In the same way as the rules have gradually been tightened over the years as you described.
If 2 horses are both responding positively to the whip in a tight finish then I don't see why the same rule should apply to those jockeys as opposed to a horse that's out of the money, or not responding, and being hit for no good reason (that's whip abuse imo).
New Whip Rules
-
superfrank
- Posts: 2762
- Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 8:28 pm
Imagine in a football match if 4 fouls = yellow card; 8 fouls = red card. There's clarity alright but it would be madness as there is no discretion.payuppal wrote:It's impossibly subjective to decide whether a horse is responding to the whip.
Far better for everyone if there is clarity.
-
andyfuller
- Posts: 4619
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 12:23 pm
Does that mean you think as long as a horse is responding it is okay to keep using the whip?superfrank wrote:If 2 horses are both responding positively to the whip in a tight finish then I don't see why the same rule should apply to those jockeys as opposed to a horse that's out of the money, or not responding, and being hit for no good reason (that's whip abuse imo).
If a horse doesn't respond to the first hit should that be it?
-
andyfuller
- Posts: 4619
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 12:23 pm
Fouls can take many different forms, a hit of the whip can't, yes one could be hit with more power than another but basically a hit is a hit, a two footed foul is not the same as a little clip of the heels to make the player trip over. Both are fouls but they are very different fouls.superfrank wrote:Imagine in a football match if 4 fouls = yellow card; 8 fouls = red card. There's clarity alright but it would be madness as there is no discretion.
You would need different weighting to each foul to make it equivalent imo.
-
superfrank
- Posts: 2762
- Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 8:28 pm
within reason... that's why discretion is important.andyfuller wrote:Does that mean you think as long as a horse is responding it is okay to keep using the whip?
no, but again that's why discretion is important.andyfuller wrote:If a horse doesn't respond to the first hit should that be it?
that would be impossible and that's why they have a referee who uses his discretion instead.andyfuller wrote:You would need different weighting to each foul to make it equivalent imo.
-
andyfuller
- Posts: 4619
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 12:23 pm
Interesting quote from Pat Cosgrave on the Racing Post website:
That would seem to indicate that some races are worth getting a ban in. Which imo indicates that the rules are still wrong if jockies are happy to get a ban in some races if winning justifies it in their minds. Way forward, has to be disqualify them and the horse if they break the rules.
Source: http://www.racingpost.com/news/horse-ra ... an/930693/"Obviously, things were tight, but it wasn't the sort of race worth getting a ban in so I put my whip down."
That would seem to indicate that some races are worth getting a ban in. Which imo indicates that the rules are still wrong if jockies are happy to get a ban in some races if winning justifies it in their minds. Way forward, has to be disqualify them and the horse if they break the rules.
-
superfrank
- Posts: 2762
- Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 8:28 pm
That's what happens when you try to solve a complicated problem with a simplistic inflexible solution.
It reminds of the last government's obsession with targets e.g. in education with exam targets for 7-year olds - yeah the targets were met but only because the teachers coached the kids to pass the exam.
It reminds of the last government's obsession with targets e.g. in education with exam targets for 7-year olds - yeah the targets were met but only because the teachers coached the kids to pass the exam.
-
SilentDave
- Posts: 199
- Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 11:30 am
Under the new whip rules it makes sense to try and breed a Harchibald rather than a Brave Inca.
Can this be good for the game?
Can this be good for the game?
-
andyfuller
- Posts: 4619
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 12:23 pm
I would be pretty confident the same attitude applied under the old rules as well though, just look at how many bans we got in the big races....superfrank wrote:That's what happens when you try to solve a complicated problem with a simplistic inflexible solution.
I think disqualification is the way forward, perhaps you could even do away with the bans or change their duration and just disqualify any horse/rider that breaks the rules.
-
superfrank
- Posts: 2762
- Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 8:28 pm
I can see the argument for disqualification (if the jockey has 'overused' the whip then he may have gained an unfair advantage), but again it would just be opening up another can of worms.
