M
marbler
Guest
Fair enough Al Capall. I've got a touch of thrush and its affecting my judgement.
Last edited:
The Rules Need Changing
- Thread starter Grey
- Start date
Just a smidgeon over detailed, but on behalf of us all, get well soon. Al.
Len Madeiros
Rookie
I really do think if the whip is allowed so that a jockey can "encourage" a horse to run faster, then overuse of the whip should lead to a disqualification: by breaking the rules, the jockey has encouraged that horse to run faster than other horses in the same race.
If the authorities don't like that one - and are looking for a real deterrent - then maybe they should disqualify a jockey from their next three rides in a Group/Grade 1.
And just for the record, I backed SDG on Saturday.
If the authorities don't like that one - and are looking for a real deterrent - then maybe they should disqualify a jockey from their next three rides in a Group/Grade 1.
And just for the record, I backed SDG on Saturday.
Last edited:
so when you exceed the speed limit they should take away your car or give you a speed ticket ? From my understanding the whip doesn't make horses run faster than they can, they're not an hidden secondary engine, its just a communication signal that they should not be stopping. Horses are not stupid, they get the signal and will keep on going with everything they got but some jockeys just keep pushing that Dee Dee button above a certain level which is disturbing for the spectators and thats why it was introduced, to discourage the jockeys use it too many times as it becomes unpleasant for the viewers, it doesn't do anything to the chances of the horse if they keep on using it at every stride without giving the horse a chance to respond.
Len Madeiros
Rookie
No, but we're not comparing traffic offences with what goes on at the races - the comparison makes no sense to me.
Ok, if the whip isn't to encourage a horse to move faster (or "not be stopping"), jockeys should use the whip for steering only. But, yes, I do understand that the restrictions on whip use were brought in to make racing more appealing to the general viewing public (or less unappealing).
Desert Orchid
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2005
- Messages
- 25,024
There is a point beyond which whipping a horse is cruel. The rules are an attempt to balance the willingness of the horse to respond and protect the sport from accusations of cruelty.
The rules may not be perfect but they're there and they're there for good reasons. Breaking the rules should lead to disqualification.
The rules may not be perfect but they're there and they're there for good reasons. Breaking the rules should lead to disqualification.
The traffic example is just to illustrate how unbalanced the rules can be made vs the level of offence.
I think I didn't made my point clear enough, the whip is already encouraging the horse, the overuse of the whip isn't doing anything beyond that, the horse needs time to respond to the jockey signals. The whip rule wasn't introduced because the horse gained an advantage by overusing it; it was to stop the negative effect on the spectators. Plus, its pointless to be hitting the horse so many times, good jockeys know to give them the signal at right times and decent intervals.
Len Madeiros
Rookie
If hitting a horse repeatedly with a whip isn't to encourage a horse to move faster, why did these same good jockeys use the whip more under the old rules than they do now?
links781
Journeyman
I don't think the positions should be reversed unless it is a deliberate act or manoeuvre,which it wasn't.If We go down the road of FPTP proving they would not have won the race you will start seeing amended results frequently and I don't think it's in racings interests to go down that route.
They haven't got a hope of it being overturned either as it is not conclusive ST would won without the interference as seen by the differing opinion on here!
They haven't got a hope of it being overturned either as it is not conclusive ST would won without the interference as seen by the differing opinion on here!
Diamond Geezer
Gone But Not Forgotten
- Joined
- May 2, 2003
- Messages
- 13,884
Ruby's view
I thought the Betfair Tingle Creek Chase was a good race and it was great to see Sire De Grugy back.
The interference at the last will cause plenty of debate. As the rules are written, I didn’t think the stewards would change the result. The stewards have applied the rules correctly.
Are the rules written correctly, though? I’m not sure. I don’t think rules in any sport should favour the offender rather than the victim and our rules certainly favour the offender in all cases at the moment.
I see that the Special Tiara team are considering an appeal. I think that will be fruitless.
All any steward can do is apply the rules as they are written but there is a line in the interference rules that tries to make the stewards play god, and they can’t do that.
Nobody can be absolutely certain that the winner would have won anyway. It is almost impossible to change the result and that is not right.
If there was no way you could be sent off in a football match, or give away a penalty, you would transgress the rules.
I think it is open for serious debate.
That’s the thing with interference and rules – there will always be a difference in opinion
I thought the Betfair Tingle Creek Chase was a good race and it was great to see Sire De Grugy back.
The interference at the last will cause plenty of debate. As the rules are written, I didn’t think the stewards would change the result. The stewards have applied the rules correctly.
Are the rules written correctly, though? I’m not sure. I don’t think rules in any sport should favour the offender rather than the victim and our rules certainly favour the offender in all cases at the moment.
