Resolved : HRV not editing the start of video replays

[Dot]

Not sure where your going with your after start math Wayne. You said from your viewing of the tab video the horse was scoring up barrier six albeit back off the gate. You quote (selectively) the tweet from the driver of the 5 horse who said it “started at his wheel” to support your argument. That tweet continue on to state that “then caused deliberate interference to our other runner who was poking through from the second row”

I’ve no doubt Wayne a horse directed by the driver could move down 5m or more over less then 100m, it’s position relative to other runners would be determined by the speed of that horse and the speed and position of the other runners. A horse that was say hanging down with a driver trying to correct it would likely loose ground on the other runners. To pass behind the five the 6 is now positioned best on the “second row”, apart from the 7 there are no other runners on the second row. The replay whilst abbreviated commences at the point the 6 interferes with the 7 and the distance prior to the winning post is easily calculated by multiplying the distance between the pegs, which enables calculation of the distance from the start. The video is clear, the 7 is moving off the pegs but is not established in the running line when struck by the 6. Watch the replay Wayne, I believe the stewards report is in error with regard to the location of this interference as “leaving the front straight on the first occasion”. Without the complete vision I can only surmise that, as the driver of the 5 tweeted, the 6 directed his horse inward and deliberately interfered with the 7. I don’t see why a change to the guidelines is required to charge under Rule 168, which applies to before, during and after a race instead of rule 163. A change to the guidelines wasn’t required to charge the second bout of interference under rule 168 instead of rule 163. Rule 163 applies for a whole race but the penalty increases for a first turn offence.

No not only a driver who owns and trains can benefit, but the benefit is immediately obvious in the case of a driver who also owns and trains. So should penalties for driving offences be determined after betting information has also been scrutinised? And the connections questioned with regard to provision of a “sling”?

Having more relevant objective information at hand can only be of benefit to stewards in their deliberations, of course not having to make subjective assessments would be of greater benefit still. As you say a horse that has been interferred with and lost one or several lengths may no longer be trying yet going head to head with that same opponent free of interference may dig deep. In my opinion the guidelines are flawed when it comes to issuing penalties with regard to how a horse reacts to being interfered with. That is assuming that all horses react the same and will react more severely to more severe interference. That isn’t necessarily the case, some horses will react severely to minimal interference, others will remain in their gear almost regardless of how severely they are checked.

I’ll have to disagree Wayne, I don’t believe it is a long limb or improper to suggest these infringements were lightly dealt with, not from what I saw or surmised from the video. Of course it is the stewards decision but that does not mean others are not entitled to an opinion.

But yes relegation for any interference removes subjective assessments and prevents any profit from deliberate wrong doing.

[arlington]

Having read what I consider a very long limb in the odds and evens thread I really think it fruitless to continue with you Dot. A long limb again to reference what I said regarding the need for clear policy change to implement more severe penalties and the inference I'd only like drivers to get a tap on the wrist.

I'm not sure if it's selective quoting (certainly not my intent) if I have agreed there was interference. Is it not simply a case of not needing to quote that part?

I'm bamboozled. Are you saying the driver, in saying poking through from the 2nd row meant the 7 was poking through in the peg line, therefore my maths is out because the 6 would have needed to drop down one more position? Perhaps irrelevant anyway, he was pinged for not being clear irrespective of one out, partially one out or on the rails. Dealt with under the first turn policy which if I remember correctly is from mobile release to the end of the first turn. Once again would need a clear policy change to deal with it differently. Allow me to imagine once again. If a pro driver was the first to be dealt with differently under this current policy, I'd borrow to bet they'd be off to appeal. Can see Damian Sheales rubbing his hands together, oops, can imagine him rubbing his hands.

Am surprised you think it more immediately obvious with an owner driver. Perhaps I've been tainted by past indiscretions from all types of drivers.

Making it clear once again, it doesn't mean I wouldn't support harsher penalties for any driver if the policy was changed.

You initially said the HRA replay didn't show any of the first interference Dot.

