Horse Falls at Barbury today?

I think it's wrong that someone has put those photos on Facebook, althought the rest of the album is full of lovely shots and the person is clearly a talented photographer it shows poor judgement to have a series of pics of the horse behind the screens.
 
Indeed an interesting article. Some facts need clarifying though. The last part of the water was left out as there was 1 too many jumping efforts on the course and it seemed the obvious one to leave out without upsetting the balance and flow. Not being there may mean that the horses had nothing else to look at but I don't believe that was the main cause of the problem. As ultimateimages said, part A was a table this year and with it's positioning made it hard to reduce the power for the hippo which is what you needed to do to jump down the big step safely. Indeed Tom Crisp shouted whoa in the stride between the hippo and the bank obviously feeling he had too much power.
Mary didn't actually get to the 1st water - she fell off at the fence before.
While all the riders were qualified, there is a reason that the FEI has changed the wording from qualified to Minimum Qualifying Requirements. Just because you are qualified doesn't mean you are ready. That riders had done well in other 3* events is not totally relevant - Barbury has that something extra. An example is the Canadian riders at Badminton - they had done well at 4* level in the States but Badminton was a different game and not necessarily more difficult but it has that something else.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing and I'm sure that many people would have made different decisions if they could do it all again but it's too late for that so we must just hope that the right lessons have been learnt.
 
Oldvic said "Barbury has that something extra" Thats not a valid point in the context of what this forum is discussing. I spoke to at least 2 (highly experienced and very talented) riders who had problems and they both said exactly the same thing: neither they or their horses did anything wrong and their horses were punished unfairly. Both of them had got to that point having gone all the direct routes at all the difficult fences beautifully. I told a woman to stop taking pictures of the horse behind screens and had an argument with who i presume was her very ignorant partner. V Poor taste
 
All the competitors would have walked the course (pobably more than once) before the XC phase even started, clearly they did not see a problem at that point and all felt that the course was fair.

Having had a number of unseated riders (whether they were horse falls very much depends on if they met the BE definition i.e both shoulder and quarters in contact with the ground and or the fence at the same time) then the ground-jury took what was surely sensible action and removed the fence to avoid any further incidents, whether the timing was right could be questioned, but thankfully (so I understand) all riders and horses are OK.

It happened, yes must have been pretty awful for horses and riders (and trust me those with the responsibility for their safety!), everyone involved will learn from it, move on.
 
I have to say that water wasn't jumping especially well all weekend across all classes (although the Novices appeared to fair the best) so I would hazard a guess it has slightly more to do with the unusual colour/horses misreading the depth rather than how the fence was being ridden.

The 2* saw a huge amount of really uncomfortable jumps in, horses landing on all fours or crumpling on landing and alot of combinations lucky to get through clear including many of the experienced combinations.

The drop in for the 3* was big and the log in pretty insignificant, couple that with water that seemed to be encouraging horses to ballon in rather than drop in and you have got the recipe for alot of bad landings. I would wager the fact that even those towards the end of the class weren't textbook landings....
 
I love ''we made a mistake we will learn from it'' covers so many things without actually answering anything.
I think the fence causing problems is one thing but the real point is the fact riders at the start wanted the fence to be removed but were told it was fine to be jumped and that it would not be removed end of. Only to have one near miss and one faller and it then be removed..... I know it is the rider’s responsibility to decide whether to run or not but after being told there was nothing wrong with the fence by someone who is extremely experienced meant it was very hard to make that decision, I know it wasn’t a complete disaster but it so nearly could have been…. how can three horses falling in the same manner in the first 15 or so runners not cause concern and how could removing it in the first place been ''bad for the sport'' ?
 
Nando said:
I have to say that water wasn't jumping especially well all weekend across all classes (although the Novices appeared to fair the best) so I would hazard a guess it has slightly more to do with the unusual colour/horses misreading the depth rather than how the fence was being ridden.

