Elimination after rider fall

Fiona

Fiona

Well-Known Member
Joined
14 July 2001
Messages
10,150
Location
N. Ireland
Visit site
As some of you may know EI has immediately implemented the FEI ruling regarding rider falls. I don't know whether this means BE are planning the same or not, but it can't be far away, and if BE bring it in I am sure it will appear in RC/PC rulebooks the following season.

I happen to agree with the letter in last weeks H&H, which basically asks for scientific evidence that riders have been subject to further injury as a result of being allowed to remount and continue after a fall. If no such scientific evidence is out there, then why the rule???

I can think of a million drawbacks and potential loopholes anyway...
...what is the situation if rider falls after a spooky buck in XC warmup or the SJ warmup or even the dressage warmup!!!
...how does it affect multiple riders re their later rides...
...will there be new codes introduced for scoring so that a rider fall elimination can be distinguished from 3 refusals or a horse fall..


..but most importantly if a rider falls off as a result of a green horse jumping big/dropping its shoulder at the last minute/spooking at a banner/jump/spectator and lands on their feet or an easy roll, how is that teaching the horse anything if it is immediately led away and tucked up in its lorry with a haynet.

I have a friend with a quite brilliant but very spooky horse, who if this rule had applied in the past couple of seasons would have had more eliminations than completions next to her name.

Are we as riders not trusted any more to know (when we have had a fall) whether we are capable of continuing (either to the end of the course or even just a further fence or two to renew the horses confidence). I know I am, my OH is, and 99.9% of the people we event with 'week in week out' are also.

Maybe this was discussed in depth on HHO when the FEI ruling came out a couple of weeks ago (I don't know as was on holiday than), but even if it was, this decision by EI (and potentially BE as well) means it directly affects a lot more of us (ie those at intro/PN jumping 'relatively' small fences).

Anyone wish to discuss???

Fiona

(I also think the new 3 (rather than 4) cumulative refusals is harsh in some circumstances as well, at * level a combination could have 3 glance offs at corner/skinny type fences and still be completely safe to continue and finish the course/competition...but maybe that is a seperate discussion for another day)!!

Fiona
 
I agree with you, all a bit H&S gone mad me thinks.
confused.gif


Just one of those annoying rules everyone will have to put up with I guess.
smirk.gif
 
Having watched riders fall at two events, look very unsafe when they continued and then one have a further fall resulting in the horse being destroyed and the other have a further fall resulting in injury to himself and course being closed for twenty minutes whilst he was carted off I think that some form of stopping system after a fall needs to be introduced ie if you are looking unsafe then you are pulled up - no argument from rider.

In both those two cases, as fence judges, we were continuing to watch the rider as it seemed likely that there would be a further incident.

I have found that when there is a fall at "my" fence it is often very difficult to prevent the rider continuing - adrenaline can be a very powerful stimulant! A system that might work is to hold the rider at the fence until a paramedic or other appointed person has given the all clear for them to carry on. OK their time is going to be awful - but then they were out of contention anyway. It does however give them the chance to finish the round if they are on a green animal.
 
I've heard that BE will bring this in next year for sure. I am in two minds about it: no-one wants riders to continue if they are not in a fit state but on the other hand, very often riders are 100% to carry on. As far as I understand the new ruling it only applies to falls at fences, so being bucked off or coming off when the horse slips on the course would not be penalised.

I don't think anything will change the situation now either. I only hope that the pony club don't introduce the rule as well, although I think they will. For kids, especially at the lowest levels, they tumble off all the time, without any injury, and can get back on with no problem. It would be such a shame if they had to retire after a harmless "rapid dismount". The pony club haven't (yet) followed BJSA which eliminates everyone after 1 fall show jumping.
 
I'm really dubious about the benefit of this, purely because, for example, a peck on landing could throw you off but you could be completely fit to continue.

I honestly think the system they have at the moment, whereby the fence judge makes the call about whether or not the paramedics see you, and they then asses your fitness to continue is just fine and should not be messed with.

On the other hand, I have seen some shocking riding this year at intro-novice level and frankly I would not have let some people go XC due to them being totally unbalanced SJing - it seems that with the lowering of standards in terms of people 'having a go', governing bodies are left with little choice but to bring in rules like this.

Which brings us back to - should you have to be accredited before starting BE, and before moving up a level between intro/PN/novice (after that you have to fulfil certain criteria anyway)? I'd rather see that happen than see this rule (about falls) implemented at national level any day.....
 
As far as multiple rides is concerned....currently, if a rider falls xc then they have to be checked by the doctor before being allowed to ride their other horses.
 
I think the way I've had to go through BE is good - and should be applied to all BE riders. Two intros clear XC and no more than 12 fauls SJ before pre novice, 3 pre novices with the same criteria before novice, and I can't remember what it is Novice to Intermediate.
However, you can guarentee the "Pro's" would have something to say about this as they bring on their youngsters. [At the moment, it stands that you have to qualify the horse not the rider, so although I'm PN'ing my big grey, I have to qualify with my chestnut with the intro's]
 
But that doesn't cover the people who are having a go but are not up to it - it just stops people moving up. Unless they have an honest horse, then they can move up and may well come to grief because the horse can't get them out of trouble at the next level up.
 
