Glaring example of why the Change Of Tactics rule as applied in NSW is a JOKE

[Thevoiceofreason]

G'day Bill,
Even if I were to accept all that to be the case, which I don't obviously, hence what I said there previously, but even if I did...is it still not a damning indictment of the folly in the way the rule is being enforced? Especially so given that it created to protect Punters from being dudded, the horse in question went off as fav. and it duly won and the driver was still fined? That's just ridiculous. Otherwise, the suggestion is there that Luke was in effect retrospectively fined, not for the winning drive, but for previous outings. That's absurd too. It has all become more about the rule, the wording of the rule and the procedure/requirements of the rule than it is about it being used in the spirit with which it was intended to be used.
To me fining Luke for that drive, a winning one, was like a bloke getting knocked out in a ruck in a rugby game and the ref. penalising his team because he was lying on the ball. It's using a rule because technically you can, not because you should.

Unfortunately and let me SHOUT THIS OUT I HATE THE RULE the way the rule is used in both codes is only to inform the punter, it may well as you say have been to protect them but that is no longer the case.

It is an information rule now that is why both codes in NSW make it available live on the net, it is all about information.

Luke McCarthy and every other Trainer and Driver in NSW is aware of it and as such he should have given up his tactics like it or not.

Not sure which bits you do not accept but the video replays do not lie.

As I said I hate the rule, so if enough people hate it get rid of it.

Trouble is more like it, that is more punters that you want to spoon feed in other ways with gear changes ect like it , so it most likely will stay.

[triplev123]

Fair enough. See, I knew we'd reach common ground eventually.

[The Rainmaker]

Is it possible that this rule may be manipulated by connections out there by supplying 'decoy' tactics, to steer punters away from their runners whom then start at larger odds than they may have otherwise?

If Roman Republic wins that race at Penrith on 8th Sept, after leading, when connections advised its tactics would vary from usual and be driven with cover, what happens? The connections get a reprimand, or say 'circumstances changed' and no action is taken, while punters have decided not to bet on that horse, or have decided to bet on another runner, and therefore Roman Republic starts a $3.30 chance whereas it might have started a $2.50 chance otherwise.

Another example I have is @ Menangle on 1st Aug:
Connections of My Uptown Attitude advised stewards the horse would be driven further back. The week before it led from gate 6 in a 27 and change 1st quarter and was cut down late. The horse leads all the way to win. The horse won the race so the stewards take no action regarding the opposite change of tactics, but if nothing was mentioned to the public re change of tactics then its likely the horse starts at shorter odds.

As a punter, when I bet on a horse believing it will lead or go forward and it goes back, thats fine, Im happy to do my money. But when an official statement is made and the opposite happens, that doesnt do any good for an industry already shot with punters confidence.

[triplev123]

is it possible that this rule may be manipulated by connections out there by supplying 'decoy' tactics, to steer punters away from their runners whom then start at larger odds than they may have otherwise?

[vvv] nah, i doubt it very much. For the most part i think it's only the real diehards and the irascible (such as myself) that tend to listen to such announcements and then see if they play out that way. That being said, i've been around them pretty much all my life and for a pretty a large slice of that i've had a bet and in the end, whatever the announcement happens to be...tactics, gear, phases of the moon...unless they say something that's along the lines of 'connections of harry's boy have spoken to the stewards and the driver has elected to fall out the back of the cart at the 600m if circumstances permit' then i'm backing whatever i was always going to back, regardless. [end]

if roman republic wins that race at penrith on 8th sept, after leading, when connections advised its tactics would vary from usual and be driven with cover, what happens? The connections get a reprimand, or say 'circumstances changed' and no action is taken, while punters have decided not to bet on that horse, or have decided to bet on another runner, and therefore roman republic starts a $3.30 chance whereas it might have started a $2.50 chance otherwise.

[vvv] apparently, if you win you get fined (roman stride). If you get beaten you don't (roman republic). . Further to that, if you're jimmy durante you've got a big schnozz (roman nose).[end].

another example i have is @ menangle on 1st aug:
Connections of my uptown attitude advised stewards the horse would be driven further back. The week before it led from gate 6 in a 27 and change 1st quarter and was cut down late. The horse leads all the way to win. The horse won the race so the stewards take no action regarding the opposite change of tactics, but if nothing was mentioned to the public re change of tactics then its likely the horse starts at shorter odds.

[vvv] you have just shot my win and get fined, lose and skate theory to pieces but at the same time significantly bolstered my view that the rule is applied arbitrarily at best. I'll take the .50 any day.[end]

as a punter, when i bet on a horse believing it will lead or go forward and it goes back, thats fine, im happy to do my money. But when an official statement is made and the opposite happens, that doesnt do any good for an industry already shot with punters confidence.

[vvv] couldn't agree more. I believe they're better off with no statement whatsoever than a statement that doesn't pan out and especially so one that doesn't pan out and that apparently nothing is done about afterwards. [end]

vvv

[Thevoiceofreason]

vvv

Hold on team now we are not being fair in relation to this rule.

At least in the Menangle case of My Uptown Attitude the stewards asked the question as to why it still led contrary to the advised change.

I cannot quote the explanation because unfortunately that report is now down but one look at the video will show you three things.

1.The G MAC did not drive it off the arm at all.

2 The horse had its mouth opened which indicates it was being restrained to some point at least.

3 Nothing else wanted to lead.

Sorry boys but this one is a case of circumstances permitting and clearly in this race they did not.

VVV with this rule there is no pleasing you.

Enforce it as they did with Luke at Menangle not happy.

Not question as they did at Penrith with Luke not happy.

Question as they did here and accept the explanation with G MAC not happy.

The rule is there get over it, sometimes the stewards will get it wrong, sometimes they will get it right, that happens in sport and in life ask any football coach who lost a game on a poor call..

Amanda Know was just released from prison on a murder wrap because someone got it wrong, maybe in the first case, maybe this case, I will never know and neither will you because we only have some of the facts just like these cases.

If you want a perfect world it is not about to happen well not in my lifetime.

[triplev123]

You're probably right there VOR. There very likely is no pleasing me as far as this rule is concerned. That is of course because not only is it at its very core a bullshit rule...but it is also not enforced in the spirit of its original intent.
Btw, I am somewhat disappointed that you failed to comment on the Jimmy Durante reference. I'd have thought that era was your demographic hands down.