Have the rules changed on "age at 1st January"?

H

HazellB

Well-Known Member
Joined
20 October 2009
Messages
134
Location
East Yorks
Visit site
Went to a show today with my 3 year old and entered the Youngstock 1, 2 and 3 year olds class. My boy's 3, but will be 4 in a little under 2 months.
The rules (which I read twice before I entered) said ages to be taken "as at 1st January".
So, either way you look at it he is 3. Simple maths.

The judge, however, didn't agree. She placed him last as she considered him a 4 year old. Her version is the horse is aged whatever age he will attain during the year starting Jan 1st. In fact, she gave me quite a lecture on my inability to work out how a 3 year old can be 4. I didn't bother pointing out what the rules of that show actually said - I don't think she would have listened. He's not a TB by the way, he's a plain old coloured cob rescued from allotments.

If we'd been last simply because we deserved to be, fair enough, but being last because a judge doesn't know her stuff really puts my back up. If I was in a ridden class on him, would I be allowed to compete when he's 3? Probably (and rightly) no!

Do shows really make horses and people show at the age they WILL be during the year, or the age they ARE on Jan 1st?
Please tell me I'm right - I kicked off with the show organiser on facebook when I got home!
 
Your horse would normally not be allowed in a youngstock class as the age is taken to be the age it will be in the current year, he is technically a 4 year old so the judge was correct and nothing has changed it may just be your interpretation or badly worded, a 4 year old can be shown in ridden classes so no need to be out in hand, most will be born earlier in the year, it is not the fault of the show that he arrived unusually late.
 
It's always been taken as the age your horse will be that year. No matter if your horse was born on the 1st of Jan or the 25th of November they will always be up a year as of Jan 1st regardless. So no. Your horse should not have been in the youngstock class and the judge could actually have thrown you out of the ring for being in the wrong class so count yourself lucky they let you stay in.
 
I would remove your "Kicking off on Facebook" at the poor organiser - judge is correct; you are wrong. Humble pie required methinks
 
EKW said:
It's always been taken as the age your horse will be that year. No matter if your horse was born on the 1st of Jan or the 25th of November they will always be up a year as of Jan 1st regardless. So no. Your horse should not have been in the youngstock class and the judge could actually have thrown you out of the ring for being in the wrong class so count yourself lucky they let you stay in.
Click to expand...

Absolutely this ^
 
Oh dear OP you sometimes just have to LOL

The judge is correct I'm afraid and I think you maybe need to apologise to the organiser and ask her / him to apologise to the judge on your behalf
 
No you are wrong and better start grovelling back at the organiser who will have volunteered a significant amount of their time to put this show on.

What a shame you didn't ask before you attended.
 
As above, I'm afraid you're mistaken (though I agree the traditional wording of the rule is a little misleading), and yes, your horse will be eligible for ridden classes (all disciplines as far as I'm aware) from the start of next year
 
Actually he is eligible for ridden classes now as he is a 4 year old. All horses age on 1st January, regardless of when they are actually born, hence why breeders go to considerable effort to have foals born as early as possible.

I think you need to apologise for your "kicking off" although I strongly doubt we'll see you on this thread again
 
DabDab said:
As above, I'm afraid you're mistaken (though I agree the traditional wording of the rule is a little misleading), and yes, your horse will be eligible for ridden classes (all disciplines as far as I'm aware) from the start of next year
Click to expand...

Actually if the judge is correct, the horse is eligible for ridden classes this year.
 
^^ yup I agree eligible for ridden as of January 2017. Of course there are usually plenty of other in hand classes the OP would have been eligible for, just not youngstock.
 
I thought you were referring to a child! Yes, children's ages are sometimes taken as on 1st January, other times on the date of the show.

But horses's ages are different, as has been explained above.
 
Well that's awkward. They've not changed in the last 30 odd years atleast. On the first of Jan every horse for competition sake ages a year. So yours is indeed a 4yo, and could have been out competing since January. Ones born late in the year are disadvantaged for youngstock and age classes but that's the ruling.
 
Nope sorry, your horse is a 4 year old. It's the birth year not the month.

Come January 1st 2018 he will be a 5 year old. Granted, a young 5, but 5 nonetheless.
 
Think of it this way - I have a horse that was born on the 30th of June. He couldn't compete, the following year, against foals in April, May and June and then yearlings in July. It's the birth year that's counted.
 
CrazyMare said:
...... I strongly doubt we'll see you on this thread again
Click to expand...

Why's that then?
Thanks for the replies, you've helped a good deal. As the schedule said "All ages taken as at 1st Jan" I assumed that was both human and horses. Having never shown youngsters before (I'm a Working Hunter type usually) I made the mistake of reading the rules on the schedule and thinking they were right :D

It's taken me a few days to get back on here as I had breast cancer and the treatment makes me ill sometimes.
Now who's got egg on her face ;)
 
HazellB said:
Why's that then?
Thanks for the replies, you've helped a good deal. As the schedule said "All ages taken as at 1st Jan" I assumed that was both human and horses. Having never shown youngsters before (I'm a Working Hunter type usually) I made the mistake of reading the rules on the schedule and thinking they were right :D
Click to expand...

The schedule is correct. "Ages taken as at 1st Jan" means that all horses are assumed to have been born on the 1st Jan, so the horse is considered to be the age it will turn that year, no matter when it is actually born. This is how it's always worked.
 
Auslander said:
The schedule is correct. "Ages taken as at 1st Jan" means that all horses are assumed to have been born on the 1st Jan, so the horse is considered to be the age it will turn that year, no matter when it is actually born. This is how it's always worked.
Click to expand...

This. In fact, according to the rules, our unplanned foal (and may it please deign to arrive soon, because we are now at 360 days!) will be counted as a yearling before it's even ready to be weaned.
 
HazellB said:
My comment was aimed at CrazyMare, who'd frankly been rather rude about me.
If you want to take umbrage at nothing, go ahead. It's unproductive, but go ahead.
Click to expand...

Nobody has been rude to you. You have, however, now not only compounded your original mistake by being rude to the poor organiser, also the judge by the sounds of it, and apparently not apologising to either, but also are now making digs at the people on here who have pointed out your misunderstanding. And what has your illness got to do with anything?

What a strange person.
 
I do think people are being a bit harsh. I'm not a showing person and if I saw on a schedule "all ages taken as at 1st January" then that says to me, the age your horse was on the 1st Jan.
Not "pretend your horse was born on 1st Jan and now calculate his age".
Yes, the OP is wrong but I thing some of the replies come across as if the rule is obvious to the uninitiated, when it's not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top