The 2* saw a huge amount of really uncomfortable jumps in, horses landing on all fours or crumpling on landing and alot of combinations lucky to get through clear including many of the experienced combinations.

The drop in for the 3* was big and the log in pretty insignificant, couple that with water that seemed to be encouraging horses to ballon in rather than drop in and you have got the recipe for alot of bad landings. I would wager the fact that even those towards the end of the class weren't textbook landings....
Click to expand...

I didn't watch any novice so can't comment on that.

I watch all but about 6 in the 2* so can make a judgement on that.The ones in the 2* that landed on all fours were due to too much speed on the approach. The turtle 1 stride before was on an easy distance with an easy profile so riders were coming too fast. The 1 horse fall was a mis-judgement up the bank coming out and was going too fast and flat. The distance across the pond is not that easy and most of the bad jumps were up the bank or over the last turtle. There were over 200 runners in the 2* and to say that a huge number of them were uncomfortable going in is grossly overstating the case. The time at Barbury is never that easy and the water in the 2* comes 4 fences from home when a lot of the horses were starting to wish they had more "blood". A big step down requires more respect than it was being given.

The reason for the "ballooning" in the 3* was again too much power. However the 1st part of the fence (the table) made it hard to lose enough power before the hippo so they were over-jumping down the big step. Without water large steps tend to have the ground running away on landing which makes a softer landing. Onto flat ground they require very little power. As it will be the final run for everyone next year, I think you are unlikely to see the fence like that again.
 
loveshorses said:
I love ''we made a mistake we will learn from it'' covers so many things without actually answering anything.
I think the fence causing problems is one thing but the real point is the fact riders at the start wanted the fence to be removed but were told it was fine to be jumped and that it would not be removed end of. Only to have one near miss and one faller and it then be removed..... I know it is the rider’s responsibility to decide whether to run or not but after being told there was nothing wrong with the fence by someone who is extremely experienced meant it was very hard to make that decision, I know it wasn’t a complete disaster but it so nearly could have been…. how can three horses falling in the same manner in the first 15 or so runners not cause concern and how could removing it in the first place been ''bad for the sport'' ?
Click to expand...

the thing is, and i'm going to be very careful how i word this because i wasn't there and didn't see the fence, but unless a distance is totally impossible, there WILL be a way that a fence can be safely negotiated. it may need a true 'coffin canter' approach, for instance, or even, say, trot... to, say, a huge drop with short distance to an upright, just for example.
i've been told that some riders made the water jump look easy... Toddy, for instance. (had he gone already? have i been misinformed?)
the fence tested something fairly major - could you have the power (and, if necessary, pace) to jump a huge table, related distance to a biggish log (turtle), and have enough control to lose that speed/excess of power (on the way to the log?) and just pop down over the (smallish) log down the big drop into the water.
from what i've heard, the horses were powering in over the big table, and then coming so strong/fast that they were ballooning hugely over the little log and down the big drop. Someone said that 1 of the riders who fell was yelling "whoa" as his horse went to the log... if so, he realised it was too quick. (i know sometimes the reactions of the horse aren't as fast as we'd like or we need...!) last year the table wasn't there (if i've been told right), so the approach was different, hence it didn't test the same thing (quite as much? or, at all?) and caused far fewer problems.
EventingNation has picked up on this and poses the question "what is the best way to handle whether or not to remove a jump that is riding poorly?" but the language is the problem here, it's passive, surely the question is "what is the best way to handle whether or not to remove a jump that is being ridden poorly"... maybe because of the infelicitous positioning of the previous table, maybe because of lack of control, i really don't know, but i am sure that SOME experienced combinations made it look fine, and more would have. i don't think it would have been passed if it had been an unjumpable/impossible question...
i hope that is cagey enough. this isn't a 'holier than thou' post (god forbid), but it still comes down to Rider Responsibility... to train enough, to have their horses responsive enough, to recognise the question posed and how to solve it, to realise if their horse wasn't up to that question YET and withdraw, or whatever.
i hope that all makes sense.
 