[arlington]

Damn drought, unfortunately or some might say fortunate, that I'm up irrigating, meaning I can amuse myself with the laptop.
My last sentence post #52 Dot. Might some think it selective you said Regardless of whether this particular instance of the absence of a portion of relevant vision ( score up, start and first instance of interference)… and now you can make exacting calculations and comment from that very same vision? Or am I using selective wrongly?

Now what did you say about me...You quote (selectively) the tweet from the driver of the 5 horse who said it “started at his wheel” to support your argument.

[Dot]

Wayne where is this “first turn policy”?

https://www.thetrots.com.au/for-part...0F9CEDFE69892E

The only reference I can find is in the penalty guidelines, which facilitates an increase in penalty for some rules where the offence occurs on the “first turn” as you defined. There is nothing I can see in the penalty guidelines that stipulates only certain rules or penalties apply for offences on the “first turn”

Yes I did state originally that the first incidence of interference could not be seen. I was wrong, a portion of that interference and therefore the positions on the track of those horses can be seen on the first few seconds of the replay.

It’s not what I “think” Wayne, it is a statement of fact, an owner/trainer/driver does stand to gain the more financially from the stakemoney winning a race then a freelance driver. Other finacial rewards, wagering/slings, are not so readily determined. Driving suspensions are less of a deterrent to an occasional or part time driver then they are on those who make all or a substantial portion of their income from driving. For what it’s worth I do believe professional drivers should be held to a higher standard of accountability then non professional drivers, something that puts me at odds with at least one chief steward.

No perhaps about it, I have been tainted by a driver who deliberately steered into a horse in the past. The status of the driver was irrelevant, the death of my horse to me was not. What policy needs to change Wayne to facilitate harsher penalties for drivers? The penalty guidelines already facilitate the laying of sterner charges then were laid at Wangaratta.

What needs to change is the ability for a driver and connections to obtain a benefit or profit when a driver commits an offence on the track. That would provide a more effective deterrent and level playing field for all drivers.

[arlington]

From the HRV Stewards Minimum Penalty Guidelines.

Interference Related

2(d). AHRR 163(1)(a) “
(1) A driver shall not -
(a) cause or contribute to any
(iii) interference
First Turn Penalty Starting Point: 4 Week Suspension of licence to drive in races. (For the purposes of this policy a first turn offence is an offence which occurs from the point the race starts until the field reach the next straight.)


Dot, we're going around in circles. I'll ask, you're more than happy that what you suggest will be implemented from now on, each and every driver who offends in the same manner is dealt with under the rules you suggest from the current policy? I will agree to disagree you could/should selectively change the way the current policy is implemented on one given day/night. I don't care who the driver is.

When I said perhaps I've been tainted...it was used in the context of I like to try to keep an open mind. Sorry to read about the loss of your horse. I could have written I have had a horse's racing career cut short, could have written in a driving career spanning more than three decades have only been sited, in the interference category, for making a horse cover more ground and I think only twice. The ratio of interference type offences against me, that is a horse coming down, possibly 10:1. And is it that I have no thought for loss of life or limb to my horse that I have to wait for a stewards report to come out confirming we were put at risk again very recently. I think not.
I would like to think I'm well regarded by my peers irrespective of their driver status. For me, the first obligation as a driver is to respect life and limb. Just because I don't think you can change the rules on the run doesn't mean I'm not supportive of harsher penalties for any driver when it comes to risking life and limb.

As an aside to already posing the risk of a hoppled horse jumping a marker peg, I have always wondered about degree of interference works backwards from a horse coming down. (sorry running out of time to express in a better way). Severe if it comes down less severe if marks on it's legs or boots, less severe if no marks. Not a knock on the stewards for this, they've tried to implement some sort of table to make things clear and equitable regardless of driver status. What has always worried me (no not in a selfish only thinking about me sense) is depending on the horse, it's pot luck as to how much interference might make that horse come down.

