Eliminated for being barefoot at Blair

Point about the hat is a good one, so horse not allowed to be barefoot because of safety but a judge is allowed to ride your horse wearing a hat that does not conform with safety standards, that is a double standard?
 
Whether or not you agree with a rule is not the point. If i was moaning because i was eliminated for doing dressage in a gag, i doubt many would sympathise......
 
Quadro said:
Whether or not you agree with a rule is not the point. If i was moaning because i was eliminated for doing dressage in a gag, i doubt many would sympathise......
Click to expand...

But original post is asking for people to support the BHS in their assertion that people should be allowed to compete without shoes, not particularly moaning about being eliminated as I read it.
 
Quadro said:
Whether or not you agree with a rule is not the point. If i was moaning because i was eliminated for doing dressage in a gag, i doubt many would sympathise......
Click to expand...

Fair enough but I could give you a more similar experience from a recent dressage excursion. Venue can only fit two areas in their school if they put them right against the fence and there is a sign on the gate saying that riders can go into the arena before their test. All other competitions in their series have allowed this. Judge on the day rang the first few riders out for doing exactly that on the basis that it was against BD rules. Okay, they were not eliminated, only taken to task and flustered before their tests, but, for the first few classes that we saw at least, it also meant no one could ride around the ring before the bell. So the judges decision was within the rules but the rules have been unequally applied. Anyone who qualified at another show could be argued to have had an unfair advantage.

I'm actually with you, the rules are there to be followed and people need to know them. But it is odd that under a well run, fair minded system a three year old rule is causing such confusion and upset.
 
TarrSteps said:
. Judge on the day rang the first few riders out for doing exactly that on the basis that it was against BD rules. Okay, they were not eliminated, only taken to task and flustered before their tests, but, for the first few classes that we saw at least, it also meant no one could ride around the ring before the bell. So the judges decision was within the rules but the rules have been unequally applied.
Click to expand...

I think I'm in the novel position of disagreeing with you here. BD rules allow riding-in in the arena where there isn't space to do so round the outside - I did so at a competition the other week. So your judge wasn't applying BD rules, she was making her own up!
 
Whilst I agree a rule is a rule, looking to see if shoeing was a requirement isn't a rule I would EVER have thought to look up!
 
As a showing newbie, just having done County Level in hand and ridden breed classes (which don't necessitate being shod):

Is there a list anywhere of societies/groups etc that do showing classes in order to find the rule books, or is it an event by event thing?

Sorry for the stupid questions but I'm new to it all..
 
KSR said:
As a showing newbie, just having done County Level in hand and ridden breed classes (which don't necessitate being shod):

Is there a list anywhere of societies/groups etc that do showing classes in order to find the rule books, or is it an event by event thing?

Sorry for the stupid questions but I'm new to it all..
Click to expand...

They are on the individual society websites normally, schedule should state which rules they are running classes under so then you can find them and check.
 
Gamebird said:
I think I'm in the novel position of disagreeing with you here. BD rules allow riding-in in the arena where there isn't space to do so round the outside - I did so at a competition the other week. So your was judge wasn't applying BD rules, she was making her own up!
Click to expand...

It's not novel! :D Her argument was there was room to ride around as there was a gap about 2' wide and the venue couldn't just decide to supersede a rule. It was more to the inconsistent application but I get your point. I guess the argument should be that ALL prior competitions where the rule has not been enforced should be invalidated. ...
 
TarrSteps said:
It's not novel! :D Her argument was there was room to ride around as there was a gap about 2' wide and the venue couldn't just decide to supersede a rule. It was more to the inconsistent application but I get your point. I guess the argument should be that ALL prior competitions where the rule has not been enforced should be invalidated. ...
Click to expand...

She sounds like a right old charmer (read that as witch ;) )
 
I don't understand showing but surely if a horse has qualified barefoot, putting shoes on may well change his movement and performance, why don't the qualifiers have the same rule enforced? To reverse the situation, how would competitors feel if they were told they had to remove shoes in some classes or be eliminated? lol
 
amandap said:
I don't understand showing but surely if a horse has qualified barefoot, putting shoes on may well change his movement and performance, why don't the qualifiers have the same rule enforced? To reverse the situation, how would competitors feel if they were told they had to remove shoes in some classes or be eliminated? lol
Click to expand...

The issue here is inconsistent application of the rule.

Riders really should know the rules and they only have themselves to blame if they are eliminated for breaking them. A rider may choose to 'chance it' knowing barefoot isn't allowed and hoping to get to ride under a lenient judge.

Instead of throwing hands up in an 'isn't life unfair' 'everyone hates barefooters' kind of response (which isn't really going to get you anywhere other than to undermine your cause) - those that are interested in showing their horses barefoot should work with the societies to get a rule amendment.

FWIW I think the rule is outdated and silly. If a horse can perform safely barefoot then it should be allowed.
 
ihatework said:
FWIW I think the rule is outdated and silly. If a horse can perform safely barefoot then it should be allowed.
Click to expand...
The rule is a relatively new one in my understanding, two-three years old so hardly outdated in it's inception.

I was trying to elaborate on the unfairness of it not just say oh poor bare footers. lol To get a rule changed an argument has to be put forward surely?

At least the rule has been well publicized now. Hopefully those concerned will be prompted to check if it applies in their class.
 
ihatework said:
Instead of throwing hands up in an 'isn't life unfair' 'everyone hates barefooters' kind of response (which isn't really going to get you anywhere other than to undermine your cause) - those that are interested in showing their horses barefoot should work with the societies to get a rule amendment.

FWIW I think the rule is outdated and silly. If a horse can perform safely barefoot then it should be allowed.
Click to expand...


like the OP was asking people to do you mean? ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top