i dont understand how you think you have a better understanding of how the COT rule is to be used then the stewards panel
Printable View
i dont understand how you think you have a better understanding of how the COT rule is to be used then the stewards panel
Hahahahaha. Now you're just being truculent Smithy...but thanks for the laugh. Most appreciated.
Hello Hello,
What would happen with this scenario. Trainer has new horse in stable and for the first 4 starts horse is restrained from wide barrier back to last with a cracking pace on upfront. Storms home each time for various wins and placings.
At the 5th start horse has wide barrier again and driver drops back horse to last. Pace is very slow so driver zips round the field to lead and wins the race. Driver uses initiative realising horse would find it hard to win from last with such a slow pace. Would driver then be fined even if he was trying to give horse the BEST possible chance to win race.
I can see both sides of the arguement but to be fined for giving your horse the best possible chance "Winning" seems wrong to me. The only time I have concerns with races is with several stable runners in the race and "Team Driving".
To me this causes the most problems with punters. Look at the Auckland Reactor race where he was attacked by the Small stable runner Awesome Ambro for the entire race, seemingly to assist other stable runner Changeover.
The sad thing is the change in tactics rule is being used in an effort to combat team driving. But they are different offences completely. A select few have ruined it for everyone. Stewards should pull people up for TEAM DRIVING. It is obvious when people are team driving. Why pull up someone up for trying to win a race as has appeared to happen on a few occasions now? Sometimes a race doesn't turn out as anticipated, why cannot drivers make split second decisions? This comment is not directed to anyone or any incident in particular, just a general observation based on a number of states. I applaud any sort of enforcement of the rules by stewards, just think things aren't really as consistent as they could be at the moment... :)
I agree re: the team driving aspect but the rest of that post is being way too kind Flashing.
The problem is that the interpretation & subsequent enforcement of the rule has been about as reliable as a Taiwanese Rolex. The decision is made on the spot by Luke to drive Roman Stride a little differently than normal, the horse still goes on and wins the race regardless & yet the Stewards STILL see fit to fine him for the drive? :confused::confused::confused::confused::confused: :confused::confused::confused::confused::confused: I've seen some ridiculous rulings over the years but that one takes the cake.
Team Driving is so obvious and in a perfect world the rules would be enough. However the interpretation and enforcement sometimes does is take away a "edge" that a driver can get in a spilt second at anytime of the race. To fine Luke for that drive was........madness.
Hi Don
I agree that team driving is obvious and that should be stamped out and driver's given serious time. On the change of tactics i reckon that should be between the driver/trainer/owner and if they want to spring a surprise and lead good luck to them, why should they notify the stewards only for them to announce it for the other driver's to hear what they are going to try and do. They say it's for the punter's but i never hear Wayne Bennet giving his game plan to the opposition before a game.
but he has to release accurate information on the side he will be playing (which is obviously very important to the games integrity due to it pretty much dictating the games tactics and chances of victory)..only have to look at the bulldogs, collingwood and the andrew johns - eddy hayson plunge to see how it can be abused... it is exactly the same in the trots, any significant information that will affect a horses performance should be conveyed to the public - the trots already have a bad enough image without encouraging obfuscation...
Hi Smithy
I can see your point, so i suppose the only way around it would be for the driver to go to the stewards before the race and let them know there could be a change of tactics if the race permit's that way it covers you either way.
C'mon Smithy, be reasonable.Quote:
Originally Posted by smithy
How in Blue Blazes can he release accurate information BEFORE he decides to do something????????
If a Driver makes a last moment change of tactics decision at the start or soon after the start of or during a race and he drives the horse differently than he normally would and he still wins the race...then how is it right that he gets fined??????? If he stiffs the horse or the decision results in the horse being beaten then maybe the Stewards have got a case...but how can it be reasonable that Luke or anyone else be fined when he/they have obviously made a winning decision? The more I think about this the more ridiculous it becomes. The change of tactics rule should be thrown out completely if it cannot be administered correctly.
