Roll With Joe
+ Reply to Thread
Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 67

Thread: Resolved : HRV not editing the start of video replays

  1. #41
    Senior Member Horse Of The Year Dot will become famous soon enough
    Real Name
    Dot Schmidt
    Posts
    616
    Ive always been for relegation. And your thoughts on the penalties Wayne?

  2. #42
    Super Moderator Stallion Messenger will become famous soon enough Messenger's Avatar
    Real Name
    Kevin O'Donoghue
    Location
    The Gap
    Occupation
    Retired
    Posts
    14,029
    Horses
    A long, long time ago
    Quote Originally Posted by arlington View Post
    You're not happy with a more explanative report Kev? Perhaps because it was a Cup meeting where there is often more interest with the report more detailed? There are other examples in this meeting report e.g. forced to race well inside marker pegs and another for approximately 200m.

    I don't think I implied unhappy - just suspicious. You are clutching at straws there Wayne - you may expect more detail for a Cup possibly but not a R3 race. I have seen the peg details you list before. I think the following:

    Perhaps it was due to the footnote on all reports - This report and the Stewards Comments for this meeting may be amended at the sole discretion of the Harness Racing Victoria (HRV) Stewards as races are reviewed as per the ‘HRV Stewards Internal Review Process’. The stewards were alerted to the missing replay footage via twitter @HRVinformer. The stewards felt the report on the start required more detail?
    This is the likely reason BUT there is absolutely no excuse for the start of that race to not be up
    per un PUGNO di DOLLARI

  3. #43
    Senior Member Horse Of The Year arlington will become famous soon enough
    Real Name
    Wayne Hayes
    Posts
    787
    Quote Originally Posted by Dot View Post
    Ive always been for relegation. And your thoughts on the penalties Wayne?

    The penalties look like they are in accordance with the policy when the policy is applied to each of the three infringements separately. I would have been surprised if the penalties weren't cumulative in race 2. Should there be a loading for multiple infringements in the one race, I wouldn't be opposed to that. That is with the current policy, cumulative plus loading.
    Have been a supporter of relegation to last for decades. Minimum 8 weeks as well.
    Going from running rails to marker pegs is a great move but still, a hoppled horse jumping a peg?
    Last edited by arlington; 03-16-2019 at 06:00 PM. Reason: addition

  4. #44
    Senior Member Horse Of The Year arlington will become famous soon enough
    Real Name
    Wayne Hayes
    Posts
    787
    Quote Originally Posted by Messenger;58862[COLOR=#00bfff
    I don't think I implied unhappy - just suspicious. You are clutching at straws there Wayne - you may expect more detail for a Cup possibly but not a R3 race. I have seen the peg details you list before... [/COLOR]
    I didn't get that feeling of clutching at straws as I typed Kev. The other example I gave for approximately 200m wasn't in the Cup. From memory it was in a R race.

  5. #45
    Senior Member Horse Of The Year arlington will become famous soon enough
    Real Name
    Wayne Hayes
    Posts
    787
    Quote Originally Posted by Messenger View Post
    This is the likely reason BUT there is absolutely no excuse for the start of that race to not be up

    Whilst I think the SKY/TAB replay shows nothing other than OPS I agree the replay for the HRV/A site should be remedied. Owners like to watch a full replay, owners, trainers, drivers like to do form. Wouldn't think a driver doing some last minute form track side should have to log into a TAB account. Pretty sure no-one would prefer that as the only option.

  6. #46
    Senior Member Horse Of The Year Dot will become famous soon enough
    Real Name
    Dot Schmidt
    Posts
    616
    Quote Originally Posted by arlington View Post
    The penalties look like they are in accordance with the policy when the policy is applied to each of the three infringements separately. I would have been surprised if the penalties weren't cumulative in race 2. Should there be a loading for multiple infringements in the one race, I wouldn't be opposed to that. That is with the current policy, cumulative plus loading.
    Have been a supporter of relegation for decades. Relegation in race 2 and the Cup.
    From the stewards report it appears the horse has been blamed for the OPS. Without the video footage it’s not possible to review that.