As always, nail and head kerilli. I agree 100% with what you have said. It comes down to the different approaches needed to different types of jumps/combinations and highlights possible gaps in horse and rider education as they come up through the levels, primarily that elusive coffin canter.
 
could you have the power (and, if necessary, pace) to jump a huge table, related distance to a biggish log (turtle), and have enough control to lose that speed/excess of power (on the way to the log?) and just pop down over the (smallish) log down the big drop into the water.

That is a good question to be asked of a riders controle and in many ways often is on a xc course, esp one of that level ... but normally with a skinny which results in a annoying 20 pens not by punishing the horse by causing it to fall flat on its face into water?!

Also I think if you have a horse that jumps bold in to water it doesnt matter if your walking, it will jump out not down.
 
loveshorses said:
That is a good question to be asked of a riders controle and in many ways often is on a xc course, esp one of that level ... but normally with a skinny which results in a annoying 20 pens not by punishing the horse by causing it to fall flat on its face into water?!

Also I think if you have a horse that jumps bold in to water it doesnt matter if your walking, it will jump out not down.
Click to expand...

Nope, it's something they learn. I knew someone with a top 4* horse and he said he always felt him rub down the fence into water with his hindlegs (this horse was a Grade A sj'er as well, not a casual horse!) - the horse knew that that was the safest way to 'let himself down' into water... this horse was silly bold elsewhere btw. he'd learnt.
horses have to take the cue from their rider, when they can unleash their power, and when to power down and just pop the fence and land waiting for instruction, not accelerating. if they get it wrong, things go wrong...
there have always been fences which tested this. the ski-jump at Badminton the year that Lucinda Green and Ginny Leng came to grief (the latter from Murphy Himself, when instead of popping the log on top he ballooned it), the jetty in the water at The Lake at Badders some years ago (claimed some very notable scalps), tight turning questions, bounces, all sorts. fences which 'punish' over-boldness have always been there... it's the riders' job to read it right and make sure they get it right (or, accept that their horse is not quite ready for that question yet, w/d, train more, and wait for another day - loads of us have done that.)
 
Last edited:
kerilli said:
the fence tested something fairly major - could you have the power (and, if necessary, pace) to jump a huge table, related distance to a biggish log (turtle), and have enough control to lose that speed/excess of power (on the way to the log?) and just pop down over the (smallish) log down the big drop into the water.
Click to expand...

Given that everyone agrees that the fence did test something pretty major, would it not have been appropriate to offer an alternative? I know hindsight is always 20:20, but when the course designer made such a big change surely a long route would/should have been considered?
 
Nocturnal said:
Given that everyone agrees that the fence did test something pretty major, would it not have been appropriate to offer an alternative? I know hindsight is always 20:20, but when the course designer made such a big change surely a long route would/should have been considered?
Click to expand...

I guess so, but I suspect the course designer and ground jury didn't expect it to be so influential. the question was obvious, i read about it on the Friday iirc, and whoever had walked the course and written about it said they thought that horses ballooning the small log into the water could be a real problem. prophetic words.
tbh i don't know if it was 'such a big change' - the table was added, the rest was pretty much the same as last year apparently (apart from last element being left out due to too many jumping efforts). the thing is, it's easy to get caught out big-time jumping a fence that's been slightly changed from the year before, by riding it similarly and expecting it to go the same (been there, done that!)
Also, it is a top-end CIC***, qualifier for the very biggest courses in the world. plenty of CCI and CICs don't have an alternative at the water, it's been like that for a very long time... going back to the fairly notorious downhill-approach upright post and rails with drop into water at Windsor CCI which i did in 1992. no alternative, then or in previous years. you either went, and coped, or you didn't... ditto Weston Park CCI in 2000, when i actually sought out the Rider Rep (only time i've done so iirc) to protest the lack of alternative into the water... to no avail. they were right, it rode fine.
i honestly think that if it had been a 'normal' scrambled section we'd have seen more top combination jump it without incident. just mho though.
 
kerilli said:
... it still comes down to Rider Responsibility... to train enough, to have their horses responsive enough, to recognise the question posed and how to solve it, to realise if their horse wasn't up to that question YET and withdraw, or whatever.
Click to expand...

