Ive always been for relegation. And your thoughts on the penalties Wayne?
Printable View
Ive always been for relegation. And your thoughts on the penalties Wayne?
This is the likely reason BUT there is absolutely no excuse for the start of that race to not be upQuote:
Originally Posted by arlington
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dot
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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Messenger;58862[COLOR=#00bfff
Quote:
Originally Posted by Messenger
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by arlington
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.
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 allQuote:
Originally Posted by arlington
Your second reason makes sense
Quote:
Originally Posted by Messenger
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 %.
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.
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?
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Messenger
Full replay http://www.harness.org.au/racing/fie...19#WNC10031909
Just goes to show you that all we needed to do was ask - I contacted Mediatec about it a couple of days ago
Yes Kev, I made enquiries via another source as well. And your thoughts on what's shown? Let's keep it to the start please, per your initial post.
First time I can discern ( I think) the green light very faintly is at the commencement of the 16 seconds mark of the replay. Inside wheel and shaft of 6 in line with the 5 so must be behind. 6 very obviously passing behind 5 during the course of that 1 second of replay ( I can’t reduce the time interval further) Green light certainly on at 17 second mark of the replay.
Aren’t horses supposed to come of the circle from the outside gates first so they are on the gate first? I know some drivers have a preference to be on the gate early. Is facilitating this preference eroding the quality of the starts? ( there’s no “circle” in the states, they go up to the gate at will and are mostly all in position, a few more trotters excluded)
Given that Mediatecs product development manager acknowledged a week ago on twitter that the replay was incomplete do you boys think it should have taken over a week and seperate approaches from you to get it fixed?
I first pick the light at 14 secs .
I have changed thread title
Thank You..Quote:
Originally Posted by Messenger
I don't think I need to say the 14 sec mark is where I see the light Dot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dot
The outside horses are supposed to peel first in a perfect world, horses being what they are at times, but the policy isn't set fast in that the outside horse and so on down has to be the first on the gate.
Who is to say either of our requests were the reason. My enquiry was only a few days ago. Could have been in response to the punter. Ideally it wouldn't have taken that long but I do not know the processes involved. It may have involved getting the replay from SKY.
Oh I’m not questioning where anyone else can see the green light but 16s is where I can see it on my phone
The form certainly was good and the Crocodile does it again with a new trainer and new driver (but same owner)Quote:
Originally Posted by Messenger
http://www.harness.org.au/racing/fie...19#SPC22031902