Hickstead Derby - Faults on the bank

M

MagicMelon

Well-Known Member
Joined
6 November 2004
Messages
16,371
Location
North East Scotland
Visit site
I watched a replay of the Derby yesterday again and maybe Im the only one who is questioning this.... but on top of the bank, a few horses seemed to IMO have more than 1 or 2 stops. One guy especially, I counted went backwards (including back legs as I know just front legs going back doesnt count) 3 or even 4 times yet he was only given 1 stop! Then he had another stop later in the course yet wasnt eliminated....... does the 2 refusal rule NOT apply to the Derby?! It did for that Philippa girl who clearly had 2 stops.....

Very confused
crazy.gif
 
2 stops does apply to the derby but I think they were being generous with giving stops at the top of the bank as there were a couple you would have given stops to but they weren't given
 
There is leeway for BSJA it seems if the steps back are all within one 'go' at the fence only one stop is often awarded. Judges descretion at the end of the day btu if they merge into one stop one can be awarded, whereas two clear stops by way of representing the horse should constitute elimination.

The one that got me though was the ride who jumped the blown down gate he then proceeded to stop at the small fence on top of the bank (well i thought he did as couldn't rewind) and then knocked it and then stepped back on the bank which wasn't penalised then went down and finished the course albeit with a large number of penalties.
 
Cannot remember who it was now, will have to rewatch the tape, but they had a *stop* on the bank (and the commentators said it was a stop) then they stopped elsewhere on the course (cannot remember if it was before or after now LOL) and they were not eliminated. Deffo a lot of Judges discretion going on!
 
Yes there was some 'interesting' judging going on on sunday to say the least. In the Speed Derby on saturday I thought they were being especially harsh with their judging on top of the bank and several horses were given a stop for the merest hesitation.

The Peter Murphy incident with the blown down gate was bizarre. Neither rider nor judges seemed to be sure what was happenning and as Steve Hadley said...they were let off the hook when the horse then faulted to put himself out of contention for any prize money.
 
Had Peter Murphy have not incurred so many faults after the gate incident I think he would have ended up being eliminated as the horn clearly went before he jumped the gate.

There was def one on the bank that should have been eliminated and I thought maybe judges were going to let him get down the bank and then eliminate but they let him carry on
 
With the Peter Murphy incident - I thought the horn rang too late as he was already approaching the fence. I think that because he jumped he assumed he shouldnt stop, wait for it to be built and jump it again because he's already done it (if you know what I mean) - I think if that'd happened to me then I would have carried on as well because it seems slightly safer than jumping a fence again.
 
that's what I thought too

I also thought that a lot of the horses back legs going down the top of the bank looked much more skewed than previous years as if the surface was giving way very easily before the studs had a chance to bite thru the turf into the earth underneath
 
IIRC the "rule" is if the horse moves it's fore feet back and it's hind feet back [as if doing a reinback], that's a refusal, "shuffling" it's fore feet or hind feet "independently" doesn't count.

If that makes sense...?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top