If every driver is doing their best to win a race I see no need to notify the public (ie punters). They are doing their best to win a race, so the punters should be happy with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by smithy
None of this change of tactics crack down happened until people started squarking about team driving. They are two separate things however one is used to police the other (!). The thing with team driving is that one (or sometimes more than one) stablemate is chopped up for the other. Come down hard on those that do team driving. Leave the guy alone who changes tactics in a split second decision which results in a win or the best position possible....
how can team driving be policed if not through the COT rule? especially team driving by people who aren't related or from the same stable
Yeah, too bad Nick Maxwell was still named in the backline despite lining up in forward lineQuote:
Originally Posted by smithy
Rule 149(1)Quote:
Originally Posted by smithy
A driver shall take all reasonable and permissible measures during the course of a race to ensure that the horse driven by that driver is given full opportunity to win or obtain the best possible placing in the field.
How a number of stewards in a number of states are interpreting the change of tactics rule is in direct conflict with with rule 149. You can't plan 100% what is happening out there. A good driver has plan A and B and also the ability to make split second decisions. These change of plans may happen in the race due to unforeseen circumstances.
With team driving, at least one of those horses (the chopping block which is either the horse carting the stable mate up and attacking the leaders; a horse attacking the leaders for its stablemate to swoop everyone at the finish; a horse that pulls three wide and stops moving forward to not allow the back markers to be carted into the race and beat the stablemate in the front/death/1-1 etc) is NOT being driven in accordance to rule 149(1). They are driven to get the stablemate home. If a driver wins a race yet gets punished under change of tactics, what about rule 149(1)?
Rule 44(1)
A driver or 1 or more of the connections of a horse intending to adopt during a race tactics contrary to the horse's usual racing pattern shall, as soon as practicable, so notify the stewards.
So what happens mid race or at the start or whenever, when something unforseen happens and plan A and B won't work? How can a driver notify stewards mid race that they have to change tactics? An odds-on shot regardless of racing pattern is entitled to go to the lead, but say the pace is crazy fast and the driver just sits there and waits and swoops home and wins? Despite being contrary to it's normal racing pattern (go forward?). Or the horse that likes to lead over a mile but its first time over 2600m elects to take a sit on a 3-1 shot when its 20-1 itself?? Or a horse that is 100-1 and has only ever won in the lead, but then Blacks A Fake comes bowling up?
I think its unfair for the stewards to think that drivers know exactly what is going to happen before every race - they don't. Change of tactics rule, how it is being enforced at the moment, stifles this needed discretion by drivers. I know one trainer driver got called in, their horse goes very good in front and this time they took a sit. They took a sit because the past half a dozen races this horse had was over a mile, he wasn't very strong. This race was 2600m, they thought it would be better to give a weak horse a run behind the leader and use the sprint lane. The horse didn't win, but went well, much better than if he had done it all himself. Yet they were called in under the change of tactics rule!!
Exactly Flashing.
The absurdity of the Roman Stride (the fav) decision was that everything inside of him left hard for the lead and had Luke gone with them & used him up early to get to the front he almost definitely would've been collared late in the stretch & it would have been fav. beaten. Instead he sees the horses to his inside all lining up to leave hard & they do... so he takes off the gate, saves up his horse & comes at them with 1 go, he wins the race, the fav. duly salutes for the Punters...and the Stewards fine him? :confused::confused::confused::confused::confused: :confused::confused::confused::confused::confused:
Essentially that decision dictates that Luke should instead have contested the early lead, one which was not going to be there without a significant fight, and in doing so lessen the chances of the horse winning...just so he could keep in step with what the Stewards viewed as the horse's demonstrated racing pattern. I fear that is just how bloody ridiculous the interpretation & use of the Change Of Tactics rule has gotten here in NSW my friend.
this is an example of how they knew they would vary their tactics before the race and chose not to tell the stewards ??? how do you know they didnt tell the other driver they would hand up and then back the horse they handed up to? because your mates with them and they are above suspicion?Quote:
Originally Posted by Flashing Red
Not at all. And for the record, I don't believe anyone is above suspicion and this person isn't "my mate". It's amazing what one can learn watching races and reading subsequent stewards reports! ;-)Quote:
Originally Posted by smithy
In this example, if you make an annoucement before the race, you will have EVERY TOM DICK AND HARRY out after you for the lead. They KNOW you're going to hand up, so there is a stampede for the lead. This horse is weak, you don't want to try and hold them all out until "the right one" comes along, ie you wouldn't want to hand up to a 50-1 shot that doesn't get you to the sprint lane and you wouldn't want to hand up to another horse, even if it is a good one, if all they are going to do is hand up themselves and put you three the fence. What if said horse gets the lead and then no-one comes? Then the driver could have rated the horse as best he could and made it a sprint home, ie this was another viable option that would not have been available if an announcement was made before the race. The driver is 100% complying with rule 149(1), has obtained the best finishing position for their horse, which is the best outcome for the punters and owners, yet they get reprimanded. No fines thankfully, but they still get called in!!
