Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 23

Thread: Interference penalties

  1. #1
    Senior Member barjon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Posts
    3,399
    Thanks
    996
    Thanked 1,222 Times in 925 Posts
    Blog Entries
    161

    Interference penalties

    Anyone been following Kevin Blake’s articles on ATR about poor stewarding of interference - latest https://www.attheraces.com/blogs/kev...'t-go-away. I must say that I agree with him. I look at the steward’s reports each day and amazed that most investigations into interference result in “no riding offence was involved” even where horses have had to be dangerously snatched up.

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to barjon For This Useful Post:

    Outsider (6th August 2020)

  3. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    7,312
    Thanks
    814
    Thanked 1,033 Times in 875 Posts
    It does look bad from the side-on replay and was exaggerated by Tom Marquand forcing his mount through a diminishing gap, but the appeals panel did say "We do not agree with that analysis. Even allowing for the fact that the head-on view is not in fact truly head on, we consider that any drift to the left is imperceptible" which Kevin Blake has ignored in his quest for copy, and (imo) the panel were correct in their interpretation, and a 10 day ban unfair on Rob Havlin.

  4. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,891
    Thanks
    84
    Thanked 318 Times in 204 Posts
    Kevin Blake's whole point being that the stewards interpretation is encouraging dangerous riding. Closing the door is a justified race riding technique. It was obvious what happened at Yarmouth. We'll wait for the tragedy to happen, like Bowman's incident in Australia, before the review.

    Apropos of nothing. This was on twitter yesterday.

    https://twitter.com/DickinsonTimes/s...898980363?s=19

  5. #4
    Senior Member Desert Orchid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    23,661
    Thanks
    2,930
    Thanked 3,483 Times in 2,743 Posts
    The stewarding in this country is pathetic but it's those further up the chain of authority who are the root problem.

    The whole notion of 'the best horse should keep the race' is fundamentally flawed and it makes UK racing a laughing stock.

    Tilsit, for example, should have been disqualified last week and there are incidents every day which should lead to disqualification but don't so riders allow horses to interfere rather than check momentum, knowing the horse isn't going to be disqualified. A couple of days' holiday for the rider isn't a deterrent.

    A lot of the incidents in this country would never be tolerated in France and certainly not in Hong Kong.
    Illegitimi non carborundum


  6. #5
    Senior Member barjon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Posts
    3,399
    Thanks
    996
    Thanked 1,222 Times in 925 Posts
    Blog Entries
    161
    Quote Originally Posted by Desert Orchid View Post
    The stewarding in this country is pathetic but it's those further up the chain of authority who are the root problem.

    The whole notion of 'the best horse should keep the race' is fundamentally flawed and it makes UK racing a laughing stock.

    Tilsit, for example, should have been disqualified last week and there are incidents every day which should lead to disqualification but don't so riders allow horses to interfere rather than check momentum, knowing the horse isn't going to be disqualified. A couple of days' holiday for the rider isn't a deterrent.

    A lot of the incidents in this country would never be tolerated in France and certainly not in Hong Kong.
    I was on the second in the Tilsit race and it probably wouldn’t have won if Tilsit hadn’t stopped it in its tracks (as the stewards concluded). Seems to me that’s beside the point which is that it was denied the chance to do so by the interference.

    Ps: probably thinking too much about the damage to my wallet I forgot the point about it being outright dangerous.
    Last edited by barjon; 6th August 2020 at 9:20 AM. Reason: Missed a bit

  7. #6
    Senior Member Desert Orchid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    23,661
    Thanks
    2,930
    Thanked 3,483 Times in 2,743 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by barjon View Post
    I was on the second in the Tilsit race and it probably wouldn’t have won if Tilsit hadn’t stopped it in its tracks (as the stewards concluded). Seems to me that’s beside the point which is that it was denied the chance to do so by the interference.