    The absence of video footage also makes it difficult with the regard to the first incident of interference but some of that incident is included at the very beggining of the available footage. On that footage it is apparent that the interference took place between 4 and 5 marker pegs prior to the winning post, which enables calculation of just how far after the start the interference took place. If Mr Tyndall scored up in line with his allotted barrier then by my ready reckoning Mr Tyndall has moved in a minimum of 4 carts in the space of less then 100m before his sulky made contact with the number 7, which had just commenced to move off the pegs, at approximately the midpoint of the horses body. It was dealt with under rule 163(1)(a)(iii) for first turn offences. But should it have been. Would the missing footage confirm that a more serious charge under rule 168 could have been leveled and sustained? Reckless, improper or even foul driving perhaps? On the available footage we will never know. And the guide is a little short on definitions for these.

    The second instance of interference is well included in the available footage. As referenced in the stewards report Mr Tyndall did deliberately steer his horse into Lights and Music whilst the field was still travelling in a straight line in the back straight and can be clearly seen on the video, first the horses head is turned in, then the inward angle of the horse and cart in comparison to the marker pegs can be clearly seen, as can the interference to Lights and Music. This was deemed reckless by the stewards but was it reckless or could it be considered foul driving? Are stewards permitted to consider motive during the course of their deliberations? As the breeder/owner/trainer/driver of his horse Mr Tyndall stood to gain significantly financially should his horse go onto win the race, particularly if in addition he had wagered on it. Most people, and a criminal investigation of course, would consider finacial gain as motive for someone’s actions, in this case interference to another runner who posed a threat to Mr Tyndall’s likelihood of winning the race. There’s no doubt his actions were deliberate but were they merely reckless or were they foul?

    In dismissing the protest stewards considered the margin of 6.5m and that Lights and Music wasnt reducing the margin. Do stewards consider that if the interference did not take place in the back straight prior to the last turn that Crocodile Kids rightful position rounding the final turn would have been 3 wide, not 2 wide? And, it’s a little while since I did the calculations, but on a turn of 64m radius that equates to approximately a distance of 6.5m further that Crocodile Kid would need to have covered during the race, placing him and Lights and Music much closer to head to head across the line, considering Lights a and Music wouldn’t have had been checked or had to shift wider on the track.

    Call me the hanging judge Wayne, indeterminable whether penalty for OPS applied to driver, on balance of probability 1st instance of interference was at least a reckless or improper rule 168 offence, 12 weeks, 2nd instance of interference was foul, 9 months, cumulative with the 12 weeks. Protest Upheld.

    A relegation rule for causing any interference would seem so much easier then these kind of deliberations for stewards to me.

  7. #47
    Super Moderator Stallion Messenger will become famous soon enough Messenger's Avatar
    Real Name
    Kevin O'Donoghue
    Location
    The Gap
    Occupation
    Retired
    Posts
    14,029
    Horses
    A long, long time ago
    Quote Originally Posted by arlington View Post
    I didn't get that feeling of clutching at straws as I typed Kev. The other example I gave for approximately 200m wasn't in the Cup. From memory it was in a R race.
    You misunderstood me. I am saying you could expect more Steward's detail for a Cup but you would have to be clutching at straws to think they would provide more details for a R3 (just because it was on a Cup program) unless it had proven controversial eg on Twitter. The detail over the 'inside the pegs' is irrelevant - not uncommon but how far off the gate I don't believe to be common at all

    Your second reason makes sense
    per un PUGNO di DOLLARI

  8. #48
    Senior Member Horse Of The Year arlington will become famous soon enough
    Real Name
    Wayne Hayes
    Posts
    787
    Quote Originally Posted by Messenger View Post
    You misunderstood me. I am saying you could expect more Steward's detail for a Cup but you would have to be clutching at straws to think they would provide more details for a R3 (just because it was on a Cup program) unless it had proven controversial eg on Twitter. The detail over the 'inside the pegs' is irrelevant - not uncommon but how far off the gate I don't believe to be common at all

    Your second reason makes sense

    Not sure if I did misunderstand you, however, once again Kev, well inside the marker pegs. Just looked at the stewards report again, the other example I gave for approximately 200m was in an R race, was actually race 2 in reference to the second interference. Seemed a pretty specific description to me. You might read more stewards reports than me.

