New handicap guidelines from Monday 25th April

NOTICE TO ALL TRAINERS

Following discussions with various parties it has been agreed that the Handicapping Guidelines should be amended as set out as follows:

Amendments to the Handicapping Guidelines

1.The rating of a 2 year old after winning a maiden race be capped at a maximum rating of a nett MR74 from 1 April to 31 July.

2.A 3 y.o. maiden winner cannot have a MR of less than a nett 64 provided that the maiden win takes place within the first 8 starts. Where a 3 y.o. takes longer than this to win its first race, the Handicappers should use their discretion.

3.Currently, a 3 y.o. maiden winner cannot have a nett rating of more than a nett 78 in a major centre, nett 73 in Port Elizabeth, nett 60 in Kimberley and nett 58 in Zimbabwe. The discretion to vary this in exceptional circumstances no longer applies.

4.Currently, a 4 y.o. and older maiden winner must be capped at a nett MR of 70 in a major centre, 65 in PE, 60 in Kimberley and 58 in Zimbabwe. The discretion to vary this in exceptional circumstances no longer applies.

5.The winner of a handicap Listed race is capped at an 8 point penalty (excluding under sufferance and overweight).

6.The second placed horse in a minor Handicap and Listed race cannot receive more than a 4 point penalty. (excluding under sufferance and overweight).

7.The line horse should be no further back than 3rd place in all minor Handicap and Listed races.

8.The Line-horse shall be no further back than the 4th placed horse in all Grade 2 and Grade 3 races.

9.The winner and placed horses in a Grade 2 or Grade 3 race is capped at a 10 point penalty for the winner, 5 points for 2nd place and 3 points for 3rd place.

10.The line-horse shall be no further back than 5th place in all Grade 1 events.

11.Where a horse (especially an older horse) runs out of sync to its normal profile, the Handicappers should rather err on the side of caution and impose half the normal penalty and let the said horse prove the higher rating at its subsequent start.

12.In all Grade 1 Handicap races, the top weight allocated shall not be more than 60kgs with an 8 kg spread from top to bottom at final acceptance.

In Grade 2 Handicap events the top weight shall not be allocated more than 62kgs, Grade 3 Handicap events 64kgs and Listed Handicap Races 66kgs. In all Graded and Listed races the bottom weight shall be 52kgs at final acceptance.

The following general principle will be followed:

Horses not having made the anticipated WFA improvement must be brought back to 50% of its previous highest nett rating within 2 runs.

Horses not having made the anticipated WFA improvements must be brought back to its highest achieved nett rating within 3 runs.

The Handicappers could reduce the merit rating a little more slowly where good cause is shown.


These amendments will come into effect on Monday, 25th April 2016.

1. Handicapping is quite easy but is made to be complicated with many constraints;

2. Are all these constraints aligned to international handicapping rules?;

3. These handicapping rules are more of interest to owner and trainer, fine, but;

4. Please provide the punter with an unconstrained MR#.

"unconstrained MR"?

Merit ratings with all these different constraints will be applied to horses within each race. Once these horses run again, those constrained ratings are used to infer ratings to all the horses around them. Within a month how will anyone be able to unscramble the omelette?

How will anyone be able to go back and say the rating went wrong when the constrained line horse was used, then a horse who didn't apparently make wfa improvement was used, and after that horses who had been capped and then limited, was used, and then a line horse which couldn't be used further back so the had to choose one in the first 3.

Working out ratings is going to be a job, never mind what ratings should have been.

Imagine trying to figure out whether you should object to a rating. The mind boggles, and it's all very exciting. At least we will have the Sporting Post to see what could have been.

The MR system,on the basis that it is adjustable, has no efficacy unless the "qualifying" runs are regulated, which they are not! (I have the E-Mail confirming they haven't figured out how)
So,until they get that right,the rules don't really matter anyway!

fantastic news for punters it creates some wonderful betting oppurtunities these new rules along with the old caps and limits from before

rob faux wrote: The MR system,on the basis that it is adjustable, has no efficacy unless the "qualifying" runs are regulated, which they are not! (I have the E-Mail confirming they haven't figured out how)

Please explain?

Why is it that these changes were never published prior to coming into effect for comment from all affected parties ? Who were the panel that decided on these changes and what qualifications do they have to suggest the changes that they have?

Fiddling. Either a horse earns a merit rating of whatever it deserves or its a "racefigure" with constraints and penalties.

Was looking at the upcoming sprint races and got irritated by some of the MR . Not really a complaint but just something that struck me as being unfair .
Carry on Alice.top filly- At MR 115 wins a feature then runs 1.5 lengths off in a feature giving weight. Gets down to 113 for that. Runs ½ l off in group 1 at wfa…goes down to 110. So rapid change in rating despite decent runs.
At that figure, shit in in feature in JHB, and then, at wfa, wins G1 with sex allowance only. Goes to 114. Has won number of group 1 races, other group and listed races, and consistent form. Clearly was wrong to drop her 5 points after 2 decent but possibly sub par performances, as in now nearly back to her best rating 2 runs later.
Contrast with Trip tease. No group 1 races. Never come close to COA, in any other their meetings and maintained rating of 114 for more than 10 races despite mostly not running near that rating, Only just dropped to 112. How did COA get her rating dropped so quickly while this poor horse gets shafted?
And Trip To the Stars. Consistant good form with reward in a JHb feature, and then a flying but well beaten second in the G1. Suddenly rated 116 and currently highest rated sprinter in SA!
If it was so good why not Highveld sprinter award?
Of course, because COA was easy winner, and clearly on this, and other performances a better horse. Yet not the MR to match even though its obvious to all . The new rules make no mention of a limit on points for second place in a G1 (is 5 points max for a G2) so his 6 point gain is within rules.
Again, shafted with the rating as unlikely to be able to win a G1 handicap, nor a WFA that has COA in it.
Just to be clear. I’m not arguing about the sums or numbers. Just pointing out that some horses just getting shafted by “handicappers discretion” at deciding whether a run was valid or not and others the victim of the “running second” penalty as MDK was discussing in his recent interview. Here’s hoping the changes will improve things.

Carry on Alice gets 2.5kg in WFA races against the boys, so if she is 114, they would have to be 119 or better to beat her. Currently no male sprinters of that class.

PeterD wrote: Carry on Alice gets 2.5kg in WFA races against the boys, so if she is 114, they would have to be 119 or better to beat her. Currently no male sprinters of that class.

Agree, but I think that's what's bugging me.
In CT she was narrowly beaten into 3rd by Gulf Storm and Brutal Force under those conditions and was dropped from 113 to 110. Trip to the stars was 1l behind her there, and the same in the last race where she was given a 114. TTTS was given a 105 previously but now a 116 for really the same performance....ouch.

If they want to be fair to the owners why can't the NHRA rather use the allowance system rather than messing around with finish-positions and weight constraints??