2013 FEI Eventing Rules--anyone seen them?

V

vineyridge

Well-Known Member
Joined
27 April 2008
Messages
196
Visit site
There is a public memo on changes to the proposed rules made by the General Assembly, and it would seem that the 2013 rules make massive changes to the 2012 Rules. But I cannot find where the 2013 rules and/or rule proposals are available on the FEI website. They have (naturally) been provided to the NFs. I'm interested in knowing if your NF got any public comment or feedback; the USEF certainly didn't. Nor did the FEI publish their proposals for public comment and feedback.

If anyone knows where to obtain a copy of the 2013 Rules (which probably go into effect 01/01/2013, ie quite soon) I'd appreciate knowing how to get hold of them.
 
There was a final draft copy on the net a short while ago...can't find it now?!

I rang BE to enquire about it, as it seemed grossly unfair to amateur riders & those trying to break through,requiring a far higher expenditure in both time & money , to qualify through the levels, which in many cases will have to be done on one poor horse.....while the multi-horse riders not only have lower qualifications, but can of course use different horses too.

To introduce them so fast, also seems unfair...had I known what was coming, I would have done different events/classes last year!

BE said they were still talking to the FEI about how the new rules would be applied.....sounds as though it may be a bit chaotic....the most sensible thing would be to apply them in 2014.....or better still...modify them to something fairer.
 
They have not been published yet as some were only approved on Thursday last week .Some of the changes will not be used until 2014 anyhow.There is a doc showing the changes sanctioned on Thursday on the website the major one being that at black flagged alternatives you may take any route you wish in combinations ie you do not need to stick to the black flagged route as if I am correct in my understanding all fences were an alternative is present will have black lines on to stop confusion.
 
Can anyone explain this matrix of eligibility requirements? What does this mean!?! Confused.com. Does it effect current qualifying results I wonder. Good to see CIC trot ups are now not compulsory.
 
Are we really going to have to have 20 MERs at each level to progress!!! Or am I going mad here and not understood correctly.. That surely is impossible for most mere mortals with one good horse...
 
ElleJS said:
Can anyone explain this matrix of eligibility requirements? What does this mean!?! Confused.com. Does it effect current qualifying results I wonder. Good to see CIC trot ups are now not compulsory.
Click to expand...

....Clear as mud isn't it!!

I think it means that if you have 20+ QR at any given level, then the lower level of QRs are required.....so "pros" only.

If you don't, then you need the extra QRs, eg. 2 x CIC** for CCI **, rather than just one for the pros. Also , you would no longer be able to start at CIC** level, but would now have to do a 1* of some description.
 
ElleJS said:
Are we really going to have to have 20 MERs at each level to progress!!! Or am I going mad here and not understood correctly.. That surely is impossible for most mere mortals with one good horse...
Click to expand...

I was wondering exactly the same, which is why I only posted the link.....:confused:
 
Blimey that is confusing!

From how I read it if the rider is not already 'over qualified' at a level then to qualify to ride at a level the horse and rider as a combination must compete the required runs with QRs as per table art 519.

If though the rider is effectively 'over qualified' then the requierments are lower and the QRs required are as the tables in art 520. I.E. for CCI 4* if the rider is a one horse rider they will need the NF requirements + 1 CCI3* + 2 CI 3* whereas if over qualified they will only need NF requir. + 1 CCI3*. So the one horse riders will need more runs for each horse to get the results needed.
 
Will be interesting to see if anyone else can translate it. If it reads how we have read it then the sport will just become entirely elitist; for the rich with lots of horses or top top level pros with owners with a large string. Even some pros only have a few horses and would probably struggle with that MER matrix! I mean how many actual riders have 20 qualifying results at a 3* and 4* bar William, Mary and Andrew and the other obvious ones????!! Can't be right??
 
I think there will be a surprising amount of riders who are hit by this ruling.

I can understand why they have implemented this but it strikes me that education rather than forcing people to jump through hoops would be far more productive and inclusive.
 
Following hot on the heels of their poorly worded ban on unaff, comps, which was apparently designed to reduce the "over-running" of horses, surely these qualifications will achieve precisely the opposite.....?
 
Can't see the pdf as on my phone, MER should be minimum eligibility requirements. NF might be National Federation but usually that's designated FN as the FEI's official language is French, hence CCI etc. and, well, FEI. :)
 
I think NF is National Federation, NC is National Competition. Not absolutely certain what CI means - presumably means either a CCI or CIC, interchangeably?