    Ps: probably thinking too much about the damage to my wallet I forgot the point about it being outright dangerous.
    Impossible to say with certainty that Tilsit would have won regardless but, in the interests of fairness, that shouldn't even be a consideration. As far as I know, it doesn't enter the argument in Hong Kong.

    I like to draw analogies with other situations when trying to analyse one. It's a bit like saying a second yellow card shouldn't be given because it would mean the player gets sent off and he isn't really a dirty player.

    The debate has been aired on this forum more than once over the last 20 years and there's never been broad agreement; rather it's been broad disagreement. If we as punters can't agree on what's right and fair then the sport as a whole has no chance.

    I reckon we can pretty much trace the argument back to the 1974 Queen Anne in which the first three were rightly disqualified and the fourth horse awarded the race. There was outcry as it was unprecedented and allowed a lesser animal to win a prestigious race and the lily-livered authorities soon started to introduce mitigating circumstances to allow transgressors to go unpunished.

    There was another incident in the Juddmonte in 1998 when the first three jockeys were penalised for excessive use of the whip but there were no disqualifications and little, if any, interference. Slightly different circumstances, admittedly, but rules were broken and, if memory serves, the only reason there weren't disqualifications was because the stewards didn't want another Queen Anne. (Not a direct quote from any of the stewards, just a general interpretation of the mood in the racing media and among the racing public at the time.)

    We've been going downhill pretty much ever since. (In my opinion.)
    Illegitimi non carborundum


  8. The Following User Says Thank You to Desert Orchid For This Useful Post:

    Colin Phillips (6th August 2020)

  9. #7
    Senior Member barjon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Posts
    3,399
    Thanks
    996
    Thanked 1,222 Times in 925 Posts
    Blog Entries
    161
    Quote Originally Posted by Desert Orchid View Post
    Impossible to say with certainty that Tilsit would have won regardless but, in the interests of fairness, that shouldn't even be a consideration. As far as I know, it doesn't enter the argument in Hong Kong.

    I like to draw analogies with other situations when trying to analyse one. It's a bit like saying a second yellow card shouldn't be given because it would mean the player gets sent off and he isn't really a dirty player.

    The debate has been aired on this forum more than once over the last 20 years and there's never been broad agreement; rather it's been broad disagreement. If we as punters can't agree on what's right and fair then the sport as a whole has no chance.

    I reckon we can pretty much trace the argument back to the 1974 Queen Anne in which the first three were rightly disqualified and the fourth horse awarded the race. There was outcry as it was unprecedented and allowed a lesser animal to win a prestigious race and the lily-livered authorities soon started to introduce mitigating circumstances to allow transgressors to go unpunished.

    There was another incident in the Juddmonte in 1998 when the first three jockeys were penalised for excessive use of the whip but there were no disqualifications and little, if any, interference. Slightly different circumstances, admittedly, but rules were broken and, if memory serves, the only reason there weren't disqualifications was because the stewards didn't want another Queen Anne. (Not a direct quote from any of the stewards, just a general interpretation of the mood in the racing media and among the racing public at the time.)

    We've been going downhill pretty much ever since. (In my opinion.)
    Agree with all that Desert. Don’t get me started on the whip. If whipping creates an advantage then excessive whipping must mean that a horse has gained an unfair advantage over those who had limited whipping within the rules. That surely merits disqualification.

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to barjon For This Useful Post:

    Desert Orchid (6th August 2020)

  11. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    7,312
    Thanks
    814
    Thanked 1,033 Times in 875 Posts
    I fail to see how anyone - from just a side-on view - can judge this case where the panel; with plenty of time and multifaceted views, decided "that any drift to the left is imperceptible", and Kevin Blake's whole point was nothing more than pursuit of a particular hobby-horse, where he may,or may not, have a point.
    When the powers that be decided that the best horse on the day should keep the race, it was one of those rare moments in racing, when judgement fell in favour of the punter - imvho, of course.
    Last edited by reet hard; 6th August 2020 at 11:36 AM.