Sorry I missed the bit about accreditation - it's too early in the morning.
The old system of juniors being accredited before competing also worked, and maybe that could be reinstated and extended to senior competitors?
I have to say I've seen horrific riding from "pro's" and no-body says anything - I think it's because of who they are.
Maybe a compulsory training session at the start and middle of the season with an accredited trainer, or a compulsory training session before you move up a level?
x
 
I agree with you Fiona, I think this rule is pretty crazy. However, I think I can see the logic... or at least a little bit anyway, i.e. if the rider falls on their head and is concussed, then perhaps they shouldn't continue.

However, if the horse spooks or pecks on landing and the rider falls but lands on their feet (or near enough), I don't see why that horse should be prevented from completing, particularly if it is a young one and could do with the experience.

The numbers of people getting eliminated once this rule is bought in will skyrocket. It's hardly fair on the horse's record, is it?!
confused.gif
 
I am totally with you SC.

I would far rather have to attend for an assessment before moving up to PN or novice than have the rider fall rule implemented.

Evan at Badminton a lot of the falls were easy ones over the horses shoulder ie am thinking of those at the shogum hollow corner and the log on top of the bank. The riders in most cases remounted and finished the course perfectly safely.

Fiona
 
Maybe intro is too new over here with us for the type of rider you mention to have appeared yet. I can't think of any riders out competing at the moment that really look unsafe.

Agree re the paramedic check up before continuing though as a compromise (though I am not an organiser to know whether the logistics would work out, I think we normally have two sets out on the XC so surely shouldn't take too long).

Fiona
 
how about motor bike racers they fall off and pick bike up and ride again, why discriminate for equestrian, next it will be gymnasts,and any other sport, blow nose eliminated!!!
 
Exactly!!!

I believe I am a sensible person, but rules like these do not take account that most people are intelligent and can make decisions for themselves.

Fiona
 
It does seem a crazy rule. I can understand if a rider has banged their head, etc, but it will be quite difficult to judge between those that are safe to continue and those that are not. Sometimes what can look like a very straightforward fall can cause significant injury and vice versa. And then take a look at racing - there is no rule against getting back on in racing is there?
 
To be honest - and don't shoot me down on this one - but i fully support this new ruling. I have seen many MANY riders remount after a fall and look significantly less together - i know of riders continuing on a course with broken bones and dislocations and one in particular that happened recently where she remounted but had concussion (and wasn't aware of this) and passed out further on in the XC course - luckily she was ok but that could have caused a VERY nasty fall.
Yes you can say "oh i'm perfectly aware if i'm ok or injured" but in the case of head trauma and concussion it is not so clear cut - also with the adrenaline pumping around your body you're not always very self aware of if you really are injured.

In the warm up it will not count - if you fall off in the warm up now you don't get it put on your results so i'm assuming the same will happen.

Unfortunately it is just one of those things. Some may says "oohhh but its unfair he just spooked" but the fact is you've fallen off anyway so you're out of a competitive place - go back to the warm up if you need to and school your horse there.

Not meaning to sound harsh but i really do see the FEI's point of view on this one.

Yes its getting more safety aware these days - but how many riders and horse deaths are we getting in the present day eventing circuit? Too many.
Remember it was only a few years ago that the horse fall rule was put into place.
 
As far as I know the Pony club here in Ireland has adopted fall=elim

I'm not really in favour of the rule but there are instances where riders are determined to carry on when they are not fit (was it Vitorria Panizon (?) at the blue cross round top things at Badminton this year that I'm thinking of?) This situation can be very awkward for fence judges who want to call the doctor to examine the rider before continuing and places alot of responsibilty on their shoulders.

I don't know what the answer is but I'm not convinced this is it.
 
But with a horse fall quarters AND shoulder have to touch the ground - a horse which pecks or does when WFPs did in that pic is not counted as having a HF so can continue.

I do not think with any of the fatalities in the past year the riders have had a fall before the fatal one, so that argument does not stand up either IMO.
 
I think you're bypassing my main point?? Which is that riders DO continue injured and do get further injured because of it. As in the many instances i have listed above. My own trainer continued with a dislocated shoulder around a XC course (International Velvet stylee) and then refused any painkillers when having it put back in place so she could showjump the next day. She now has a permanently weak shoulder.
My friend was concussed and remounted and later on in the XC course passed out and fell off - that could have been horrific.
I myself, at Prestwold Hall, dislocated my already injured shoulder when falling off at the corner, yet remounted as at the time my adrenaline was pumping and i couldn't realise that i was injured - i passed out when i got back to the lorry (thankfully horse refused again so was eliminated and i didnt continue!). I couldn't safely assess my own injuries in that state of adrenaline pumped mind. If he had rejumped i would have continued on in the course and instead of passing out at my lorry would possibly have passed out whilst riding. It would have been unsafe for me to continue but i couldn't assess that. This rule would make it compulsory not to continue. And my fall was a very basic one - horse refused and dropped shoulder and i came off onto the jump.
 