I can't see what was that wrong with the old system, and, as they say, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
I can't see what was that wrong with the old system, and, as they say, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Sounds like a great idea, but that would make a right mess of in-play betting! Bettors and traders would need to keep track of how many times the whip was used for each selection they were trading, to ensure they weren't caught out by a disqualified winner.andyfuller wrote:I think disqualification is the way forward, perhaps you could even do away with the bans or change their duration and just disqualify any horse/rider that breaks the rules.
Also, bettors at the tracks could not be certain of the winner, even after the horse has crossed the line. They'd have to wait for the official announcement on every race. Frustrating!
-
andyfuller
- Posts: 4619
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 12:23 pm
It would make it difficult for traders etc but that isn't really the point imo. It is supposed to all be about the welfare of the horse.
As for it not being broke I am not sure I agree, there were numerous whip bans, I would have to look up the stats etc but as Steve Melish was saying last night on RUK the old rules were broke, they just were not working. The Grand National was just the straw that broke the camels back.
The old rules were fine I agree but the problem was the jockies didn't stick to them, they broke them time and again, the people I think that should be blamed for the change in the rules is the jocks themselves. They had a perfectly good set of rules but were unable as a whole to stick to them.
As now we have a set of rules which the majority are sticking to but the few are unable to and are being banned. I am all for them disagreeing with the new rules but you can still stick to them at the same time as disagreeing. If they can't count, should they really be riding? Yes you will get the odd mistake where they miscount but surely Fox knew he had gone past 7 on the first day once he got to hit 10 and carried on.
As a % of rides the number of bans so far is pretty small still.
As for it not being broke I am not sure I agree, there were numerous whip bans, I would have to look up the stats etc but as Steve Melish was saying last night on RUK the old rules were broke, they just were not working. The Grand National was just the straw that broke the camels back.
The old rules were fine I agree but the problem was the jockies didn't stick to them, they broke them time and again, the people I think that should be blamed for the change in the rules is the jocks themselves. They had a perfectly good set of rules but were unable as a whole to stick to them.
As now we have a set of rules which the majority are sticking to but the few are unable to and are being banned. I am all for them disagreeing with the new rules but you can still stick to them at the same time as disagreeing. If they can't count, should they really be riding? Yes you will get the odd mistake where they miscount but surely Fox knew he had gone past 7 on the first day once he got to hit 10 and carried on.
As a % of rides the number of bans so far is pretty small still.
-
SilentDave
- Posts: 199
- Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 11:30 am
I don't agree that the these rules are anything to do with the welfare of the horse - it is all about public perception and the BHA mistakenly believe that people are discouraged from going racing because of the whip.
The new rules will not attract any new racegoers but will result in some existing racing fans and punters turning their back on the sport.
The new rules will not attract any new racegoers but will result in some existing racing fans and punters turning their back on the sport.
-
superfrank
- Posts: 2762
- Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 8:28 pm
I can't agree with you on that Andy... if it was just about horse welfare they'd be no racing and we'd be left with dressage competitions.andyfuller wrote:It would make it difficult for traders etc but that isn't really the point imo. It is supposed to all be about the welfare of the horse.
Who, what, why: How dangerous is the Grand National?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-13034474
The animal rights loonies will be loving all this...The risk of horse fatalities in a steeplechase is around six per 1,000 starts, says Dr Mark Kennedy, senior lecturer in animal welfare at Anglia Ruskin University. This is compared to approximately one per 1,000 horse starts for flat racing and four per 1,000 horse starts for hurdling.
Race Horse Death Watch
http://www.horsedeathwatch.com/
If we continue down this road the sport is f*cked.Our research indicates that around 420 horses are raced to death every year. About 38 per cent die on racecourses, while the others are destroyed as a result of training injuries, or are killed because they are no longer commercially viable.