I see that the Special Tiara team are considering an appeal. I think that will be fruitless.
All any steward can do is apply the rules as they are written but there is a line in the interference rules that tries to make the stewards play god, and they can’t do that.
Nobody can be absolutely certain that the winner would have won anyway. It is almost impossible to change the result and that is not right.
If there was no way you could be sent off in a football match, or give away a penalty, you would transgress the rules.
I think it is open for serious debate.
That’s the thing with interference and rules – there will always be a difference in opinion
There was a hurdles race earlier in the afternoon when a horse ran down each and every fence; ok it didn't win or place but it possibly inconvenienced other horses throughout the race. SDG and ST was probably the most extreme cases of a horse being bumped at a fence but it must happen all the time to a lesser degree; if it didn't happen you wouldn't see [in an even more extreme scenario] BD's on their race records. For what it's worth I backed Special Tiara but still felt that the positions shouldn't have been altered. Jump racing is always going to be unpredictable in some ways.
What is the alternative? Change some results and not change others for similar offences? How would that be better, there would be no consistency.
In any event there have been results changed this year, so it's wrong to say you can't lose a race here.
Can't see on our rules can be improved, if they were changed I would expect there would be far more discontent.
My position has shifted a little as a result of the debate on this thread (a forum first, perhaps? 
).
I now agree the stewards at Sandown correctly applied the rules as they currently stand whereas I was less sure about that before.
However I still think the rules should change because they incentivise rough riding and whip abuse. It's all very well to say collisions in mid-air or even on the ground are part and parcel of racing, and they are, but they should not be encouraged. Horses are expensive and fragile creatures and enough things go wrong with them already without condoning them being knocked around unnecessarily.
People say there would be more controversy and more discontent if the rules put the onus of proof on the horse benefiting from interference rather than the one suffering it. Maybe there would for a while but things would settle down once jockeys got used to the new rules. In my opinion if a horse is jumping crooked, or hanging, a jockey should be expected to keep his horse away from the rest of the field or else keep it straight. If it causes interference and the jockey has failed to take corrective action the risk of losing the race should be much greater than at present.
).I now agree the stewards at Sandown correctly applied the rules as they currently stand whereas I was less sure about that before.
However I still think the rules should change because they incentivise rough riding and whip abuse. It's all very well to say collisions in mid-air or even on the ground are part and parcel of racing, and they are, but they should not be encouraged. Horses are expensive and fragile creatures and enough things go wrong with them already without condoning them being knocked around unnecessarily.
People say there would be more controversy and more discontent if the rules put the onus of proof on the horse benefiting from interference rather than the one suffering it. Maybe there would for a while but things would settle down once jockeys got used to the new rules. In my opinion if a horse is jumping crooked, or hanging, a jockey should be expected to keep his horse away from the rest of the field or else keep it straight. If it causes interference and the jockey has failed to take corrective action the risk of losing the race should be much greater than at present.
If a jockey was found to have deliberately bumped another horse in the air the jockey would be facing a very long ban, so the rules already cover it Art. What I'm not certain of is whether the horse is dq'd? Someone here will almost certainly know.
Reckless or dangerous riding would be subject to disqualification, it would be irrelevant where the other horse finished or whether the result was not affected.
Not a factor if reckless or dangerous riding is involved grey, in the stewards opinion of course. The horse will be disqualified even if it wins hard held by 20 lengths.
My position has shifted a little as a result of the debate on this thread (a forum first, perhaps?
I now agree the stewards at Sandown correctly applied the rules as they currently stand whereas I was less sure about that before.
However I still think the rules should change because they incentivise rough riding and whip abuse. It's all very well to say collisions in mid-air or even on the ground are part and parcel of racing, and they are, but they should not be encouraged. Horses are expensive and fragile creatures and enough things go wrong with them already without condoning them being knocked around unnecessarily.
People say there would be more controversy and more discontent if the rules put the onus of proof on the horse benefiting from interference rather than the one suffering it. Maybe there would for a while but things would settle down once jockeys got used to the new rules. In my opinion if a horse is jumping crooked, or hanging, a jockey should be expected to keep his horse away from the rest of the field or else keep it straight. If it causes interference and the jockey has failed to take corrective action the risk of losing the race should be much greater than at present.
BIB: Which would be valid if there were any suggestion of Moore having deliberately engineered the collision, but he didn't. Is he going to risk bringing his own horse down when he's already in front? Hardly.
SDG was inconvenienced by the clash as much as ST. It's as true to say he would have won as easily or more so if it hadn't happened as it is to speculate that ST would have won with a clear run. Therefore if SDG could jump straight, as someone said earlier, he'd still be a dual Tingle Creek winner because he wouldn't have brought himself to a near-standstill either.