    Not sure how controversial the interference decisions were, seemed pretty obvious.

  9. #49
    Senior Member Horse Of The Year arlington will become famous soon enough
    Real Name
    Wayne Hayes
    Posts
    787
    First up. I thought we were more interested with the start? But we both agree on relegation to a great extent.

    Is a pity the replay isn't available to all. Upon viewing the the SKY replay it wasn't a surprise the OPS and LCD were attributed to the horse. Appeared to be lugging in but holding it's line sufficiently.
    I'd accept this, the stewards would have had full video footage and able to use during their deliberation. Speculation perhaps, because it takes a while for Mediatec to upload, stewards would have had full vision before that. It's not like the stewards have to wait for the vision replay to be loaded, think about drivers wanting to take a look before protesting. I know, you're talking about your review Dot.


    My thoughts on the rest - the stewards took the view the number 7 had already occupied the one off position, hence the penalty. And am pretty sure Wang has camera vision in both straights.
    Not really wanting to get into mathematical analysis/forensics but, you really don't think a horse could move down approx 5 metres or less over 100 m Dot?
    Occupying the 6 posi at barrier albeit back from the gate approx 2 - 3 metres (my initial assessment posted pre report release), is an an advantage for dropping down. Not sure if this is in the approx. 3/4 length as reported but the horse can be back 1 metre. A length's 4m correct? 3/4 length minus allowable 1m is 2m back. Given that the driver of 5 said the horse was at his wheel, a big assumption that it was the horses legs(?) Depending on rein tension and horses response to the bit it may or may not have it's head extended further out that it's legs extend. Allowing it's the tip of the horses nostril that has to be within 1 metre, well, how much advantage has it got.
    Given that "advantage" ("" considering horse error) it only needs to move down 3 cart widths. Hopefully no sulky gates at Wang so 3 widths is max 3.9m. Give a bit of spacing between horses, 5 metres.

    I had considered could the stewards penalise more severely. May not be relevant or if it ever enters a stewards thoughts at any meeting - as said/thought would need a policy change, appeal to RADB, precedence. VCAT, again precedence on penalty.

    It should not matter whether owner/driver, only a driver who owns/trains could benefit? Even though we don't have the bunker, things have progressed since bookie supervisors swapped race books with the chairman of stewards.

    I guess harness and galloping stewards could be armed with tables for each race track with the accompanying radii calculations for rail, one out and so on. But they'd still need to make a call on fatigue assessment? I realise you're saying Croc Kid would have been more fatigued but you can you make that judgement for all race interferences similar, not just this one? Would you need to take into account a horse might have a shortened action due to being clipped for example, was already wheel shy so didn't try after the interference? To rule one way would be inconsiderate of the other.

    Not for me to call you the hanging judge Dot. I just think it's going out on a long limb, even improper, suggesting these infringements should be reclassified to foul or improper just so you can give a driver a greater penalty without a policy change.

    As we both agree relegation.

  10. #50
    Senior Member Horse Of The Year arlington will become famous soon enough
    Real Name
    Wayne Hayes
    Posts
    787
    Getting to look a lot like a witch/warlock hunt. Not into that.

    -Have said, and given reasons why, I think the full replay should be uploaded to HRA site. Oh how I wish it was.

    -Have had two other people view the SKY replay without saying why prior. Both said, just like me here, the green light is dim but neither had a problem identifying the start of the race and comparable to the start location of another 1800 m race on the night.

    -As for penalties going forward, if it's with intent, as long as driver status is irrelevant and a changed policy is clear, make it 6 months.

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts