Consistancy in objections

I don't mean this as an insult to anyone, or even any inference of anything, but I do believe if the 2nd was a 4/10 shot it would have been awarded the race.

Perhaps the eventual winner is finishing marginally the better but it is a big bump and he is bound to be going away given the severity of that bump. And it seems to me, there is no account taken of the fact that the eventual runner-up might have found more and in this case that looked a very real possibility to me. Wrong decision imo.

As a slight aside, if they allow these horses (and some jockeys) to race their horses all over the place and keep the race, these instances will go on and on and on, almost every race some horses seem to be zig-zagging back and forth rather than running straight. Maybe a wrong perception but I don't seem to remember that being the case in UK races. And I am not just talking about horses running "green" through inexperience. Just my perception.

The second bump 50m out had the second horse and jockey lose there balance that the jockey had to grab the rains with both hands to stay on. Watch it carefully. No doubt in my mind the second horse would of got up.

This rule is way to difficult to impose properly on a continual basis.
The American and English rules are far better. If you interfere with another horse, you get placed ahead of that house, no matter what the final outcome or distance is. The penalty should be designed to punish the infringing horse or jock, not be a subjective view of what "might" have happened.

Chris van Buuren wrote: This rule is way to difficult to impose properly on a continual basis.
The American and English rules are far better. If you interfere with another horse, you get placed ahead of that house, no matter what the final outcome or distance is. The penalty should be designed to punish the infringing horse or jock, not be a subjective view of what "might" have happened.

The American and French Rules are similar. In England the rules are much more lax, you need a ton of interference.

Englander wrote: I don't mean this as an insult to anyone, or even any inference of anything, but I do believe if the 2nd was a 4/10 shot it would have been awarded the race.

Perhaps the eventual winner is finishing marginally the better but it is a big bump and he is bound to be going away given the severity of that bump. And it seems to me, there is no account taken of the fact that the eventual runner-up might have found more and in this case that looked a very real possibility to me. Wrong decision imo.

As a slight aside, if they allow these horses (and some jockeys) to race their horses all over the place and keep the race, these instances will go on and on and on, almost every race some horses seem to be zig-zagging back and forth rather than running straight. Maybe a wrong perception but I don't seem to remember that being the case in UK races. And I am not just talking about horses running "green" through inexperience. Just my perception.

....I dont believe that was any malice on the jockey's side nor was the bump intentional...but will agree that they should nip this in the bud by taking the race away from those who cannot ensure that mounts are kept from causing interference....it is dangerous .....and if winning at all costs is they way we go...I say no....you set a precedent that it OK to come from of the the lead horse and iron him just to make sure he wont pick up and snare you on the line..... :dry: ... did you see from the clip how the jockeys had a few words with each other in the pull up..... :S

naresh wrote:

Chris van Buuren wrote: This rule is way to difficult to impose properly on a continual basis.
The American and English rules are far better. If you interfere with another horse, you get placed ahead of that house, no matter what the final outcome or distance is. The penalty should be designed to punish the infringing horse or jock, not be a subjective view of what "might" have happened.

The American and French Rules are similar. In England the rules are much more lax, you need a ton of interference.

Rules are similar but the implementation is subjective.
True that in England you need to be pushed off your horse before the race is taken away but that, imvho is because of how the stipes make decisions. I think there has to be a happy medium somewhere.

Dat stable would have a made an astronomical killing on the double if it had got the objection!

Don't think this was worst than the Ferraris/Azzie stables objection fiasco

.....1st race in PE yesterday.....3rd horse clearly interfered with 4th..... but now we see a precedent in consistency....they are getting it wrong....if the horse is deemed to be travelling better....it cannot be successfully objected against no matter how much interference it causes
....wrong wrong wrong....

Mind boggling that the result stood!

Muhtiman wrote: .....1st race in PE yesterday.....3rd horse clearly interfered with 4th..... but now we see a precedent in consistency....they are getting it wrong....if the horse is deemed to be travelling better....it cannot be successfully objected against no matter how much interference it causes
....wrong wrong wrong....

forget the punting aspect for a minute - one fine day a jock or horse is going to be seriously injured because of this type of action... and then it will be too late...

.....was not that involved with that PE race.....nor did I see it live....caught the early replays this morning when having coffee.....and under this this thread I started was trying to highlight the dangers of this type of race riding.....yes horses are unpredictable....but they are piloted by a person that is there to ensure a better steering and make sure that horses stay out of each others way.....when your mount starts to indicate a different behavior....then do your best to check it to avoid crashing into the rest of the pack or trying to run onto others looking for company....I'm sure that had that horse been ducking towards a rail or fence the jock would have pulled it out and checked it more vigorously .....but not trying to prevent it from ducking at a softer object being another horse/s is just as dangerous....imo the jock tried to use the stick to correct the inward movement but also by doing so had relaxed the reigns and only gathered them up to check when it was too late and the interference had already happened.... :S