Sectional Time rules

This rule about running slow sectionals and drivers being fined or suspended is totally ridiculous. There is a rule about not giving your horse every possible chance to win. If you're in front at Menangle and can get away with a quarter in 33+, good on you. You are giving your horse every hope of winning. The ones back in the field should be fined for not putting themselves into the race. You risk a chance of doing a bit more work than you wanted but better than having no hope unless you can run a 25 second quarter for the run home.

If a driver is say, .5 slower than the allowable rate, $200 comes out of his pocket. Get a stopwatch and click stop/start and you will realise how small a margin that is. Totally unfair to someone trying to win a race and do their best.

Couldn't agree more. It is absurd.
It is not up to the leader to force the tempo if they do not wish to do so.
It is up to those following to pull & go foward if they're not happy with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by triplev123

Couldn't agree more. It is absurd.
It is not up to the leader to force the tempo if they do not wish to do so.
It is up to those following to pull & go foward if they're not happy with it.

---

I agree with you with the responsibilty to force the pace lies with those other than the leader. What gets under my goat are those drivers that hammer out to lead in say 27 secs and then slam the brakes on in the second quarter and run 32 secs causing horses to be inconvenienced, only for them to be gone at the 400 and drop out causing inconvenience and finishing tailed off. Is it incompetence or some malevolent motive? Lets not get into discussing the other elephant in the room TEAM DRIVING

A leader sharply backing down the speed should be an offence, no doubt that it is one that's on the books...however I can't remember the last time anyone got spoken to/fined for doing so.

"Team driving" - I thought that was illegal [sarcasm] :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daryl New

I agree with you with the responsibilty to force the pace lies with those other than the leader. What gets under my goat are those drivers that hammer out to lead in say 27 secs and then slam the brakes on in the second quarter and run 32 secs causing horses to be inconvenienced, only for them to be gone at the 400 and drop out causing inconvenience and finishing tailed off. Is it incompetence or some malevolent motive? Lets not get into discussing the other elephant in the room TEAM DRIVING

---

Your right Daryl but instead of fining a driver $100 or $200 for slamming on the brakes they should be charged with interference if other runners are inconvenienced. Not everyone does it but there are a few repeat offenders.
And Team Driving.......that is alive and well at Menangle.

I think any race run slower than 1:58 at Menangle should have every driver in the race fined... lol!

Really, in all honestly... no quarter should be slower than :30 there, winning the race or not. If you want to go slower, put your horse in a trial.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Summers

"Team driving" - I thought that was illegal [sarcasm] :p

---

Must be ok.. It's been going on for ages in Qld

Really ? .............. I did not realise that sort of thing ever went on anywhere [total unbridled sarcasm].

In all seriousness , is this ever going to be addressed ? It has become so blatant that it is almost laughable.

A tip : Never bet on a race where a stable has more than one starter...... just in case :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flashing Red

I think any race run slower than 1:58 at Menangle should have every driver in the race fined... lol!

Really, in all honestly... no quarter should be slower than :30 there, winning the race or not. If you want to go slower, put your horse in a trial.

---

Trouble is the trials go quicker than the races most of the time

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daryl New

Trouble is the trials go quicker than the races most of the time

---

I agree. Which is why I think slow sectionals should be fined. The fact that trials oftern go faster is digusting.

As has been mentioned..one rule says you must give your horse every chance. If you have a speedy squib running a slow first half is giving your horse every chance.

There are also rules against fixing races yet saying you have to run <64 is indeed fixing how a race is run.

I get why the rule is there, too make it a bit easier for backmarkers in a leader dominated sport, but I think it's up to the drivers. I know sometimes going forward may not come off and drivers can look like gooses but at the moment all the drivers are like robots. A drive like John McCarthy's on Mach Wiper a couple weeks ago earned himself a thread, it was a good drive indeed but we should be seeing way more good drives to the point it isn't really threadworthy.
That was a front running example; for a swoopers example just watch Mick Hardy at places like Wagga and Young. I would rather back Mick Hardy when he has to go back then when he is drawn to lead! He is amazing at timing his run and getting home. If Hardy can do it on those half mile tracks where the leaders walk half the time then surely the 'big names' can do it at Menangle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flashing Red

I think any race run slower than 1:58 at Menangle should have every driver in the race fined... lol!

Really, in all honestly... no quarter should be slower than :30 there, winning the race or not. If you want to go slower, put your horse in a trial.

