desert. Don’t get me started on the whip. If whipping creates an advantage then excessive whipping must mean that a horse has gained an unfair advantage over those who had limited whipping within the rules. That surely merits disqualification.
 
I fail to see how anyone - from just a side-on view - can judge this case where the panel; with plenty of time and multifaceted views, decided "that any drift to the left is imperceptible", and Kevin Blake's whole point was nothing more than pursuit of a particular hobby-horse, where he may,or may not, have a point.
When the powers that be decided that the best horse on the day should keep the race, it was one of those rare moments in racing, when judgement fell in favour of the punter - imvho, of course.
 
Last edited:
Desert Orchid said:
Impossible to say with certainty that Tilsit would have won regardless but, in the interests of fairness, that shouldn't even be a consideration. As far as I know, it doesn't enter the argument in Hong Kong.

I like to draw analogies with other situations when trying to analyse one. It's a bit like saying a second yellow card shouldn't be given because it would mean the player gets sent off and he isn't really a dirty player.

The debate has been aired on this forum more than once over the last 20 years and there's never been broad agreement; rather it's been broad disagreement. If we as punters can't agree on what's right and fair then the sport as a whole has no chance.

I reckon we can pretty much trace the argument back to the 1974 Queen Anne in which the first three were rightly disqualified and the fourth horse awarded the race. There was outcry as it was unprecedented and allowed a lesser animal to win a prestigious race and the lily-livered authorities soon started to introduce mitigating circumstances to allow transgressors to go unpunished.

There was another incident in the Juddmonte in 1998 when the first three jockeys were penalised for excessive use of the whip but there were no disqualifications and little, if any, interference. Slightly different circumstances, admittedly, but rules were broken and, if memory serves, the only reason there weren't disqualifications was because the stewards didn't want another Queen Anne. (Not a direct quote from any of the stewards, just a general interpretation of the mood in the racing media and among the racing public at the time.)

We've been going downhill pretty much ever since. (In my opinion.)
Click to expand...

I was going to make a sarky point about Royal Gait, Cahervillahow etc being immune and I had forgotten how horrific a decision this one was.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YgMAbuwoyc
 
reet hard said:
I fail to see how anyone - from just a side-on view - can judge this case where the panel; with plenty of time and multifaceted views, decided "that any drift to the left is imperceptible", and Kevin Blake's whole point was nothing more than pursuit of a particular hobby-horse, where he may,or may not, have a point.
When the powers that be decided that the best horse on the day should keep the race, it was one of those rare moments in racing, when judgement fell in favour of the punter - imvho, of course.
Click to expand...

Why would you assume that the only view that is publicly available is a side on view, when in the vast majority of races, and certain on all replay programmes, they show a head on view.

And also a reminder, that the stewards with plenty of time and multifaceted views took the view that it was careless riding.

It was only on appeal was reversed.
 
I've certainly lost a few due to another runner cutting across the front of mine etc etc, no doubt I've won a few cos of that as well but it's the losers I remember.

It seems in the UK one jockey would have to basically clothesline another or push their horse through the rails before the stewards would actually change a result.

Ancedotally I'd say they've got more lax than they used to be.
 
HawkWing said:
Why would you assume that the only view that is publicly available is a side on view, when in the vast majority of races, and certain on all replay programmes, they show a head on view.

And also a reminder, that the stewards with plenty of time and multifaceted views took the view that it was careless riding.

It was only on appeal was reversed.
Click to expand...
RP,SL,ATR,the Jockey Club and RUK: not one showing a head-on replay. Neither do the stewards have plenty of time; they have a duty (to bookmakers) to form a result quickly so monies may be re-invested.
 
HawkWing said:
The barge of Tilsit on My Oberon was fair game. Needs to be more than that.
Click to expand...

Yet if My Oberon had been coming through on Tilsit at the time, on their own logic, they would have awarded the race to My Oberon. “.... The Stewards considered that the interference had not improved TILSIT (USA)’s placing as TILSIT (USA) had been making its run from behind MY OBERON (IRE) and gone an extending three-quarters of a length clear prior to the incident occurring.....”

So, their job is not about whether the interference is against the rules or not, but about their judgement (guess) as to whether it has affected the result or not. To pinch a Desert Orchid type analogy that he used above, that’s like saying you are not going to penalise a defender for hacking down a forward in the penalty area because, on your judgement, he wouldn’t have scored.
 
Last edited:
reet hard said:
RP,SL,ATR,the Jockey Club and RUK: not one showing a head-on replay. Neither do the stewards have plenty of time; they have a duty (to bookmakers) to form a result quickly so monies may be re-invested.
Click to expand...

So, you are going by what is essentially the same feed given to the the various sites where replays are available as evidence that no head on is available to bog standard punters. Rather than anytime you watch RTV or SSR they usually have the head on as perhaps the third or fourth replay. Whether they have time to show these as standard 'live' depends on amount of racing, and often time in fact is used as filler when there is a long gap between races. Where there are contentious incidents head ons are usually presented. in the racing replay programmes, they are shown routinely, contentious incident or not. And the stewards on the day would have access to all camera angles before making a decision.
 
Last edited:
barjon said:
Yet if My Oberon had been coming through on Tilsit at the time, on their own logic, they would have awarded the race to My Oberon. “.... The Stewards considered that the interference had not improved TILSIT (USA)’s placing as TILSIT (USA) had been making its run from behind MY OBERON (IRE) and gone an extending three-quarters of a length clear prior to the incident occurring.....”

So, their job is not about whether the interference is against the rules or not, but about their judgement (guess) as to whether it has affected the result or not. To pinch a Desert Orchid type analogy that he used above, that’s like saying you are not going to penalise a defender for hacking down a forward in the penalty area because, on your judgement, he wouldn’t have scored.
Click to expand...

Also, if you can cause interference that results in a 2 to 3 length gap to your rival, it's better than causing interference that results in a 1/2l loss.
 
HawkWing said:
So, you are going by what is essentially the same feed given to the the various sites where replays are available as evidence that no head on is available to bog standard punters. Rather than anytime you watch RTV or SSR they usually have the head on as perhaps the third or fourth replay. Whether they have time to show these as standard 'live' depends on amount of racing, and often time in fact is used as filler when there is a long gap between races. Where there are contentious incidents head ons are usually presented. in the racing replay programmes, they are shown routinely, contentious incident or not. And the stewards on the day would have access to all camera angles before making a decision.
Click to expand...
For pity's sake - I don't have access to a head-on replay after the event, nor do you, and probably neither did Kevin Blake; end of::rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
I was against the godophin horse that was forced to snatch up in a match bet. I'm sure i could find proof of that if you were interested. Continue on with numerous assumptions though.
 
If you can get a look at the 5pm Windsor today 17/8 I wonder what you think? Stewards seem to think any interference was accidental. I think it was uncompromising and dangerous riding as the winner continued forcing his way through an ever decreasing gap eventually squashing two horses against the rail and taking them out of it. Mind you I might be a tad influenced by the fact that I was on Enderman who suffered most!
 
Back
Top