| Author | Message | ||
     Guest Username: New Registered: 12-2006 |
Would it be possible to have the results of the points league to be updated and available for everyone to view on this website? | ||
| Linda Rose Username: Lindar Registered: 01-2007 |
If the rules are being updated, can a clear statement on age limits for juniors (upper and lower), both as driver and/or as groom, please be included. This seems to be a grey area, with different interpretations being applied. | ||
| Mike Watts Username: Mikew Registered: 10-2006 |
Karen, That's very helpful, thanks. I entirely agree on the aim of a single rule book indoor drivers can refer to without [generally?] having to drop through to the outside rules which by their nature will have lots not relevant to indoors. I agree strongly that the points like those you've mentioned - what to do if you miss a gate etc, redefine 'bogey' (!?) need to be in the indoor rules. On the other hand, a redraft is getting bulky - it's very hard to define everything and I suggest the indoor rule book still leave some definitions to be found in the FEI rules; to define 'collected trot' for example. What do you think? OK to leave some of the concepts like that not defined and say 'FEI rules apply where further definition is needed'? By the way, down here we certainly enforce the rule that competitors must belong to the IHDT, for insurance and other reasons. We also publish the obstacles running order after cones and try hard to get through people in order and to regulate a sensible [safe] number of turnouts in the warm up area. It works reasonably well in East Anglia and Norfolk - are you thinking it could work better if we worked out the obstacle time for each class in advance and published that? Could do, might make the day longer? Maybe we should at least estimate the obstacles class times - or individual's times? We like the winner going last - it builds some excitement and we try to get it commentated. Any more observations? By the way I'd say here that my role here is mainly scribe/gofer - so two separate issues; clarifying what we have, I'm doing a draft. Making any changes is for more general discussion and Keysoe is a good time when many indoor people are together and the regional organisers meet. | ||
| Karen Blair-Imrie Username: Karenb Registered: 02-2007 |
OK, I'll offer my observations on the rulebook, Mike. Please understand that I really do enjoy indoor driving, and am not trying to slam the sport in general! These are just my thoughts on the rules as they stand :-) I really think that the indoor horse driving trials group should produce its own rulebook, as you are so wisely in the process of doing. It's all very well for someone coming from outdoor trials to adjust to the indoor rules, because they already know the dressage, cones and obstacles rules, but, for a newcomer, there are quite a few essential rules left out of the current indoor rules. Examples: Phase One - Dressage: 2.1: ...the markers will be equally spaced apart. Why not spell out what the distance is? I've seen even quite experienced drivers driving their 20 metre circles from X to G or D, because they thought that the markers were 10 metres apart. 2.5: errors of course or instances of rule breaking will be indicated etc. Errors of course are indicated to a driver by the judge ringing a bell or hooting a whistle, at which point the driver - does what? Some drivers think they should begin the movement from the beginning; others believe it is OK to just take up from where they went wrong; a few go up to the judge and ask for instructions, or even leave the arena, thinking they have been eliminated. On 'instances of rule breaking', it would be good to clarify what these might be, such as leaving the arena, repeated disobediences or errors of course, the use of open or bitless bridles and martingales, whip dropping (or even not having a whip at all), etc. Phase 2 - Cones: 2.7: Competitors will be told the bogey time for the course. I've been asked what a 'bogey time' is. Combining this rule with 2.18 - a competitor will incur one penalty point for each second either above or below the target time - confuses people further. It sounds as if there is just one time - say 1 min 11 secs - at which the driver must cross the finish line. There is no mention of a 'time window'. Is 'target time' the same as 'bogey time'? If so, call it one thing or the other. Nor does it say anywhere that 'take your own line' (2.14) means that you may drive sideways through the serpentine or zig zag without penalty on your way to another pair of cones, but may not drive through the start/finish flags to do the same. At some events, one is allowed or not allowed to do either of these things. You just have to find out on the day what the particular event organiser will allow. It also does not say whether driving through a pair of cones already driven is allowed. Nor does it deal with disobediences, such as rearing, going backwards, running out etc. A further point, not dealt with in the rules, is that of this 'bogey time'. It is calculated at 220 