---

That might be a good idea when they start paying you prizemoney on how fast you go , but until they do you only go as fast as you have too to get home. Remember the word tactics, It used to play a big part in racing on the smaller tracks , Now all everyone seem,s to want is jump and put the handle bars down from go to wow. What is wrong with stacking them up and kicking away in the straight. You don't hear the commentators raving about a great front running drive these day's.

A line needs to be drawn between trials and a race, IMHO. Most races don't pay on times but do you seriously appreciate exactly how SLOW a 32 second quarter is at Menangle? I like true run races personally - if you lead and are good enough you will win, if not you get beat. I would think this sort of mentality would make it fairer overall for the punters, too...

Despite being against the sectional rule time and especially the leader getting the fine; here is one from left field to quicken races. Say the mobile went 5-10km/h faster. This would have the horses rolling faster and probably give a few more horses a chance of leading and by virtue create a quicker lead time. They may still jam the brakes on in the middle stages but all it takes is to rub a second off the lead time and the backmarkers come into it far more. One immediate negative of it I can see it making gate one a much bigger advantage than already is. What does everybody else think?
A key thing to remember is under PBD conditions those drawn to lead are supposed to be given an advantage so you don't want to negate this too much!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flashing Red

I agree. Which is why I think slow sectionals should be fined. The fact that trials oftern go faster is digusting.

---

Slow sectionals are fined in NSW .
Brendan with mobile speed it would be better if the speed was consistent overall some horses can't or wont keep up now with it let alone go faster.

A few years ago a Canadian court of appeal overturned the fine and suspension of a driver who had been ruled by the track judges (stewards) to have set too slow a section time while leading. The appeal judge obviously knew his harness racing (and, in this case, his horses and drivers) and ruled that the drivers who were lagging back during the slow quarter were more at fault than the driver of the leader who subsequently won. At Menangle, the winning move quarter is often the quarter from the 1200 to the 800. Luke McCarthy, Darren Hancock, Matt Rue and Ben Sarina have put their horses into the race at this point for plenty of success.

Cue resident legal expert Flashing Red but wouldn't a judge only be able to make a ruling based on how the stewards applied the rule and if they applied it wrong rather than to make a decision that the rule is shit and therefore the fine shouldnt apply?
Eg if Lance Justice was to appeal the Smoken Up DMSO charge to the courts the judge couldn't say well I don't agree with the DMSO rule (ie I don't agree with the sectional time rule) so the disqualification doesn't stand. The judge would only be able to say the rule wasn't applied correctly; ie a sample was contaminated or the steward had a faulty stopwatch.

I was able to find the decision on line so sorry about the delay. The race in question was run at The Meadowlands. The sections were 28; 28.6; 33.4; 26.6. The driver Ben Webster was fined and suspended and then appealed to the New Jersey State Office of Administrative Law. The judge dismissed the fine and the suspension and his ruling in part said "If a violation is found to have existed in this race (the ruling against Webster) then it must also exist for the other drivers who allowed the slow sections to be run". He based his decision on the 'horses being of the same class and ability and the drivers being similarly experienced". One of the drivers was John Campbell! The judge sent his decision back to the State Racing Board and the comments in the press at the time were all about how this sport is the only one that penalizes someone for being in a favourable position (the lead)!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ojc

I was able to find the decision on line so sorry about the delay. The race in question was run at The Meadowlands. The sections were 28; 28.6; 33.4; 26.6. The driver Ben Webster was fined and suspended and then appealed to the New Jersey State Office of Administrative Law. The judge dismissed the fine and the suspension and his ruling in part said "If a violation is found to have existed in this race (the ruling against Webster) then it must also exist for the other drivers who allowed the slow sections to be run". He based his decision on the 'horses being of the same class and ability and the drivers being similarly experienced". One of the drivers was John Campbell! The judge sent his decision back to the State Racing Board and the comments in the press at the time were all about how this sport is the only one that penalizes someone for being in a favourable position (the lead)!!

---

Thanks for the info Greg, i know it's "the states" but legal precedent is legal precedent!

Not that I'm in favour of making it any harder for our administators, just that I've despised the slow sectional rules the way they have been applied in recent years. If you keep on denying the competitors a choice of tactics/ strategy then you end up presenting the public with a less multi - dimensional product.

I know the punters want more certainty but ( cheats aside) at the end of the day certainty and predictability are not, in my opinion helping our game one bit.

Cheers,

Dan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aussiebreno

Cue resident legal expert Flashing Red but wouldn't a judge only be able to make a ruling based on how the stewards applied the rule and if they applied it wrong rather than to make a decision that the rule is shit and therefore the fine shouldnt apply?
Eg if Lance Justice was to appeal the Smoken Up DMSO charge to the courts the judge couldn't say well I don't agree with the DMSO rule (ie I don't agree with the sectional time rule) so the disqualification doesn't stand. The judge would only be able to say the rule wasn't applied correctly; ie a sample was contaminated or the steward had a faulty stopwatch.