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I'm sure I remember reading something along these lines from previous discussions about fences causing horse/rider falls and injuries. I also remember a lot of people saying that while they agreed that fences should be designed to test horses/riders and how they read/tackle the question successfully (or not!), the question should be fair enough that if they get it wrong, they are not "punished" with potentially serious injuries (or worse).

I am in no position to be able to determine whether this fence would fall foul of this "theory" or not and I do agree that when riding XC (or anything really), the rider should be responsible for them and their horse. It is also very difficult to draw the line between "fair and testing" and something that could be considered an unfair question (or dangerous possible outcome to getting the "answer" wrong) and let's face it- even the most simple, straightforward fence has the potential for an unlucky/unprecedented incident at it.

To be honest, I think course designers/TD etc are in a lose-lose situation in cases like this: take it out too quickly and you're over reacting, diminishing the XC test and turning it into a "dressage competition". Too slow to react and they risk someone being seriously hurt and/or people claiming they are not taking safety seriously. :(
 
yes, i agree about the lose/lose situation.
the thing is, as we all know, you can (both) suffer a 'potentially serious injury' (or worse) at the most innocuous fence on the course if you get it horribly wrong. it doesn't have to be difficult fence...
btw, i did a bit of searching, here's a vid showing one rider getting it right to the turtle and drop (Sharon Hunt I think)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zrsn1_ThswQ&feature=related
photos of someone on a grey getting it very right (at 2mins 10), a guy on a bay leaving a leg at the turtle, somehow staying on down the drop (while leaning out the side door!) and staying on, and a few horses ballooning it and falling.
i count 5 or 6 strides round a corner between the table and the turtle/log... that should be enough room to say 'whoa, you, come here'... esp as it's round a corner, i had thought it must be in a straight line from the reports.
this vid shows 2 doing it fine, one not...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhcJpOEIx9k&feature=related
thoughts?
(there's a chuffing loose dog chasing a horse in the last clip, that is a huge safety issue that makes my blood boil!)
and this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttUwrgDiCEE
at 2.11 there's a rider coming in v strong and she gets away with it at that water... so, not even as if it HAD to be jumped very slowly and carefully to get through it without penalties...
 
Last edited:
kerilli said:
I guess so, but I suspect the course designer and ground jury didn't expect it to be so influential. the question was obvious, i read about it on the Friday iirc, and whoever had walked the course and written about it said they thought that horses ballooning the small log into the water could be a real problem. prophetic words.
tbh i don't know if it was 'such a big change' - the table was added, the rest was pretty much the same as last year apparently (apart from last element being left out due to too many jumping efforts). the thing is, it's easy to get caught out big-time jumping a fence that's been slightly changed from the year before, by riding it similarly and expecting it to go the same (been there, done that!)
Also, it is a top-end CIC***, qualifier for the very biggest courses in the world. plenty of CCI and CICs don't have an alternative at the water, it's been like that for a very long time... going back to the fairly notorious downhill-approach upright post and rails with drop into water at Windsor CCI which i did in 1992. no alternative, then or in previous years. you either went, and coped, or you didn't... ditto Weston Park CCI in 2000, when i actually sought out the Rider Rep (only time i've done so iirc) to protest the lack of alternative into the water... to no avail. they were right, it rode fine.
i honestly think that if it had been a 'normal' scrambled section we'd have seen more top combination jump it without incident. just mho though.
Click to expand...