mpm according to what the course designer measures with his measuring wheel. Now I'm sure that everyone here has seen some rather dubious measuring going on, with the little wheel going round impossibly tight corners on its way from one cone to the next, just turning sharply after leaving a cone and going straight across to the next. It's an area that does need standardising. Once competitors realise that a course may very well be tightly or even impossibly timed, they will just go as fast as they can in order to make that time. I've heard competitors say on many occasions that they need to watch the measurement phase, so that they will know how fast they need to go. This should not be required! Every course should be accurately measured by people who actually know how to drive a cones course themselves, and also understand angles and distances for ponies, small ponies, and horses. Phase 3 - Marathon Obstacles Nowhere does it say what to do if you go wrong. As in the cones, I've seen competitors just leave the arena after missing out a gate. They don't understand that they can try again, or that they will get 20 penalties for doing so. They also don't know where they can try again. Should they begin the entire obstacle over from Gate A, or from where they went wrong, or from the gate before the one where they went wrong, or (as I have seen) from the Start flags, which of course resulted in the competitor being eliminated? There is no mention of 'dead gates', so not everyone understands that they can drive A again in either direction (or at all) on their way to C. There is no mention of how wide gates should be (2.5 metres). Elements and posts within an obstacle often are not 1.3 metres high. If this is considered to be safe for indoor driving, it should be so stated. 2.27: 'Obstacles will be driven in reverse order of combined scores.' Well, how often does that happen? It's more like, 'Come when you're ready, and if you're out of class order, that's fine, just let us know when you're ready.' Now, this sounds fine on paper, and ideally should result in an easy flow of unrushed competitors, but breaks down in practice. It has resulted in a situation in which no one knows when they are supposed to drive their obstacles, and the (usually tiny & sandy) collecting ring becomes over-crowded with folk rushing round frantically doing canter pirouettes and careening on 1 or 2 wheels as they must go into the arena in half a minute, or wandering round aimlessly with their sweaty horses getting cold, having warmed up in heavy going far too early. The main reason for this is that there are no fixed times for obstacle driving, as there are in outdoor events. If I knew, for example, that I should drive obstacle 1 at 2:15, I would be able to prepare my horse and bring her into the arena properly warmed up yet not stale. (Having events where there is no warm-up area makes this even worse. Taking a horse straight from lorry to obstacle is just asking for trouble.) Competitors: 4.1 'All competitors must be members of the Indoor Horse Driving Trials UK.' This is not true. I am not, nor have I ever been, an IHDT member, yet have driven at 10 or more indoor events. Vehicles: 8.2: 'Vehicles will be of a marathon type.' Two wheeled vehicles are still allowed in BHDTA marathon driving for singles and tandems, but the FEI rule is that only 4 wheeled vehicles are allowed for singles. I think that the new indoor rulebook should state clearly that 2 wheeled vehicles are allowed. In conclusion, I don't think it's acceptable to say that competitors learn by going wrong; a comprehensive rulebook should be available to new drivers so that they may enter their first event with at least some confidence in the system. They should not have to flip through the BHDTA rulebook to compare every rule to the IHDT rulebook. For beginners especially, but also for the rest of us, this is just too confusing. | ||
| Nina Snow Username: Ninas Registered: 01-2007 |
I do not agree with changing the rules regarding the cones phase this will only serve to make this phase less influential, i feel it is an important phase of the competition and works well as it is. i do agree however that the timing should be to hundredths of a second in the obstacles. | ||
| Martyn Willis Username: Martynw Registered: 10-2006 |
Variations to rules seen... are all of these; Options that give flexibility, misunderstandings and different interpretations that need more clarity...? This happens throughout our sport not just indoors. They occur at Club events through to Nationals. Indoor events need a degree of flexibility as not every venue is compliant for what ever reason. The problem is there are event officials who are unable to have the conviction to enforce certain rules as they feel this will have a demoralising effect on the competitor this then has the countering effect on those who have been following the rules. It is the quickest way for competitors to learn the rules when they are correctly penalised. The rule book is there and should be used. There is no harm in the official taking the competitor to one side at a convenient time and explaining the reason. In the outdoor rule book there is a statement that where there is no rule to cover a situation then the official has the power to make a judgement in the “Spirit of the Sport”. This is what I believe indoor organisers do to facilitate venue variations. As for timing at events I agree with Sue that events should be timing to the 1/100th . in the Cones and Obstacles I don’t agree with the 1 second window either side of the bogie time becoming a “Clear”. Cones indoors is a real test in that a driver has to judge the correct speed and keep all the balls up. I put the +/- sign on the sheets that I do. This is automatic in the excel spreadsheet I use | ||
| Mike Watts Username: Mikew Registered: 10-2006 |
What sort of variations are you seeing, Alan? ...are they options that should be added in to give flexibility, or misunderstandings or different interpretations that need more clarity ...? It can be difficult sometimes for people to figure out the rules for indoors, since they are phrased as variations on the outdoor rules. Dick Carey has asked me to draft a clear free standing version of the indoor rules to try to make it clearer, for discussion [this is about clarification - not changes - they're a separate issue] so it would be timely to know problem issues. | ||
| Alan Hodges Username: Alan Registered: 10-2006 |
Very droll Gary:-(. Personally I don't mind what the rules say so long as everyone is competing from a level playing field. The indoor competitions around the country all seem to vary in their interpretations of the rule book. The format and the rules relating to an indoor event often seem to be what the organiser of the day fancies. So here is a 'New Suggestion' for next season: Let's have a rule book which works in all events and venues and stick to it. | ||
| Guest Username: New Registered: 12-2006 |
Good day to you all,i think that perhaps change the timing to hundredths of seconds in the obstacles,but cones should be left alone or perhaps a 1 second window,10 second window is far to large ,you could actually forget where you are going stop wire up your sat-nav and still get no time pens,i think this would be unfair for people who work hard to get their horse or pony's trot the correct pace,i no we should all enjoy and have fun but it is also a competition,how about moving the cones 2 metres apart and take the balls off :-))))))).Gary snow | ||
| Mike Watts Username: Mikew Registered: 10-2006 |
Karen, currently the indoor cones time penalties seem a bit too much chance to many of us; people can't really judge time to a second. So Fiona's suggestion is that any time within one second of the 'bogey' time would get zero time penalties, e.g. if the time allowed was 64 seconds, anything from 63.0 to 65.0 would score 0 time penalties, then presumably 62.5 or 65.5 would score 0.5, etc. Rather like outdoor marathon time windows. My view is that we should have a wider time window on the cones time. While we don't want people to go ridiculously fast, they currently have to go well below the outdoor pace. I'd like to see a time window of say 10 seconds, so anything slower than the time allowed received penalties, anthing faster than (the time allowed minus the time window) received penalties, both at 1 point per second calculated to 2dp. Is that clearer - and what do people think? | ||
| Karen Blair-Imrie Username: Karenb Registered: 02-2007 |
What does this mean - 'having +1 or -1 second as a clear'? | ||
| Guest Username: New Registered: 12-2006 |
Hi, While on the subject of results, just to remind everyone that if their horse's/pony's and backstepper's names are sent in to H&H with the results, these will be included. Kerry Bowness Horse & Hound | ||
| Fiona Powell Username: Fionap Registered: 12-2003 |
Hear, hear - I agree on both points. I came out of an obstacle on 32.01 seconds - which would give me the same points as someone on 32.99. I suggest timing cones to 100/sec, too, and having +1 or - 1 second as a "clear" because there's less chance of hitting the time spot on. Some discussion is on www.scda.co.uk forum in support of this, too. Downside is that poor ol' scorer has more numbers to add up! Comments welcome - we are having an organisers' meeting before the Finals and it'd be useful to know what people think. Thanks! | ||
| Sue Starnes Username: Suestarnes Registered: 10-2006 |
I notice when looking at results that not all scores are marked in the same way. For example, some regions time the obstacles to hundredths of seconds and others don't. I think that the sport has progressed to such a level that we should all be timing the obstacles to hundredths of seconds; over 4 obstacles there could be an appreciable difference when, as at Merrist Wood, the competition is so close. I would also find it easier to improve my cones driving if the score given could reflect whether the time taken was under or over the time allowed. I have noticed that some results have a + or - sign with the cones score, maybe this could become standard. What do others think? |