  12. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,891
    Thanks
    84
    Thanked 318 Times in 204 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Desert Orchid View Post
    Impossible to say with certainty that Tilsit would have won regardless but, in the interests of fairness, that shouldn't even be a consideration. As far as I know, it doesn't enter the argument in Hong Kong.

    I like to draw analogies with other situations when trying to analyse one. It's a bit like saying a second yellow card shouldn't be given because it would mean the player gets sent off and he isn't really a dirty player.

    The debate has been aired on this forum more than once over the last 20 years and there's never been broad agreement; rather it's been broad disagreement. If we as punters can't agree on what's right and fair then the sport as a whole has no chance.

    I reckon we can pretty much trace the argument back to the 1974 Queen Anne in which the first three were rightly disqualified and the fourth horse awarded the race. There was outcry as it was unprecedented and allowed a lesser animal to win a prestigious race and the lily-livered authorities soon started to introduce mitigating circumstances to allow transgressors to go unpunished.

    There was another incident in the Juddmonte in 1998 when the first three jockeys were penalised for excessive use of the whip but there were no disqualifications and little, if any, interference. Slightly different circumstances, admittedly, but rules were broken and, if memory serves, the only reason there weren't disqualifications was because the stewards didn't want another Queen Anne. (Not a direct quote from any of the stewards, just a general interpretation of the mood in the racing media and among the racing public at the time.)

    We've been going downhill pretty much ever since. (In my opinion.)
    I was going to make a sarky point about Royal Gait, Cahervillahow etc being immune and I had forgotten how horrific a decision this one was.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YgMAbuwoyc

  13. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,891
    Thanks
    84
    Thanked 318 Times in 204 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by reet hard View Post
    I fail to see how anyone - from just a side-on view - can judge this case where the panel; with plenty of time and multifaceted views, decided "that any drift to the left is imperceptible", and Kevin Blake's whole point was nothing more than pursuit of a particular hobby-horse, where he may,or may not, have a point.
    When the powers that be decided that the best horse on the day should keep the race, it was one of those rare moments in racing, when judgement fell in favour of the punter - imvho, of course.
    Why would you assume that the only view that is publicly available is a side on view, when in the vast majority of races, and certain on all replay programmes, they show a head on view.

    And also a reminder, that the stewards with plenty of time and multifaceted views took the view that it was careless riding.

    It was only on appeal was reversed.

  14. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    212
    Thanks
    6
    Thanked 29 Times in 24 Posts
    I've certainly lost a few due to another runner cutting across the front of mine etc etc, no doubt I've won a few cos of that as well but it's the losers I remember.

    It seems in the UK one jockey would have to basically clothesline another or push their horse through the rails before the stewards would actually change a result.

    Ancedotally I'd say they've got more lax than they used to be.

  15. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,891
    Thanks
    84
    Thanked 318 Times in 204 Posts
    The barge of Tilsit on My Oberon was fair game. Needs to be more than that.

  16. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    7,312
    Thanks
    814
    Thanked 1,033 Times in 875 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by HawkWing View Post
    Why would you assume that the only view that is publicly available is a side on view, when in the vast majority of races, and certain on all replay programmes, they show a head on view.

    And also a reminder, that the stewards with plenty of time and multifaceted views took the view that it was careless riding.

    It was only on appeal was reversed.
    RP,SL,ATR,the Jockey Club and RUK: not one showing a head-on replay. Neither do the stewards have plenty of time; they have a duty (to bookmakers) to form a result quickly so monies may be re-invested.

  17. #14
    Senior Member barjon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Posts
    3,399
    Thanks
    996
    Thanked 1,222 Times in 925 Posts
    Blog Entries
    161
    Quote Originally Posted by HawkWing View Post
    The barge of Tilsit on My Oberon was fair game. Needs to be more than that.
    Yet if My Oberon had been coming through on Tilsit at the time, on their own logic, they would have awarded the race to My Oberon. “.... The Stewards considered that the interference had not improved TILSIT (USA)’s placing as TILSIT (USA) had been making its run from behind MY OBERON (IRE) and gone an extending three-quarters of a length clear prior to the incident occurring.....”