I do agree with you, its just that it seems like this is what alternatives were designed for (though I haven't ridden at anything like this level, so am perhaps not qualified to comment!).

I guess I feel that removing the fence sends the wrong message; if you're riding at this level, you *should* be able to read the question and ride appropriately, and removing it undermines this (as well as reducing the influence of the xc). So a long route that is very costly on time provides an alternative whilst still sending the right message. And then the organisers don't end up in the lose-lose situation that FigJam describes.

Also just mho, though :)
 
Nocturnal said:
I do agree with you, its just that it seems like this is what alternatives were designed for (though I haven't ridden at anything like this level, so am perhaps not qualified to comment!).

I guess I feel that removing the fence sends the wrong message; if you're riding at this level, you *should* be able to read the question and ride appropriately, and removing it undermines this (as well as reducing the influence of the xc). So a long route that is very costly on time provides an alternative whilst still sending the right message. And then the organisers don't end up in the lose-lose situation that FigJam describes.

Also just mho, though :)
Click to expand...

Hmm, i totally agree about removing the fence sending the wrong message - it admits fault, when there wasn't any. haven't grabbed H&H out of postbox, will go and get it! ta.
trouble is, long routes cost money to build... a certain high-profile event this spring had NO long routes on it (rather testing) Novice course fgs. and if there's a level at which i do want to see alternatives, that's definitely it!
 
kerilli said:
Hmm, i totally agree about removing the fence sending the wrong message - it admits fault, when there wasn't any. haven't grabbed H&H out of postbox, will go and get it! ta.
trouble is, long routes cost money to build... a certain high-profile event this spring had NO long routes on it (rather testing) Novice course fgs. and if there's a level at which i do want to see alternatives, that's definitely it!
Click to expand...

Wow, that's quite harsh, to have no long routes at all.

I suppose it comes back to the fear of 'dumbing down' the sport. If they start taking out these tricky fences, how long until they stop building them entirely? Perhaps the solution lies in more prep/training at the lower levels. That topic's been done to death, though!
 
Oh nice to see what was happening thank you, I think they are jumping in quite forward but they don’t seem to have a chance of standing up, their legs really do just buckle …. Is that normal from a bigish jump down a drop? apart from the girl in the Red Hat silk who does seem to pop down more compared to others it but still falls, the Chestnut who is ridden forwards is known for being very slow into water and normally comes back with cuts and scrapes on his stifles from jumping in to water jumps and wouldn’t jump down the drop at Belton last year.... I think he surprised every one (who knows him) by his big jump as it was expected that he would falter as normal and pop in hence the forward riding which they really did only just get away with, helped by the fact he is so keen to get his back legs down from past experience and doesn’t throw them up and away I think.
Think long route would have been better than it being taken out, Interesting to read the very different opinions from the H&H article.
 
kerilli said:
(there's a chuffing loose dog chasing a horse in the last clip, that is a huge safety issue that makes my blood boil!)
Click to expand...

Mine too. Especially when it's my mother's horse, who I have known all of his 17 year life and who I backed as a 3yo. I was incensed, and told the organisers so. To their credit they were also very seriously concerned, located the dog's owner and asked them to leave the event. The dog's owner was, to their credit, horrified by what happened and more concerned for the horse than their dog.

The horse, Pee Gee, had actually jumped the water fairly well before the dog took off after him. He naturally backs off into water and consequently went in fairly steadily and rode out with no problem at all. Many of the falls and near misses did go in very strong. However, the same water complex (jumped differently) had caused quite a few trips, stumbles and falls in the 2** too.

Back to the dog - he's lucky he wasn't kicked as the horse has a history of seeing off small animals. The rider says he heard velcro (ie boots) being unzipped and a photographer claims to have pictures of the dog hanging off the horse's tail. The dog only stopped when the horse jumped up from a road and the dog couldn't make it - it was on his heels for a good quarter of the course.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top