A sling can take many and varied forms and I will add in both codes, gallops and harness. I think it rather ignorant, in your case I wouldn't say naïve, that just because you look at where the prizemoney's going you think it's obvious one type of driver can stand to benefit more than another. In the case of that race, you're talking $2250. Without going around in circles, a driver that does not own or train rarely could benefit by an amount at least equivalent to that? Rare like hen's teeth.
When I see what (apologies for language) I consider an act of sheer bastardry from a driver who doesn't own, my first thought is not about their prizemoney %.

[arlington]

Just quickly, aren't we going around in circles - What needs to change is the ability for a driver and connections to obtain a benefit or profit when a driver commits an offence on the track. That would provide a more effective deterrent and level playing field for all drivers. We agree on relegation. Not sure how quickly stewards/integrity could confirm and be absolute regarding all forms of betting on the night though.

[Dot]

Interference Related

2(d). AHRR 163(1)(a) “
(1) A driver shall not -
(a) cause or contribute to any
(iii) interference
First Turn Penalty Starting Point: 4 Week Suspension of licence to drive in races. (For the purposes of this policy a first turn offence is an offence which occurs from the point the race starts until the field reach the next straight.)

Are you saying Wayne that this is the only rule that can be applied to first turn offences? This is a rule and penalty clause, not a policy to me. I don’t read the penalty guidelines as this is the only rule that can apply to first turn offences.

Are you satisfied Wayne that just one rule and penalty scale should apply to all first turn offences? The same charge and penalty for example for an opponent, drawn alongside, brushing a horses extended leg with a wheel whilst crossing to lead, as for one who shifts in several cart widths towards the rear of the field and strikes a horse no further forward then at the midpoint of its body?

[arlington]

As both you and I know, 168(1)(b) was used in the Cup. The same rule was used for the final turn in race 2. The stewards would have had head on vision as well, (no I'm not going to into "how can you be sure") and even from the limited footage available to you from race 2, and looking at the vision of the Cup, I imagine the stewards have adjudicated on both driver's intent, persistence and any evidence of desisting.
Therefore stewards have the ability to, as in these examples, apply the rules as they see fit.

I believe the stewards have been consistent within the policy/guidelines. Irrespective of status of driver the stewards need to be consistent.

Are you satisfied Wayne that just one rule and penalty scale should apply to all first turn offences? The same charge and penalty for example for an opponent, drawn alongside, brushing a horses extended leg with a wheel whilst crossing to lead, as for one who shifts in several cart widths towards the rear of the field and strikes a horse no further forward then at the midpoint of its body? My first paragraph covers this.


As I've previously said, I have quandaries over assessment of interference i.e. horse comes down, marks on boots or legs. In the question above, a horse that "brushes' with the driver making no attempt to take evasive action, I'm happy to have that dealt with similar to a horse coming down.

If you have any more concerns Dot, take them up with the stewards. Wasting too much of my time on this. And don't infer I have no respect for human or horse life and limb. My thoughts already well documented....I did mention 6 months somewhere.

[arlington]

There is some controversy over R2 at Wang last night

You won't see it on the HRV replay as it begins some seconds after they have been released

You can see it on Sky/TAB replays (you will have to search back on Sky to find Wang R2)

http://www.skyracing.com.au/index.ph...emid=198&id=18

When you see the start you will notice that the Fr6 runner Crocodile Kid (eventual winner) had moved to behind the fav Fr5 before the green light came on

http://www.harness.org.au/racing/fie...19#WNC10031909

You will notice a lot of coding in the Stewards Comments column

Should it have been called a false start

I did not see it live - I had not checked the calendar and thought all bar the Birchip meet HRV listed for yesterday were just trials. WHEN ARE HRV GOING TO STOP LISTING TRIALS (which then provide you with no info) and confuse you to as what is actually a meet

Full replay http://www.harness.org.au/racing/fie...19#WNC10031909

[Messenger]

Just goes to show you that all we needed to do was ask - I contacted Mediatec about it a couple of days ago