    So, their job is not about whether the interference is against the rules or not, but about their judgement (guess) as to whether it has affected the result or not. To pinch a Desert Orchid type analogy that he used above, that’s like saying you are not going to penalise a defender for hacking down a forward in the penalty area because, on your judgement, he wouldn’t have scored.
    Last edited by barjon; 6th August 2020 at 12:53 PM.

  18. The Following User Says Thank You to barjon For This Useful Post:

    Maxbet (18th August 2020)

  19. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,891
    Thanks
    84
    Thanked 318 Times in 204 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by reet hard View Post
    RP,SL,ATR,the Jockey Club and RUK: not one showing a head-on replay. Neither do the stewards have plenty of time; they have a duty (to bookmakers) to form a result quickly so monies may be re-invested.
    So, you are going by what is essentially the same feed given to the the various sites where replays are available as evidence that no head on is available to bog standard punters. Rather than anytime you watch RTV or SSR they usually have the head on as perhaps the third or fourth replay. Whether they have time to show these as standard 'live' depends on amount of racing, and often time in fact is used as filler when there is a long gap between races. Where there are contentious incidents head ons are usually presented. in the racing replay programmes, they are shown routinely, contentious incident or not. And the stewards on the day would have access to all camera angles before making a decision.
    Last edited by HawkWing; 6th August 2020 at 1:24 PM.

  20. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,891
    Thanks
    84
    Thanked 318 Times in 204 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by barjon View Post
    Yet if My Oberon had been coming through on Tilsit at the time, on their own logic, they would have awarded the race to My Oberon. “.... The Stewards considered that the interference had not improved TILSIT (USA)’s placing as TILSIT (USA) had been making its run from behind MY OBERON (IRE) and gone an extending three-quarters of a length clear prior to the incident occurring.....”

    So, their job is not about whether the interference is against the rules or not, but about their judgement (guess) as to whether it has affected the result or not. To pinch a Desert Orchid type analogy that he used above, that’s like saying you are not going to penalise a defender for hacking down a forward in the penalty area because, on your judgement, he wouldn’t have scored.
    Also, if you can cause interference that results in a 2 to 3 length gap to your rival, it's better than causing interference that results in a 1/2l loss.

  21. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    7,312
    Thanks
    814
    Thanked 1,033 Times in 875 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by HawkWing View Post
    So, you are going by what is essentially the same feed given to the the various sites where replays are available as evidence that no head on is available to bog standard punters. Rather than anytime you watch RTV or SSR they usually have the head on as perhaps the third or fourth replay. Whether they have time to show these as standard 'live' depends on amount of racing, and often time in fact is used as filler when there is a long gap between races. Where there are contentious incidents head ons are usually presented. in the racing replay programmes, they are shown routinely, contentious incident or not. And the stewards on the day would have access to all camera angles before making a decision.
    For pity's sake - I don't have access to a head-on replay after the event, nor do you, and probably neither did Kevin Blake; end of:
    Last edited by reet hard; 6th August 2020 at 2:42 PM.

  22. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,891
    Thanks
    84
    Thanked 318 Times in 204 Posts
    The head on was shown on SSR on the day of the race, as I watched it at the time.

    end of:

  23. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    7,312
    Thanks
    814
    Thanked 1,033 Times in 875 Posts
    Of course you did; and I'm the king of China!
    Last edited by reet hard; 6th August 2020 at 5:33 PM.

  24. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,891
    Thanks
    84
    Thanked 318 Times in 204 Posts
    I was against the godophin horse that was forced to snatch up in a match bet. I'm sure i could find proof of that if you were interested. Continue on with numerous assumptions though.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •