| Author | Message | ||
     Sue Starnes Posted From: 81.156.41.204 |
My opinion is that the rule is there to prevent grooms giving assistance round the cones and thereby giving their driver an advantage. If no advantage is gained then no penalty should be given. It would, however, be in the driver's interest for the groom to stand as still as possible so that the question of whether assistance had been given or not would not arise! | ||
| Martyn Willis Posted From: 195.93.21.101 |
OK Time to put my head up above the parapit again. I've got my flame proof suit on. At a recent event a groom (No Name or Class) was observed to lean out and over the rear wheel of the carriage whilst the driver was pushing on out of the last cone heading towards the timing gate. The initial reaction from the acting Event Manager (Organiser compeating in event) was to eleminate the driver. An appeal was heard in private with the groom and it was decided to take advice. Two IHDT club committee members were contacted and two differing opinions were obtained. 1. The competitior should be given 20 penalties as directed under IHDT rule 5.2 (Go on go and get your rule book out I'm not quoting it here). 2. The other opinion given was this was within the rules and should not incur any penalty, as 5.2 is intended to prevent "bunny hopping" the carriage around the cone. It is my view that the spirit of the cones is that the groom should be as impassive as posible. I understand a groom can suffer a pendulum effect and may shift their weight from one leg to the other when turning. It is also my view that if this is to be taken to the next stage we will have nothing more than a scurrying indoors rather than an excellant introduction to the sport and encouragement to try the outdoor version. What do you think? |