The 2017 Australian International 3 Day Event Ground Jury at the first horse inspection
While many people have expressed their opinions on social media regarding the outcomes of decisions regarding the 50 penalty rulings during the CCI4* at the Mitsubishi Motors International 3 Day Event, in our view the most important thoughts on this matter come from the international officials appointed to oversee the event
The experienced international Ground Jury of Christian Landolt, Sue Baxter and Gretchen Butts reviewed incidents that had taken place on cross country on Saturday including;
- New Zealand’s Ginny Thompson had 50 penalties awarded then removed on Saturday
- Megan Jones, originally in second place at the end of cross country, had 50 penalties imposed late on Saturday which were reviewed and removed on Sunday
- Stuart Tinney’s 50 penalties were removed on Saturday night but there was much discussion on social media and the situation was under official review for most of the day. Stuart and War Hawk eventually started the final phase in fourth place on 61 penalties
- Hazel Shannon appealed her 50 penalties on Willinga Park Clifford but this was not changed and the Ground Jury upheld their original decision
What is the 50 penalty rule?
The Eventing Rule 549.2 that was introduced in 2017 states:
A Horse is considered to have run out if, having been presented at an element or obstacle on the course, it avoids it in such a way that either the head, neck or either shoulder of the Horse fail to pass between the extremities of the element or obstacle as flagged. In case the Horse has clearly attempted to jump the element or obstacle and may have missed a flag, the athlete can choose:
a) To represent (accepting automatically 20 penalties) , or
b) To continue on course incurring 50 penalties (no elimination) in case the
element or obstacle was not correctly cleared.
Note: A Horse will be considered to have cleared the fence when head, neck and both shoulders of the Horse pass between the extremities of the element or obstacles as flagged.
After a day of discussion regarding the various 50 penalties awarded during cross country at the Australian International 3 Day Event in Adelaide, the Ground Jury were happy to take questions and discuss some of the issues surrounding the ruling and decisions taken with the press
These are the answers given by the President of the Ground Jury, Christian Landolt with input from Sue Baxter and Gretchen Butts who were also present
What are your thoughts about the 50 penalty rule?
First, the 50 penalty rule was really installed for team competitions – that was really the start of the 50 penalty rule. I, and various of my colleagues, are strong believers that it should stand for team competitions but it shouldn’t stand for individual competitions. Second, the wording of the rule and the run out rule needs to be much clearer than it is because at the moment, it’s not quite the correct wording.
We want the horses to get over the jump, we want the horses to answer the question that is being asked of them but the way that the definition of a run out is, as we’ve seen yesterday, a horse can make a half attempt to jump and still be deemed to have jumped it.
The rule states that the head, neck and both shoulders need to be within the flags and whatever happens to the rest of the body seems irrelevant. But we are here to assess the situation according to the rules as they are written now and we strongly believe that it needs to be changed and re-worded
Regarding the decision on Stuart Tinney
With Stuart’s decision we had lots of video footage, some from the back and some from the side that were fairly horrendous, and we all agreed it was an appalling jump. However we had two sets of footage, one from the front and one from the side which, if you watched at normal speed you would instantly say he had never passed through the flags.
When you slow it down and take it frame by frame you then start questioning yourself. In the front facing footage you can see the horse actually within the flag and drifting to the right because he did jump left to right anyway and you can see that, as he is basically over the jump, he is still within the flags and then pushes the flag sideways.
Then there is a very clear picture that has been given to Stuart and Megan Jones to show to the other riders to explain to the other riders about our decision which is actually taken from the side and again it’s very interesting to see because the horse is well within the brush fence until the flag is on his shoulder. The moment you see the flag start to move, the horse is basically beyond that line and the shoulder was already through the flag
The rule is; head, neck and shoulders and on that evidence that we had to give him clear
Timeline
Basically what happened was that, when cross country finished yesterday, we had a lot of video footage to investigate. The Ground Jury and TD’s spent a lot of time analysing all of this footage and we kept having new stuff put in front of us – people saying ‘You must look at this and you must look at that and so on’
So last night (Saturday) we thought we had done everything we could with the evidence we had then this morning, Megan Jones asked to see us because we had a new piece of evidence we didn’t have yesterday. It was a still photograph provided by a photographer – she had gone on Facebook, (and good on her for doing that) and asked if anyone had any footage that can help me, please bring it on. That’s what it’s all about and we were very pleased to look at it and analyse.
And yes, the angle was different and although even Megan admitted she it was a very, very, very close call, it was ultimately so close that we were happy to remove the 50. With Stuart it was also a very, very close call but, had we actually given the 50, he would have come with that piece of evidence to say he was within the flags (and he was within the flags)
Our perspective is, if it is too close to call one way or another, let’s go with the rider. With Stuart it was a little bit border line but we had the photograph which was very clear so we went with that. If someone had come later, even during the show jumping, we would have had to look at it as well
Hazel Shannon
With Hazel it was a little bit clearer because the head was clearly not within the extremities of the jump and the shoulder was on the outside of the line so it was clear from the angle we had
Communicating with the riders
We actually issued a statement earlier today (Sunday) explaining the rule and what we had done but after that, when we heard there were still ongoing rumblings (about Stuart), that when we got Megan in as the Riders’ Representative and said, look at the footage. We can’t involve everybody but ultimately the Riders’ Rep is our connection to the riders and, although it was interesting (as she had her own protest), she was exceedingly clear and knew exactly what the rule was whereas I think many riders don’t know the rules and that also is a big issue
Because she was so clear on the rule, it was an advantage for us, because as soon as she saw the footage, she knew it and understood
Why did this number of problems occur here?
It is not normal to have this number of problems at one event and I think it came mainly from the technicality of the course, it comes back to maybe a number of the people or horses are not quite up to the level and the fact that this rule is a little bit ambiguous and not as clear as it should be.
We now want to address this with the FEI, explain the amount of problems we have had because, ultimately, if this had been a World Championship, it would have been a nightmare as it would have been lawyer versus lawyer
As I said to Megan and Stuart when we were discussing it, to be 100% sure you need lasering technology and all sorts of things so we did the best we could with the evidence we had. So yes, it needs addressing and hopefully they will listen to us
Megan Jones has put out her video statement here and we spoke to experienced 4* rider Jock Paget about his thoughts here