As I see it:

1) They are tightening qualifications up at most levels for most riders, also insisting that all QRs are gained as a combination - you can argue the toss over whether this is a good thing or a bad thing, but regardless, I do think it will impact upon pros' ability to sell not-top-grade experienced horses to YRs for big money to get straight on teams with...

2) There is a fast track for qualification for riders with over twenty MERs over the last eight years at a certain level - bear in mind this is only 2.5 per annum if you use the full eight years, so you don't need a huge string, but you do probably need to be a pro... I was thinking that achieving category D (ie 20 MERs at 1*) wan't terribly onerous, but when I looked more carefully, I saw that category D no longer gets you any special priveleges anyway, now they have revamped the table :p

3) Interestingly, if there is more than one section at the same level at an event, you no longer need separate ground juries, one can do all and organisers can pull in extra dressage judges as required - perhaps making events cheaper to run? Also no compulsory trot ups at CICs (except if SJ after XC), instead the vet will see your horse trot up when you arrive and present your passport, and report any problems to ground jury - makes sense.

Not sure it is all bad, really?
 
From what I can see, they've upped the number of runs required to qualify, and these have to be achieved as a combination *unless* the rider has a particular category of eligibility (A/B/C/D) in which case only the horse needs to be qualified. That means horses can go between pros and you don't have to run them again as a combination with the new rider to make them eligible for a level. Plus once a rider has done a certain number of events at a certain level, they can upgrade horses more quickly/easily.

TBH, the people this looks like being the biggest nightmare for is the organisers/entries secretaries. I would put money on people who aren't qualified running horses just because they don't have the faintest idea how to interpret the different ways to qualify!

What the hell is a reverse qualification?!
 
My understanding is the same as TD's, if it is introduced next year we will be v disappointed as we have horse that has been 3*, with rider qual to go 2* having to go back to 1*, and effectively less qualified as a combination than the horse who has 8 points and only done 7 events in total. It will certainly scupper daughters aims for her gap year !
 
SpottedCat said:
From what I can see, they've upped the number of runs required to qualify, and these have to be achieved as a combination *unless* the rider has a particular category of eligibility (A/B/C/D) in which case only the horse needs to be qualified. That means horses can go between pros and you don't have to run them again as a combination with the new rider to make them eligible for a level. Plus once a rider has done a certain number of events at a certain level, they can upgrade horses more quickly/easily.

TBH, the people this looks like being the biggest nightmare for is the organisers/entries secretaries. I would put money on people who aren't qualified running horses just because they don't have the faintest idea how to interpret the different ways to qualify!

What the hell is a reverse qualification?!
Click to expand...

From what I gather, a reverse qualification means that a rider and/or rider + horse can be disqualified from running at a particular level, even though they have the MERs to compete at that level. Not sure until the actual rules are published what it takes to receive a "reverse qualification".

One major change is that it would seem that one could not qualify by running only National Competitions. You cannot move up an FEI competition level without running FEI competitions. Can't do a CC1 without first qualifying at CIC.
 
Last edited:
vineyridge said:
From what I gather, a reverse qualification means that a rider and/or rider + horse can be disqualified from running at a particular level, even though they have the MERs to compete at that level. Not sure until the actual rules are published what it takes to receive a "reverse qualification".

One major change is that it would seem that one could not qualify by running only National Competitions. You cannot move up an FEI competition level without running FEI competitions. Can't do a CC1 without first qualifying at CIC.
Click to expand...

Thanks!

The latter point only really affects CIC2* though - for all the others you already had to do some FEI events, now you have to do more of them. Looking at it, you still only need NF MERs to do 1*

I think it will cause the most issues to people who are in the junior/YR programme because they are unlikely to get enough runs to allow for decreased qualification, but they don't have many years in each programme.

Am I reading it right that say someone who is a one horse amateur who doesn't have any of the rider qualifications, would have to conform to BE standards for 1*, and then at 2* would have to have done a 1* with my horse plus whatever BE decide if I want to do CIC2*, and then either a CCI* or a CIC2* plus a CIC2* plus whatever BE decide in order for me to do a CCI2*? I don't actually think that's overly onerous is it? If BE don't add in another layer of qualifications, the CCI2* qualification hasn't actually changed except that where you used to be able to do two intermediates, now you have to do a CIC2*. So theoretically one fewer run to qualify rather than one more if you formerly took the Intermediate route.
 