---

I'm not sure how that would work here, I doubt anyone would challenge it if they didn't get suspended or the race taken off them, however.... a number of drivers are quite happy to cop a fine if it wins them the race, in many different instances/rules! :)

Sorry FR but slow sectional rule is an absolute blight on the industry and serves merely as a revenue raiser. How someone can keep a straight face whil fining a driver for giving it every chance is disgraceful. Fine the other drivers maybe. But not the bloke who was first to get to the front. I dont subscribe to the theory of it making a more attractive punting prospect either. If there is one thing that can remain consistent in a horses form is its ability to come out of the gate. More often than not it is the MAIN area considered when assessing the form. I see nothing wrong with this. Would abolishing this rule possibly lead to more drivers vigourously attacking for the lead? Could that not lead to more speed in the race anyway? If a horse slams the brakes on, causing interference, fine them, otherwise allow the drivers to do their thing. They need no more to think about!

G'day Gtrain if the rule was abolished it the races would end up slow first half and the fastest half miler would win the driver's won't vigorously attack for the lead now in a slowly run race they are content to sit back and hope they can out sprint them abolishing the rule in my opinion would not help i think all the driver's should be fined for not having a go when they're in a walking race i won a race not long back in 2.10 and am still embarissed (spelling )to talk about it glad we got the money but nothing to write home about and couldn't believe we were let run 1.11 first half she won by 12 mts hard held we didn't want to lead and neither did anything else as it was a restricted meeting no fines so it didn't matter one bit this day to any driver's .

As it is now the sectional times are only a slow-medium pace and if you want to avoid the fine you will be running closer to medium. A medium pace does nothing; it doesn't allow for horses to make a move (like slow pace does) and it doesn't allow for the front markers to drop off (fast pace).

As I see it the problem the overall class of the horses in a race, not the 'speed' of the race.
US Handicapper Bob Pandolfo put it best in one of his columns entitled 'Defining Class By Late Speed' when he said "Class is the ability to finish well against the pace of the race". He then went on to say " In Harness Racing we often give credit to horses that finish fast off a slow pace. The theory behind this is that it's tougher to gain off a slow pace because the pacesetter and the horses close to the pace have something left. That's true, but a fast last quarter is actually more impressive if a horse has run fast prior to the stretch run".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by triplev123

As I see it the problem the overall class of the horses in a race, not the 'speed' of the race.
US Handicapper Bob Pandolfo put it best in one of his columns entitled 'Defining Class By Late Speed' when he said "Class is the ability to finish well against the pace of the race". He then went on to say " In Harness Racing we often give credit to horses that finish fast off a slow pace. The theory behind this is that it's tougher to gain off a slow pace because the pacesetter and the horses close to the pace have something left. That's true, but a fast last quarter is actually more impressive if a horse has run fast prior to the stretch run".

---

Love the blue bit even if I do get sucked in by horses finishing late after doing no work on occasions.

Also, this isn't an attack at the merit of the rule rather the application. Why are C0s required to run the same first half as open company? Although in many instances leeway is given to lowly graded horses it doesn't really add up.

Brendan i have never seen leeway given to lower class horse's before and the sectional time's used are for each individual track and no sectional's for restricted or penalty free races and the sectional time's given to the track's are slower than qualifying time's in most cases.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greg Hando

Brendan i have never seen leeway given to lower class horse's before and the sectional time's used are for each individual track and no sectional's for restricted or penalty free races and the sectional time's given to the track's are slower than qualifying time's in most cases.

---

Next post please at least use punctuation as it is makes it easier to try and decipher what you have written.
Some weaker races at Wagga where they still haven't run home in time have been let out of the fine. I don't really take much notice out of the Riverina but whilst searching the HRA website I came across this http://www.harness.org.au/news-artic...?news_id=11767 where it mentions Victoria will relax the rules for C0s, making them 65 secs instead of 64.
Yes the times are used for each individual track but R0s can race at the same track as C10s etc. Case in point the Melpark Major sectional - possibly within the rules yet it was slow as slow can be for FFAers yet if it was a C1-C2 not much notice would have been taken.
Don't know why you are comparing apples with oranges. Sectional times are over 800m while qualifying time is over 1600. On most tracks they run home in <60 the vast majority of time so to try and draw that comparison doesn't work with me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aussiebreno

