'Categories' of Stewards Rules, TIF Discussion

Post Reply
User avatar
Insane Crazy
Posts: 3042
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2013 11:26 pm

Sat May 04, 2019 10:11 pm

I stumbled across this today, from November 2018. Seemed awfully timely and maybe worth discussion?

https://racingthinktank.com/reports/tif ... ging-rules

This especially blasted me right in the face:
Among the primary flaws with the Category 2 philosophy, clear-cut winners can be demoted for interference which had minimal impact on the race – penalizing the jockey, owners, trainers, bettors, and in some cases, even the racetrack itself.

Now imagine the application of Category 2 rules in a Kentucky Derby or Breeders’ Cup Classic. A winner that rolls clear only to lose the race in the stewards’ room. The outcry would be deafening.
Here is the 'Category 1' in question, which applies to all major racing jurisdictions outside of the US and Canada. Japan switched to it in 2013 and in five years has had fewer reviews than in just their last year of the old method.
If, in the opinion of the Staging Authority’s relevant judicial body, a horse or its rider causes interference and finishes in front of the horse interfered with but irrespective of the incident(s) the sufferer would not have finished ahead of the horse causing the interference, the judge’s placings will remain unaltered."
I don't know much about TIF, but the concept of the organization is exactly the sort of thing racing needs. I wonder if this incident could be a trigger point for a change in methods -- if nothing else, to help protect racetracks and stewards from angry horsemen and bettors.
Not a wholesome trottin' race, no, but a race where they sit down right on the horse!
Like to see some stuck-up jockey boy sittin' on Dan Patch? Make your blood boil? Well, I should say!
Somnambulist
Posts: 7734
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2013 5:59 pm

Sat May 04, 2019 10:14 pm

Yeahhhhh girl you barking up the wrong tree. Organization is not what racing in the USA wants to get behind.

I don't have a problem with the DQ, it is the disturbing level of inconsistency that is problematic. This is hard for bettors, long time fans, and casual ones to get behind. It's like working in an environment with no workplace protocol or set of guidelines. Speaking from experience it's all fun and games until you realize there is no way to quantify your performance to ask for a raise.
"Life's no piece of cake, mind you, but the recipe's my own to fool with."
sweettalk
Posts: 2083
Joined: Sat Sep 14, 2013 5:05 pm

Sat May 04, 2019 10:15 pm

i'd stab someone if it gave us less foggy sounding rules. there's a thread going here about "unwritten rules" - the fact that anyone could even think those are a thing means the rules aren't clear enough/enforced properly. or maybe they are enforced properly, hard to tell sometimes since bayern was a thing that happened and that was pretty divisive.

edit; basically what som just said.
User avatar
Insane Crazy
Posts: 3042
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2013 11:26 pm

Sat May 04, 2019 10:20 pm

Somnambulist wrote:
Sat May 04, 2019 10:14 pm
Yeahhhhh girl you barking up the wrong tree. Organization is not what racing in the USA wants to get behind.
Oh, lmao, of course. It's a 'take your medicine' sort of situation, though I know you know that. Feel like racing is getting to a place where we're going to have to take a big leap or let ourselves die. I know the latter is more likely, but...y'know. Bold change looks good. Good looks make money.
I don't have a problem with the DQ, it is the disturbing level of inconsistency that is problematic. This is hard for bettors, long time fans, and casual ones to get behind. It's like working in an environment with no workplace protocol or set of guidelines. Speaking from experience it's all fun and games until you realize there is no way to quantify your performance to ask for a raise.
Yeah. Consistency is really the name of the game here. It's what is most infuriating. And the method of disqualification is wild to me. Maximum Security clearly did not cause the poor performance of so many horses that he is in 17th place. I know it's all just dumb numbers on a page, but woof.
Not a wholesome trottin' race, no, but a race where they sit down right on the horse!
Like to see some stuck-up jockey boy sittin' on Dan Patch? Make your blood boil? Well, I should say!
User avatar
Insane Crazy
Posts: 3042
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2013 11:26 pm

Sat May 04, 2019 10:20 pm

sweettalk wrote:
Sat May 04, 2019 10:15 pm
i'd stab someone if it gave us less foggy sounding rules
Words to live by.
Not a wholesome trottin' race, no, but a race where they sit down right on the horse!
Like to see some stuck-up jockey boy sittin' on Dan Patch? Make your blood boil? Well, I should say!
BaroqueAgain1
Posts: 10362
Joined: Sat Sep 14, 2013 6:16 pm

Mon May 06, 2019 2:36 pm

Insane Crazy posted: "If, in the opinion of the Staging Authority’s relevant judicial body, a horse or its rider causes interference and finishes in front of the horse interfered with but irrespective of the incident(s) the sufferer would not have finished ahead of the horse causing the interference, the judge’s placings will remain unaltered."

I have a problem with that standard...it pretty much ignores safety.
I've watched enough international racing to see plenty of what seemed (to me) to be egregious fouls, but placings were unchanged. If riders know that they can get away with interfering with other horses, that doesn't help keep racing as safe as possible.
Waiting until AFTER a horse falls as a result of reckless riding to declare a foul is not going to help anyone, and it sure won't make a good impression on public perception. :(
Tessablue
Posts: 3830
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 11:29 am
Location: Boston

Mon May 06, 2019 3:20 pm

I think Category 1 might work well on big sweeping tracks where every horse typically gets a shot in the straightaway, but I agree that it loses an element of safety, especially in the narrow tracks and occasionally-large fields of American racing. Consider the following scenarios:

1. A huge favorite hugs the rail all the way around, then sharply impedes multiple other horses in order to get running room in the stretch. The favorite goes on to win easily. Should they be penalized?

This actually isn't hypothetical, it happened just a few weeks ago at Gulfstream and resulted in both as disqualification and a suspension: https://www.paulickreport.com/news/the- ... ss-riding/

2. A big favorite and a longshot move together on the final turn, lengths ahead of the rest of the field. The longshot appears to be gaining when the favorite bears out and causes the longshot to clip heels, stumbling badly and losing the jockey. The favorite goes on to win very easily by a large margin. Is the favorite disqualified, or must the stewards's handicap whether the longshot had a chance of winning?

As counterintuitive as it might seem at first, I think the American system actually removes some of the ambiguity. The stewards still have to handicap a bit, but "would War of Will have won" is a much more difficult question than "Would War of Will have placed better." I also think the loopholde wherein big winners go unpunished for eliminating minor competition is a potentially dangerous one.
User avatar
RUFFIAN
Posts: 3557
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2013 11:00 pm
Location: BOULDER COLORADO
Contact:

Mon May 06, 2019 6:23 pm

“...Maximum Security clearly did not cause the poor performance of so many horses that he is in 17th place.
I know it's all just dumb numbers on a page, but woof.”
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
HE WAS PLACED #17 BEHIND THE HORSES WITH WHOM HE DEFINITELY INTERFERED! :evil: :o :twisted:
Placing MS BEHIND Long Range Toddy....

That’s Why Placed #17
MAY THE PURRRRRRRRR BE WITH YOU
=^,,^=

Pics And Poems
http://www.RUFFIAN333.com
Post Reply