http://www.drf.com/news/international-federation-horseracing-authorities-approves-model-rule-regarding-interference
Not based on costing a placing-- they have to determine the horse fouled would have finished ahead of the fouler.
First it says \"finish position was compromised\"
Then the article says “sufferer would not have finished ahead of the horse causing the interferenceâ€
Conflicting , to say the least
Yeah. But the second one is in quotes.
TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.drf.com/news/international-federation-h
> orseracing-authorities-approves-model-rule-regardi
> ng-interference
>
> Not based on costing a placing-- they have to
> determine the horse fouled would have finished
> ahead of the fouler.
The philosophy outlined appears to reflect the standard posture of the NYRA room in recent seasons . . .
As I understand it, there are two common rules on this. One is the rule prevalent in the US that the foul must have cost the fouled horse a placing. The other rule, prevalent in most other parts of the world, is that the guilty horse must have gained an advantage. This sounds like the latter. It makes some sense to me. If my horse fouls another, causing it to finish 3d rather than 2d, why should the horse who finished 2d be moved up to the win position? That horse was not fouled and would not even have finished 2d but for the foul.
Because the horse that was fouled needs to be compensated for losing a placing.
Understood. But if that\'s the objective, there are more efficient ways to accomplish it, like redistributing some of the purse from the offender to the offended. Under the US rule, most of the benefit goes to horses who were unaffected by the foul.
Either way is fine with me, as long as the rules are clear and enforced with some consistency. The US rule has probably helped me more often than it has hurt me.
Well said. Consistency is key. Personally, as a bettor, I think this is a good rule. I hate to see a horse go down that clearly was the best in the race.
As for the jockeys you can fine them and ban them to discourage dangerous riding, and it is possible for the owners to sort out compensations as the stewards see fit without interfering in the betting markets. They do this when a horse test positive anyway.
Who knew. from this url
http://www.scmp.com/sport/racing/article/1859174/why-stewards-got-it-right-both-st-leger-and-irish-champion-stakes
In world racing, there are two stewarding philosophies, known rather blandly as Category One and Category Two.
Category One is enforced by most of the world, including the United Kingdom and Ireland (as well as Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Singapore and as of recently, Japan) and states: “If the interferer finished ahead of the sufferer and has not improved its placing as a result of the interference, or stated differently, but for the interference, the sufferer would not have beaten the interferer, the interferer retains its place.â€
In layman’s terms, Horse A cannot be demoted unless stewards are satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Horse B would have beaten it home if not for interference.
Category Two is only found in the United States, France, Germany and most of South America and states: “If the interferer is guilty of causing the interference, and such interference has affected the result of the race, the interferer should be demoted behind the sufferer.â€
here is what they actually decided:
horseracingintfed.com (http://horseracingintfed.com/Default.asp?section=Resources&area=0&story=992)
QuoteIf, 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.
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 and if not for the incident(s) the sufferer would have finished ahead of the horse causing the interference, the interferer will be placed immediately behind the sufferer.
Racing Authorities may, within their Rules, provide for the disqualification of a horse from a race in circumstances in which the Staging Authority’s relevant judicial body deems that the rider has ridden in a dangerous manner.
this does not appear to address situations in which a horse that did not suffer interference nonetheless benefits from the result of interference involving other horses.
I am posting this to a thread that was posted eighteen months ago, but that might be interesting to revisit in the current context. As I understand the international rule, Maximum Security would not have come down unless the foul affected a horse (according to the stewards, Long Range Toddy and/or Bodexpress in this case) that would have finished ahead of him. The most common rule in the US requires only that the foul must have cost the fouled horse a placing. The Thoroughbred Idea Foundation are pushing for adoption of the international rule:
https://racingthinktank.com/reports/tif-reports-changing-rules
I like the idea of having more things decided on the track and fewer decided in the stewards\' booth. There are ways other than disqualification to deal with fouls.
Disclosure: I lost an inconsequential amount of money because of the DQ, but tend to agree that, under the current rules, it was the correct call.
Under that kind of rule, as with the Cali rule, there’s no such thing as a foul at the start. Or if someone gets droppedâ€" how can anyone say where they would have finished?
BitPlayer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am posting this to a thread that was posted
> eighteen months ago, but that might be interesting
> to revisit in the current context. As I
> understand the international rule, Maximum
> Security would not have come down unless the foul
> affected a horse (according to the stewards, Long
> Range Toddy and/or Bodexpress in this case) that
> would have finished ahead of him. The most common
> rule in the US requires only that the foul must
> have cost the fouled horse a placing. The
> Thoroughbred Idea Foundation are pushing for
> adoption of the international rule:
>
> https://racingthinktank.com/reports/tif-reports-ch
> anging-rules
>
> I like the idea of having more things decided on
> the track and fewer decided in the stewards\'
> booth. There are ways other than disqualification
> to deal with fouls.
>
> Disclosure: I lost an inconsequential amount of
> money because of the DQ, but tend to agree that,
> under the current rules, it was the correct call.
The stewards said the #1 was impacted.
\"We had a lengthy review of the race, interviewed affected riders and determined that the seven horse drifted out and impacted the number 1, who in turn interfered with the 18 and 21. Those horses were all affected.\"
One can make the case that the #1 had a chance to possibly finish ahead of the #7
I agree with that. I think that\'s the appropriate conversation to be having and the one we would be having under the European rule.
I would also add something to the European rule that would allow the stewards, in the absence of a DQ, to reallocate part of the purse from the fouler to the foulee to compensate the foulee for purse money lost as a result of the foul. The latter determination could be made after the fact, as happens with drug DQs, not while the crowd is waiting for a result. Under the current system, the horses who benefited from the DQ are also horses who arguably already benefited from War of Will not finishing as well as he might have. War of Will gains nothing, because only the top five get purse money.
As an aside, Tyler Gaffalione has got to be kicking himself for not staying inside and getting the trip that Johnny V got.
Here\'s a discussion of the DQ under the European rules:
https://www.scmp.com/sport/racing/article/3008934/kentucky-derby-disqualification-can-be-catalyst-change-kim-kelly