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

People are only being a bit harsh because they feel sorry for the poor organiser who will likely have volunteered their time and did not deserve to be ranted at on facebook after doing so.
 
Yes - OP should apologise to the organiser if she ranted, but as I say; some of the replies come over as "Duh! the rule is obvious thickie". Well it's not.
Maybe if the judge had explained a bit better that the showing world is strange and unfortunatley it's just the way it's done, (and yes, the schedule is worded badly) then the OP wouldn't have assumed it was an odd judge making up her own rules.
Lets face it, it is a strange way to do things and the way the rule is worded doesn't even hint that the way you read it is not the way you are meant to apply the rule.
 
little_critter said:
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.
Click to expand...

However she is not questioning it from 'I'm uninitiated, have I got this wrong' she has come out all guns blazing 'I'm in the right'. The former approach would have yielded totally different replies.
 
little_critter said:
Yes - OP should apologise to the organiser if she ranted, but as I say; some of the replies come over as "Duh! the rule is obvious thickie". Well it's not.
Maybe if the judge had explained a bit better that the showing world is strange and unfortunatley it's just the way it's done, (and yes, the schedule is worded badly) then the OP wouldn't have assumed it was an odd judge making up her own rules.
Lets face it, it is a strange way to do things and the way the rule is worded doesn't even hint that the way you read it is not the way you are meant to apply the rule.
Click to expand...

Not strange at all: it's the way it has been in the horse world (not just the showing world) for at least 150 years, and anyone who has been around long enough to enter a show should have apprised themselves of the basic tenets long ago.
 
little_critter said:
Yes - OP should apologise to the organiser if she ranted, but as I say; some of the replies come over as "Duh! the rule is obvious thickie". Well it's not.
Maybe if the judge had explained a bit better that the showing world is strange and unfortunatley it's just the way it's done, (and yes, the schedule is worded badly) then the OP wouldn't have assumed it was an odd judge making up her own rules.
Lets face it, it is a strange way to do things and the way the rule is worded doesn't even hint that the way you read it is not the way you are meant to apply the rule.
Click to expand...
Erm its not a showing thing, its an all horses thing!
All competition, passports, insurance etc in the northern hemisphere treat the horse as though born on 1st of jan. If it was born in 2013 then it is now 4 irrespective of when in 2013 it was born.
I had a pony born in September, he was considered to be a yearling when he was only 3 months old

The OP owes the organisers and judges a huge apology and tbh shouldn't be suprised if she finds herself banned from the riding club in question.
Organisers and judgea give thier time for free, they do not have to put up with someone "kickingg off" at them be it online or in person.
 
Cortez said:
Not strange at all: it's the way it has been in the horse world (not just the showing world) for at least 150 years, and anyone who has been around long enough to enter a show should have apprised themselves of the basic tenets long ago.
Click to expand...

If I was entering a show, part of my research would have been to read the schedule. And if the schedule says "age as at 1st Jan" then I would take it at face value. If there was some sort of hint that further research regarding how to calculate your horses 'show' age was needed, then I would have researched that too. But it seems that horse folk assume no-one ever goes to a show for the *first* time and therefore haven't encountered the horse world oddities before.
I'm just being honest here I would probably have made the same mistake if presented with that wording on the schedule.

Just seen Conniegirl's reply. I didn't realise it was an all horses thing either. I guess if you've never needed to enter your horses age on anything (or even if you have, and no-one has pulled you up on it) then you wouldn't know.
I knew TB's did a funny 1st of January thing but didn't realise it applied to all breeds when entering ages.
I've probably been doing it wrong for 6 years. (actually, no, my pony's passport doesn't have a date of birth, just a year of birth, so I've probably been right...but through luck rather than judgement!)
 
Last edited:
little_critter said:
Yes - OP should apologise to the organiser if she ranted, but as I say; some of the replies come over as "Duh! the rule is obvious thickie". Well it's not.
Maybe if the judge had explained a bit better that the showing world is strange and unfortunatley it's just the way it's done, (and yes, the schedule is worded badly) then the OP wouldn't have assumed it was an odd judge making up her own rules.
Lets face it, it is a strange way to do things and the way the rule is worded doesn't even hint that the way you read it is not the way you are meant to apply the rule.
Click to expand...
The reason it doesnt have a date is because the date is irrelevant and most vets will only put a year of birth unless they were present at the birth or were the attending vet shortly after birth
 
Last edited:
little_critter said:
No, the reason there is no date is that the passport was applied for years after she was born (passports not compulsory when she was born).
Interestingly the TB I've just bought DOES have a date of birth, not just a year.
Click to expand...
The TB will have a date because a vet will likely have been either in attendence or there within a few days and would have signed off registration certs/passports whilst foal was still at foot
Even if you had known the date of your cobs birth it is unlikely that the vet would have put anyhing other than the year as no proof existed
 
Sorry if I'm coming accross as difficult, I'm just trying to point out how it's really not an obvious rule unless someone in the know has pointed it out to you.
It doesn't excuse having a go at the show organiser, but the horse world is good at having non-sensical rules and then justifying them by saying 'it's always been that way'
 
S'OK if you go to Australia or New Zealand then the ages are taken from 1st October 😂😂😂

Which, when it comes to racing is detrimental when you swop hemispheres.
 
Thats why I said it was a shame that OP didn't double check with the secretary or anyone beforehand, but I guess wouldn't have thought to if she thought she was right.

I come to it from the other end, having a veteran!
 
little_critter said:
Sorry if I'm coming accross as difficult, I'm just trying to point out how it's really not an obvious rule unless someone in the know has pointed it out to you.
It doesn't excuse having a go at the show organiser, but the horse world is good at having non-sensical rules and then justifying them by saying 'it's always been that way'
Click to expand...

It IS an obvious rule though. I was taught it as a very young child, way before I ever had a horse to enter into any kind of event.

It's also the most straightforward way to make sure that the right horses are judged against each other.
 
I am old enough to remember when the rule was all thoroughbreds went up a year on the 1st Jan and all other breeds it was from the 1st May.

The schedule was badly worded from the sounds of it and I can understand how the OP could have made the mistake she did, however kicking off at the organiser is not helpful either especially on social media. So wrongs on both sides I expect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top