Next post please at least use punctuation as it is makes it easier to try and decipher what you have written.
Some weaker races at Wagga where they still haven't run home in time have been let out of the fine. I don't really take much notice out of the Riverina but whilst searching the HRA website I came across this http://www.harness.org.au/news-artic...?news_id=11767 where it mentions Victoria will relax the rules for C0s, making them 65 secs instead of 64.
Yes the times are used for each individual track but R0s can race at the same track as C10s etc. Case in point the Melpark Major sectional - possibly within the rules yet it was slow as slow can be for FFAers yet if it was a C1-C2 not much notice would have been taken.
Don't know why you are comparing apples with oranges. Sectional times are over 800m while qualifying time is over 1600. On most tracks they run home in <60 the vast majority of time so to try and draw that comparison doesn't work with me.

---

Brendan their is no need to be a making smart ass comment's about punctuation's not all of us can be highly educated. If you want to be a smart ass then know what your talking about and be accurate. Qualifying time's are for distance's greater than 1609 mts .Every track has a minimum sectional time for the first half of the last mile given to reflect the quality of the track and the speed at which all horse's should be expected to run on that track, not the class of horse that race's there.The sectional time's were bought in to try and help the punter so as to give every horse in the race a fair chance not just the first 4 or 5 up front. The reason why i said about qualifying times was that if you don't run (9 times out of 10) under the sectional time for that track you wont qualify,no qualify no race.It was just a comment about times required to race . The part about running home in time (Some weaker races at Wagga where they still haven't run home in time have been let out of the fine) I don't understand what you mean. It is the first half quarter's not the race time or last half that the driver's may be fined for. Leeway may only be given if their is a strong wind,heavy track etc not because of the class of horse. If the race at Cranbourne was a C1-C2 you are right no-one would have mentioned it but it wasn't, more was expected for the class of horse that took part.
PS I don't agree with the fine's either for the race leader but a rule is a rule and we have to live with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by triplev123

... but a fast last quarter is actually more impressive if a horse has run fast prior to the stretch run".

---

Exactly my query in regards to Terror To Love!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Just Saying

Exactly my query in regards to Terror To Love!

---

[VVV] Pandy would have layed him for all he was worth and for twice as much on a Sunday.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greg Hando

Brendan their is no need to be a making smart ass comment's about punctuation's not all of us can be highly educated. If you want to be a smart ass then know what your talking about and be accurate. Wasn't being a smart arse. It is genuinely very hard to understand what somebody is trying to say when punctuation is non existant. This post and your past posting history shows you are adept at at least making readworthy posts so not sure what the go was with that last one. I'm no rhodes scholar myself but readability (see I just made up a word) is pretty important on an internet forum. Qualifying time's are for distance's greater than 1609 mts . Exactly so why compare an 800m sectional with thisEvery track has a minimum sectional time for the first half of the last mile given to reflect the quality of the track and the speed at which all horse's should be expected to run on that track, not the class of horse that race's there. A C6 racing at, for example, Bathurst should record a higher sectional time than a C1 racing at Bathurst. Why do they have to abide by the same sectional time? They shouldn't.The sectional time's were bought in to try and help the punter so as to give every horse in the race a fair chance not just the first 4 or 5 up front. The reason why i said about qualifying times was that if you don't run (9 times out of 10) under the sectional time for that track you wont qualify,no qualify no race. Ah no. You can still run your half in 66 (which would break the sectional times rules) yet come home in 60 and qualify. The qualifying time at Wagga is 2.12 FWIW It was just a comment about times required to race . The part about running home in time (Some weaker races at Wagga where they still haven't run home in time have been let out of the fine) I don't understand what you mean. It is the first half quarter's not the race time or last half that the driver's may be fined for. Say the horses run 66 first half that is outside the rules. But if they only get home in say 61 it shows the leader wasn't much chop and on account of being a slow horse (to put it nicely) the driver gets out of the fine Leeway may only be given if their is a strong wind,heavy track etc not because of the class of horse The link I shown says otherwise. I will keep an eye out in future for stewards reports what backs up my comment and post if I can be arsed If the race at Cranbourne was a C1-C2 you are right no-one would have mentioned it but it wasn't, more was expected for the class of horse that took part. Exactly. If it would be the norm for a C1-C2 why are they bound under the same time as an open class event.
PS I don't agree with the fine's either for the race leader but a rule is a rule and we have to live with it.

---

Doesn't mean you can't disagree with it and want change.

I'm not comparing qual time's with sectional times just pointing out why running sectional's is also important to be able to race it was just a comment.