The bottom line is, currently the change of tactics rule 44(1) is actually interfering with what I think to be the most important rule for owners and punters alike, the best possible position rule 149(1).
I am 1000% behind the stewards and their endeavor to make racing as fair as possible. I am all for fair racing. However, I personally think that people are being punished under the change of tactic rule when really it is a 149 infraction and vica versa. Because of this I have seen what I personally feel to be unfair decisions. This trend is also beginning to happen in a number of states, so I'm not singling out one.
You have to remember, this crackdown on change of tactics is really only recent, I mean when I first started in harness 10 years ago you never heard of anyone being "done" for this, it was only rule 149. In recent times, a number of states have started to have problems with team driving. Team driving and rule 44 infractions have appeared to increase hand in hand which has led me to believe that rule 44 is being used to combat team driving. All I'm saying that I think it would be better to use rule 149. I am 10000% for combating team driving and am glad that stewards in many states have rightly identified this to be a problem and have tried to rectify it. :)
slightly off topic, but ive noticed ALOT of people from qld very concerned about team driving.. and victorian's slightly behind in numbers
The inference, mate...that's not too flash at all there Smithy.Quote:
Originally Posted by smithy
In her defence, Flashing's without doubt one of the most objective observers there is around, be those involved mates or not so.
Watch the race in question and in particular closely watch the start.
At least 3 of the horses to the inside of Roman Stride shape up to get out of there quick, they all get right up on the gate and when the gate folds back they ALL leave for the front. Luke looks left, sees what is shaping up to happen to when they're released he takes off the gate & settles at the rear. There's your winning move right there. The first 100-150m of the race.
If instead Luke simply drives on with the horse so as to not fall foul of the Change Of Tactics rule, if instead he leaves hard along with those inside to make a line of 4 into the 1st turn... there's no question whatsoever that Roman Stride works double overtime to make the front and ultimately pays the price for doing so by running out of steam inside the final 16th, ending up in all likelyhood a beaten favourite.
The outcome? The Punters would have done their $$$ cold & the Owner would have missed out on a good prizemoney cheque but Luke would have complied with a continually more skewed interpretation of the Change of Tactics rule...and it should be noted this is THE VERY RULE that is in place and perports to protect the Punters in the first place.
Honestly...if that's not a huge WTF?????? then I don't know what is.
To further underline the ridiculous nature of this fine...is the fact that the decision Luke made was a WINNING DECISION!
He clearly took note of what was shaping up as the gate rolled, he snagged out of the early battle, sat back, made 1 late charge at them and HE WON THE RACE. The fav. saluted. The Punters cashed their tickets. The Owner would have been more than pleased. All is well.
It is not as though he snagged off the gate & buried the horse at the rear of the field & the proceeded to run it up every dry gully he could find & finish out of the placings, dudding the Punters & the Owner.
If this interpretation of the Change of Tactics rule is that which we can expect as par for the course in the future then IMO we are in some serious trouble. In fact, we may as well not have any races at all, we may as well flip over to those dreadful video horse racing terminal things as none of the drivers will ever feel free to make any last moment decisions to alter their approach in order to give their horse the best possible chance of winning the race.
On that score...please let be noted for the record, so there is absolutely no question about my view of it whatsoever... that is EXACTLY what Luke did with Roman Stride. He gave it the best possible chance to win the race and it did.
In light of all this it's also worth noting that there but for the grace of God go any one of us who takes a seat in the bike or owns or trains a horse & that's the reason why this whole thing has ticked me off like it has done.
Ask yourself what happens when your man unexpectedly has to change it up at the last moment due to circumstances beyond his control in order to give your horse the best possible chance of winning a race? Ask yourself what you'd think if he made that change, won the race & duly got fined for his troubles?