SpottedCat said:
Thanks!

The latter point only really affects CIC2* though - for all the others you already had to do some FEI events, now you have to do more of them. Looking at it, you still only need NF MERs to do 1*

I think it will cause the most issues to people who are in the junior/YR programme because they are unlikely to get enough runs to allow for decreased qualification, but they don't have many years in each programme.

Am I reading it right that say someone who is a one horse amateur who doesn't have any of the rider qualifications, would have to conform to BE standards for 1*, and then at 2* would have to have done a 1* with my horse plus whatever BE decide if I want to do CIC2*, and then either a CCI* or a CIC2* plus a CIC2* plus whatever BE decide in order for me to do a CCI2*? I don't actually think that's overly onerous is it? If BE don't add in another layer of qualifications, the CCI2* qualification hasn't actually changed except that where you used to be able to do two intermediates, now you have to do a CIC2*. So theoretically one fewer run to qualify rather than one more if you formerly took the Intermediate route.
Click to expand...

I think the problem is that if you have not done a 1*,but went directly in to a CIC**, you have to go back to do a 1*, which may well not be ideal for a big jumping, forward horse.

Plus the emphasis on FEI qulifications (rather than being able to use national classes for some of the qualifications) will mean it becomes very difficult in terms of getting enough runs at FEI where there are fewer events available. It will mean more balloting of FEI classes, which also entail a significantly greater entry fee, often exacerbated by having to travel further & stable...even more cost!.
 
Hmm, but all the CCI* I've seen have been comparable to intermediates - so it's not a huge drop back is it? I can see it would be financially ruinous, but that's a separate debate!

As far as I can see, all the new rule changes which annoy the riders, serve no other purpose than to make money for the FEI.
 
SpottedCat said:
What the hell is a reverse qualification?!
Click to expand...

I meant to ask this too!

vineyridge said:
One major change is that it would seem that one could not qualify by running only National Competitions. You cannot move up an FEI competition level without running FEI competitions. Can't do a CC1 without first qualifying at CIC.
Click to expand...

Definitely according to these rules, qualification for CCI* and CIC* will still be down to NFs to decide. However, I, too, saw that not all national competitions will be allowed to count for FEI qualification any more, the NFs will have to nominate certain competitions as qualifying ones (and what's the betting they have to pay a levy? :rolleyes: ) Ballot stickers, anyone??

I actually support the idea of riders being rewarded for going through the grades with their horse and having to be a bit patient if they buy an experienced horse, but as blue2262 says, it will be tough on the YRs. Also, it is going to be very tempting for people to run their horses more often in an effort to get the MERs they need - imagine a YR who has bought a horse this winter hoping to aim for Bramham? Spring 1*, cic2*s and cci2* - hope it is fit!! :p
 
- imagine a YR who has bought a horse this winter hoping to aim for Bramham? Spring 1*, cic2*s and cci2* - hope it is fit!! :p[/QUOTE]

Having studied the calender with exactly this in mind, it was going to be tight to achieve anyway. It will now I think be impossible simply because there wont be enough events. What is so annoying is that we could have taken the horse to Aldon.

I just hope that when it is all confirmed it wont be as bad as it currently appears. And thank goodness we have been lent a horse and not mortgaged the house to buy one!
 
It will also be tougher for riders not based in the UK or at least Western Europe, who already have a more difficult time collecting enough runs due to sheer lack of options.

Re reverse qualifications, is this something like what the Australians have been looking at? Where riders/combinations who don't perform decently can be 'sent down'? Mind you, would the most recent 4* winner, a first time 4* starter, even have been qualified under the new rules?

I take a jaundiced view of the FEI generally ;) but it is a problem. Everyone questions when a rider seems under prepared - the Russian springs to mind - but then we all love the stories about one horse riders who make it to the highest level.
 
I may be getting this wrong, but isn't there a slight contradiction?...

Page 4 implies you cannot be a category D athlete and compete at CIC** - which means you must be category A, B, or C...to be category C you have to have 20 MER's at two star level or above....But you can't do two star as a category D rider...so how do you become a category C rider without being able to do two star....?
 
So for a CIC** do we think you now need a CCI1* or would a CIC* be sufficient? Have a horse that really really would not benefit from running round a CCI* for the sake of a 2* qualification!!! that will be a bummer of so!!!
The FEI really aren't giving much warning. Fair enough if these came into effect 2014.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top