Yes, and people get hit by buses crossing the road - if you choose to remount and continue then you run the risk of further injuring yourself. I'd rather not live in a nanny state where I can't make any choices for myself any more. I wasn't bypassing the point that people continue and get injured, I was pointing out that your argument that too many riders are dying won't be helped by this rule as none of them had fallen off first!

If you feel that you shouldn't continue after a fall, then don't, simple as - it shouldn't need a rule to force you to make that choice, you are free to make it now. I assume that you would now never again get back on and continue riding after a fall, especially when schooling over jumps such as XC schooling? Because that's what it amounts to - the rider being self-aware enough to make the right choice on the day. Riders who are overcome with adrenaline make choices like Amy Tryon did....I would not want to be on a course in that frame of mind.

I agree re head injuries, but AFAIK if you hit your head, the paramedics have to assess your fitness to continue, and it is the responsibility of the fence judge to make sure they do - I know I was thoroughly assessed when I hit my head at Goring, and assessed safe to continue.
 
I can see why BSJA do it - time! Its not because of safety as I have fallen off BSJA from a dirty stop and was really annoyed about it but by time I would have got back on, got my horse going and attempted to get round rest of course I would have delayed proceedings so easier for me to leave cough up another £14 and go HC later.

I hate the rights of riders to make choices being taken away. There are different types of falls and I guess its very difficult to distinguish between them. Maybe the rule should be that if you hit your head and fence judge can maybe rule on that then you cannot continue? I think that would make more sense.
 
I think that would make more sense too - maybe issue every fence judge with a pair of scissors so they can cut off the straps of your hat (you're going to have to replace it anyway), by which time it is too late for irate competitors to argue with them?!
grin.gif
grin.gif
 
i have to say (unpopular opi i know) that i feel this is whats neccessary to stop people who really are not safe (physically or mentally (confidence) to continue and if that means the few who really would be ok, cannot continue then if that saves one life/futher injury and one horse its got to be worth doing!!!!
 
Interestingly that didn't happen in the case of me or my friend - i was called to the paramedics after my round but not seen to during.
I can see what you're saying re: nanny state and making your own choices but then if you argue that to the extreme then why make murder illegal? Surely it should be within your own choice to murder someone? Etc.
 
I think you are being slighty pedantic trying to compare the decision of carrying on xc against murder (surely murder is a moral decision not a H&S issue?)
 
Not the same at all - you can choose to commit murder, but the consequences are that you will probably get caught and banged up for a long time as society deems it unacceptable.

Equally if they E you for, say, accumulated refusals, you can choose to continue and get a serious bollocking from BE and a possible suspension/fine etc.

However if you fall off currently, you can either continue or retire. If they E you, the choice is taken away as I doubt many people would be able to get back on with no assistance, the fence judge can stand in the way (they may not realise you have AR to the point of E in the case above so may not stop you) etc etc.

Did you hit your head obviously when you fell? Doesn't sound like you did - hence no check?
 
Yes a silly comparison but i was trying to show that really in this day and age there are so many people that take the pansy out of "free choice" that rules do have to be made. Now in this case i doubt people are taking the p but like i said, in that state of mind and frame, i am one to think a rider cannot assess their own health and safety. Yes it's their choice to continue but if there is a way to stop something seirously dangerous happening then i am all for it. Some people, including myself, just do not think about the injuries they could have sustained during a fall (though I will from now on that is for sure).
I knew my opinion wouldn't be a popular one but im still fully in support of the FEI and airing on the side of safety. I don't think that would make it a "nanny state" decision in the slightest - it just takes away the temptation of remounting and continuing. I think its a good decision but time will tell if BE take it on or not.
 
I still think the one thing which would make things safer is needing to be accredited with proper penalties if someone accredits a rider/horse combination who subsequently are deemed to not be safe at a BE event - like their ability to be an accreditor being removed.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe intro is too new over here with us for the type of rider you mention to have appeared yet. I can't think of any riders out competing at the moment that really look unsafe.

Agree re the paramedic check up before continuing though as a compromise (though I am not an organiser to know whether the logistics would work out, I think we normally have two sets out on the XC so surely shouldn't take too long).

Fiona

[/ QUOTE ]

Sadly only one of these incidents was at Intro. I'm struggling to remember whether the destroyed horse was N or I
frown.gif
In neither case had the rider looked THAT bad until after his remount.
 
So very well said SpottedCat. There will always be idiots on the planet and, quite frankly, all the rules and regulations in the world won't make them safe.

However, for the rest of us with a modicum of intelligence, it would be really nice if we were allowed to continue to use it and make our own judgement calls.

I was on a management course the other week and there was a case study thing we had to do regarding the use of seatbelts and liabilities etc. A French guy on the course (with a completely different cultural attitude to us Brits) said "In France if you need a law to tell you its a good idea to wear a seat belt then you're either a child or insane". I thought it summed things up perfectly!!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top