You're missing the whole point Smithy.Quote:
Originally Posted by smithy
It is not the rule itself that is the issue...rather it is an increasingly incorrect interpretation and wrongful application of the rule that is at fault.
had no problems going forward to park outside big fella mach, did he drive him to get beaten that race then? because there was no horse in that field 5 lengths within the quality of big fella mach... so why wouldnt he have pushed forward before at large did? surely lukes knows his form and that explosive turk hands up and desteros also handed up his previous startQuote:
Originally Posted by triplev123
No different to today's effort 2 races in succession 1 driver gets hit for a slow sectional and the next race another slow sectional and no fine
Geeze Winston...are you trying to kill me or something? :rolleyes:
I'm already fired up enough as it about the application of the Change of Tactics rule.
The Slow Sectionals thing is another super-wank.
It's not up to the guy on the front end to make the speed. It's up to the drivers behind him to use some initiative and force it. If they just sit back & let the leader get away with larceny then more fool them. They deserve to get beaten. To fine the leader because those behind him don't have a go is another thing that's just plain ridiculous.
Totally agree Triple
G'day again Winston,
Others might see it differently however, as an owner I think if you win a race and the driver is subsequently fined for a change of tactics or for setting slow sectionals then you should pay his/her way.
Even if you don't win and your driver has done all he/she could to land your horse home and they get fined in such a manner for their efforts, you should pay his/her way.
I say that for two reasons, firstly because I think that they're stupid rules both & secondly because it is simply the right thing to do.
The fella or the girl out there driving for you is effectively your employee even if only for the 2-3 minutes or so that they will spend in the bike...and as such owners and especially winning owners should look after them accordingly.
Of course it tends to play that way in Harness Racing anyway, most owners I know square their drivers away if they get fined however interestingly, in the TB's apparently that is far from being the case.
A friend of mine is a Jockey here in Sydney & I was very surprised when he told me that even if they win the race the majority of the TB owners will leave them hanging if they're subsequently fined by the Stewards. Personally, I think that's pretty despicable.
Of course, I'm not suggesting owners in either code should cover the arse of a Driver or a Jockey for instances of severe interference, careless driving/riding etc. ...however as far as the other rather long & tedious list of possible infractions go and often relatively petty ones at that, I think the owners should be footing those sorts of bills.
I pay my drivers fines if they run in the money he also drives my horses trackwork so he know's their limit's and drives accordingly i don't give him instruction's at all because thing's change once the gate goes it is all up to him how he drive's them also i have a few bob each way for him to keep it interesting
Triple you have my vote on this one, it's just revenue making B.........t the driver leading in a slow sectional is still driving to win the race so what is exactly the problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by triplev123
G'day Mango,Quote:
Originally Posted by mango
I don't think it's revenue raising.
Rather it is the severely contradictory nature of 3 rules that is the issue.
I don't have the exact Rule numbers at hand however it is....
(1) the setting of slow sectionals rule
versus
(2) the rule that covers giving a horse every possible chance to finish in the best position
verus
(3) the rule that requires connections to notify a change of tactics...
...and this now apparently even if said change happens to have occurred in a last moment decision as the gate fold back & even if said change happens to have resulted in the horse winning and where a pretty fair case could be made for the fact that it probably would not have won if it had been driven in its otherwise customary fashion.
I think you could reasonably argue that going faster than you need to on the lead so as to comply with the required sectional maximums (1) is actually doing something that is in direct contravention of (2).
One could also reasonably argue that by way of attempting to comply with (2) that any contravening of (3) was a fair and reasonable thing to have done and so on.
As such those 3 dictates above, IMO, serve to work both partially & directly against each other and in doing so they leave trainers & drivers in the position where they are pretty much rooted if they do and they're pretty much rooted if they don't. Personally I think it is an unnecessarily tangled web of rules and somehow it needs to be sorted out & very much forthwith.
I know it's a rule and it's a rule that i don't agree with.
Indeed. Join the line. It stretches to the horizon. You know, the inevitable result of the continual creation of rules is that eventually one will serve to directly contradict another. I fear we have reached that point as we now have 3 of them that fit such a bill.