Menangle Stewards Report- Tuesday

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thevoiceofreason

Triplec123 with the greatest of respect I also forgot to correct you on another issue.

Actually it is quite an impotent one there is in fact no setback/ relegation rule in Australian Harness Racing it was removed revoked whatever term you prefer to use back in 2006 it formed part of Rule 66 until that time but was removed by HRA.

There is still the protest rule but that is only if horse A would have finished in front of horse B if an incident had not occurred.

So stop blaming the stewards for not using a rule that is not there and by the way Relegation across the world is being used less and less in the countries that still have it.

Correct that relegation isn't available in Australia, but disqualification is still possible, even more effective in terms of punishing a driver and/or horse that causes another horse to lose their chance of obtaining their best possible finishing position.

66. A horse may be disqualified from a race if the horse -
(a) crosses a horse without being clear of it;
(b) jostles or interferes with a horse unless solely in response to the action taken by another horse or driver;
(c) forces a passage where there is insufficient room;
(d) forces a horse out of its ground;
(e) races on the inside of a marker post or if its sulky or part thereof goes on the inside of a marker post;
(f) interferes with another runner so as to cause that runner, or cause its sulky or any part thereof, to go inside a marker post;
(g) being in the home straight and having a clear uninterrupted run to the post, changes course and thereby prejudices or advantages the chances of another runner.
(h) gains an unfair advantage.

So whilst many think of it as relegation, the purpose and intent of Rule 66 is still there and available to be used to achieve the same result. I for one think that if it were applied it would hurriedly clean up the cowboys who think it is OK to knock down another runner and hopefully retain the win even if there is a protest.

Flashing Red

Please do not misunderstand I am not saying for one minute I like the rule I am saying it is there and whilst it is it should be enforced all the time or not used at all and removed from the rule book I know this has happened in NZ Gallops not sure if the Trots followed.

HRNSW will tell you COTs unannounced was the major complaint in NSW a few years back that is no longer the case there since they brought in the new policy.

The other points you raise are also why in NSW all tactic changes are advised "circumstances permitting: in the instance when you advised you were going to take cover and then held when the only challenger was 100/1 and it would give you no hope of winning if you took cover In NSW at least that would be reasonable and no breach would have occurred. You would be questioned but only so it could be reported.

the voice of reason
is this the race you are talking about?
1 CMON HARRY $5,250 FT M J Reese
2 BOOGIES BARNETT NZ $1,125 FT A M Siejka 3.30

hmmmmmmmmmm id love to see someone try and defend that race today

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thevoiceofreason

Triplec123 with the greatest of respect I also forgot to correct you on another issue.

Actually it is quite an impotent one there is in fact no setback/ relegation rule in Australian Harness Racing it was removed revoked whatever term you prefer to use back in 2006 it formed part of Rule 66 until that time but was removed by HRA.

There is still the protest rule but that is only if horse A would have finished in front of horse B if an incident had not occurred.

So stop blaming the stewards for not using a rule that is not there and by the way Relegation across the world is being used less and less in the countries that still have it.

[VVV] Don't you go lecturing me by way of employing semantics VOR. You know & I know and everyone else knows that Rule 66 is EXACTLY the same thing & you blokes refuse to use it. Set back/relegation/disqualification, call it what you will. The end result is the same. Apparently it suits you guys to Cherry Pick the rules you want to apply and those that you don't.

Maybe these individual races should be passed on to authorities......

What I find interesting is some of these clowns claim to not owning mobile phones....Pllllsssssssssssssss.

I think I recall a couple of months back , believe it was at Menangle , don't remember the driver , that as the gates came around the turn towards the Mile start that his mobile started ringing AND he actually pulled it out of his silks , hopefully to turn it off . Is this an urban myth or did it really happen?

watch race 4 albion park last night

Quote:

Originally Posted by strong persuader

Correct that relegation isn't available in Australia, but disqualification is still possible, even more effective in terms of punishing a driver and/or horse that causes another horse to lose their chance of obtaining their best possible finishing position.

66. A horse may be disqualified from a race if the horse -
(a) crosses a horse without being clear of it;
(b) jostles or interferes with a horse unless solely in response to the action taken by another horse or driver;

(c) forces a passage where there is insufficient room;
(d) forces a horse out of its ground;
(e) races on the inside of a marker post or if its sulky or part thereof goes on the inside of a marker post;
(f) interferes with another runner so as to cause that runner, or cause its sulky or any part thereof, to go inside a marker post;
(g) being in the home straight and having a clear uninterrupted run to the post, changes course and thereby prejudices or advantages the chances of another runner.
(h) gains an unfair advantage.

So whilst many think of it as relegation, the purpose and intent of Rule 66 is still there and available to be used to achieve the same result. I for one think that if it were applied it would hurriedly clean up the cowboys who think it is OK to knock down another runner and hopefully retain the win even if there is a protest.

The point I was making is the Stewards in Australia have a clear direction not to use rule 66 in those circumstances. Relegation was there for that purpose and removed by the lawmakers the stewards enforce the rules as set out.

I was just pointing out where people keep saying relegation is there use it. Relegation is not there so it can not be used.

Rightly or wrongly it was removed from the rules by the organisation that runs the sport Nationally.

The difficulty with relegation is when used it can mean a race maybe lost by say the winner interfering with a horse that was already beaten and losing ground and not going to participate in the finish with no bearing on the result. This is the reason I am told it was removed from our rules, I am also told it is the reason it is becoming less popular world wide.

Quote:

Originally Posted by triplev123

[VVV] Don't you go lecturing me by way of employing semantics VOR. You know & I know and everyone else knows that Rule 66 is EXACTLY the same thing & you blokes refuse to use it. Set back/relegation/disqualification, call it what you will. The end result is the same. Apparently it suits you guys to Cherry Pick the rules you want to apply and those that you don't.

Explain this then genius, if it is the same and it is all semantics why was it removed from the rules. I can not give you the intelligence to understand I am only giving you the facts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by thesushitrain

the voice of reason
is this the race you are talking about?
1 CMON HARRY $5,250 FT M J Reese
2 BOOGIES BARNETT NZ $1,125 FT A M Siejka 3.30

hmmmmmmmmmm id love to see someone try and defend that race today

Got it in one and lost on appeal because the decision to hand up was not seen to be unreasonable at the time it was made. The stewards thought it was the public thought it was but not the judge.