0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Yep should have come down
oh so I guess the judges just made up the call I guess the bike is part of the lapped on and judges just disreguarded it. I think you really should know the rules young man before you start knocking people. Once again . THE BIKE IS NOT PART OF THE HORSE AND THUS DOES NOT COUNT IN THE LAPPED ON DECESION
Found an article about it:Author’s Note: I work for the Pennsylvania Harness Racing Commission and I am licensed as a presiding judge (and a few other things) by the United States Trotting Association. My opinions, views, and thoughts in this column are mine and may or may not be shared by the powers that be at the PHRC or USTA. The reason I mention that is because this column concerns the breaking rule and so many of the decisions that go into enforcing the breaking rule are subjective. “How far does a horse have to run in order to be placed?” That is a question I have been asked many times over the years. The answer is not simple, because there is no rule (in Pennsylvania or the USTA) that states a horse is automatically placed for an “extended run” or for running any specific distance. A horse could be placed last for making a break one inch before the finish if all the other horses were “lapped on” the hindquarters of the breaking horse at the finish. A horse could be “off stride” the entire distance of the stretch (or further) and not be placed at all, provided the driver complies with the breaking rules. The USTA breaking rule states that when a horse breaks from its gait, “the driver shall at once, where clearance exists, take such horse to the outside and pull it to its gait.” In Pennsylvania, it is also permissible for the driver to pull the horse to the inside, provided that the horse re-enters the track as soon as possible and loses ground while inside the pylons. The main violations of the USTA breaking rule are, “(1) Failure to properly attempt to pull the horse to its gait. (2) Failure to take to the outside where clearance exists. (3) Failure to lose ground by the break.” The judges may place a horse back “one or more places if in their judgment any of those violations have been committed. The USTA rule also covers placing horses for a lapped-on break and interference while on a break. If a horse is on a break at the finish, any horse (that is on its proper gait) that finishes within the hindquarters of the breaking horse will be placed ahead of the breaking horse. There is a clause, in the USTA rules, that allows for discretion, if the horse is off-stride due to interference. I do not agree with that part of the rule, but it is in the USTA rules. A horse may also be placed if they cause interference to other horses while on a break. Judges handle interference while on a break much like regular interference; the breaking horse that causes interference will be placed behind the horses that have been interfered with, but there will be no interference penalty issued to the driver of the breaking horse. The parts of the breaking rule concerning the driver attempting to pull the horse to its gait and taking to the outside are pretty easy to determine. There may be discussion on how far to place a horse back for those violations, but the actual violation is easy to determine. The most difficult section of the breaking rule (and the one that leads to the most controversy) to adjudicate is definitely the “failure to lose ground” rule. The rule states that a horse on a break must lose ground, but it does not say how much ground the horse has to lose or if the horse has to lose. Does the horse have to lose ground to all of the horses in the race, or is it the horses that the horse is leading or the horses that it is trailing? This is where the judges have to use judgment. If the judges determine that the horse has violated this rule, they then must decide how far back the horse should be placed. Many times, it is pretty obvious that a horse has not lost ground and should be placed, but there are often differences of opinion as to where the horse should be placed. I have worked with judges that believe a horse that does not lose ground (or sufficient ground) should be automatically placed out of the purse money. I try to figure how much ground I think the horse should have lost and place the horse behind horses that are within that distance. Some of the longest inquiries I have been involved in have not been to determine whether to disqualify a breaking horse, but where to place the horse. It is not uncommon when reviewing a race where a horse made a break to hear a judge say (and I have said this myself) “that horse ran a long way.” Judges need to remember that just because a horse ran a long way that alone is not sufficient cause to disqualify a horse.