A C6 racing at, for example, Bathurst should record a higher sectional time than a C1 racing at Bathurst. Why do they have to abide by the same sectional time? They shouldn't

Because it's the rule and just because a horse is a C6 doesn't mean he is faster

Ah no. You can still run your half in 66 (which would break the sectional times rules) yet come home in 60 and qualify. The qualifying time at Wagga is 2.12 FWIW

This comment is what i mean by get fact's right check with your local trial's steward and ask him what the qualifying time is and you will find it is 2.05 for horse's 3yo and over from a mobile,2.09 for a stand,then for the 2yo's mob is 2.07 and the stand is 2.12 ,2yo trotter's their is no restriction and for 3yo and older trotter's mob is 2.06 and the stand is 2.09 These time's are for Class C track's. Around here they are Wagga,Parkes Dubbo And Young and this is all i will say on this topic .

And your link is VIC we are in NSW

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greg Hando

I'm not comparing qual time's with sectional times just pointing out why running sectional's is also important to be able to race it was just a comment.

A C6 racing at, for example, Bathurst should record a higher sectional time than a C1 racing at Bathurst. Why do they have to abide by the same sectional time? They shouldn't

Because it's the rule and just because a horse is a C6 doesn't mean he is faster

Ah no. You can still run your half in 66 (which would break the sectional times rules) yet come home in 60 and qualify. The qualifying time at Wagga is 2.12 FWIW

This comment is what i mean by get fact's right check with your local trial's steward and ask him what the qualifying time is and you will find it is 2.05 for horse's 3yo and over from a mobile,2.09 for a stand,then for the 2yo's mob is 2.07 and the stand is 2.12 ,2yo trotter's their is no restriction and for 3yo and older trotter's mob is 2.06 and the stand is 2.09 These time's are for Class C track's. Around here they are Wagga,Parkes Dubbo And Young and this is all i will say on this topic .

And your link is VIC we are in NSW

---

The very, very vast majority of those running in a C6 would be of better calibre horses than those running a C1. They should be running quicker times.
If a random C6 gets a half in 65 and a random C1 gets a half in 65, I give you $10 and a bookie offers your $2 about both but you can only back one which one do you back?

So what if my links Victorian :s the sectional rules aren't restricted to NSW and this is an Australian section of the forum not a NSW section :s.

Have you got a link to the qualifying times. Would be a handy resource to have. At Wagga in the numbers room they had a chart up saying 2.12 and 18 months ago I was timing one (probably a 2yo, definitely not a trotter) who went >70 the first half and 32 third quarter. I turned around to the ex Wagga photo judge, starter & jack of all trades and said they've got to go 2.12 don't they and he nodded his head. Another time a horse went 2.10 or 2.11 in a race and I distinctly remember people saying just inside the qualifying time or words to that effect. I have no reason to doubt you on your quoted times so if turns out it isn't 2.12 I do apologise. I will keep searching HRNSW and HRA websites to find out.

Go onto HRNSW website it should be in their somewhere i was just quoting out of memory as i deal with them every week. I have been talking about NSW as other state's don't bother me too much what they do.
A little bit more info for you. The sectional time policy was proposed by the United Harness Racing Association to implement a Sectional Times Policy for the perception of racing and improve the integrity of the sport.UHRA are the trainers and driver's.
Has the other states got a sectional time's policy if so where is it found or what is it ? Do they have a qualifying time to run before racing ?
As to which horse to put $10 on it would depend on the horse's for mine.

Qualifying times for NSW are available here, http://www.hrnsw.com.au/assets/files...icy%281%29.pdf
The relevant pieces are at the bottom of page 2 and on page 3.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greg Hando

Go onto HRNSW website it should be in their somewhere i was just quoting out of memory as i deal with them every week. I have been talking about NSW as other state's don't bother me too much what they do.
A little bit more info for you. The sectional time policy was proposed by the United Harness Racing Association to implement a Sectional Times Policy for the perception of racing and improve the integrity of the sport.UHRA are the trainers and driver's.
Has the other states got a sectional time's policy if so where is it found or what is it ? Do they have a qualifying time to run before racing ?
As to which horse to put $10 on it would depend on the horse's for mine.

---

I had enough trouble finding the NSW Qualifying times let alone searching for the HRV sectional times. QLD also have a policy in place (or were trialling one). Not sure about the other states.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by strong persuader

Qualifying times for NSW are available here, http://www.hrnsw.com.au/assets/files...icy%281%29.pdf
The relevant pieces are at the bottom of page 2 and on page 3.

---

Thanks Strong Persuader.

The chart in the numbers room was quite dusty and tattery perhaps it was an old 2yo Mobile time.