need help to figure this one out

[green80]

2nd race at La Downs on 9/15. The one horse wins, no problem. The 6 runs second. The #7 and #4 dead heat for the show spot. The 6 is said to have interfered with the 7 horse down the stretch. The 6 is placed 4th behind the 7 and 4. I can see putting the 6 behind the 7, but the 4 was never involved. Why put the 6 behind the 4 that was never anywhere close? This moved the 6 down 2 places instead of 1 spot. The chart is wrong on this one also, shows the 6 running 3rd.

[johnhannibalsmith]

If I'm reading this correctly, your contention is that the order should have been 1-7-6-4, from a 1-6-4,7 (DH) unofficial. I'll pretend to give you an answer that may or may not be the official explanation. A quick look at the LA rule book doesn't explicitly cover this scenario, but I suspect it goes a little like this:

As it finished originally, the 4 was entitled to third placing and half the money for that position. He caused no foul, but because of the foul against the 7, by the 6, had the 6 been placed ahead of the 4, the 4 would have been effectively disqualified from its original finish position of third and demoted to fourth. In order for the 4 to retain its original position, which it rightfully earned and deserved to retain because of a foul that was in no way its fault, the disqualified horse had to be placed behind it despite not actually fouling it.

I think. :D

[green80]

on the flip side of the coin, the 6 beat the 4, without any interference, therefore should be entitled to more purse money that the 4.
P.S. If you watch the replay, the foul was very questionable.

[thespaah]

The 4 and 7 finished tied for 3rd. In the opinion of the Stewards, but for the foul committed by the 6, the 7 would have finished ahead of the 6.
The 4 is a non factor. By placing the 6 behind the 7 but ahead of the 4, the 4 is punished for no reason. Also, since the 4 and 7 were tied for third, in which case those two are entitled to their finish in a tie.

[raybo]

The 4 and 7 finished tied for 3rd. In the opinion of the Stewards, but for the foul committed by the 6, the 7 would have finished ahead of the 6.
The 4 is a non factor. By placing the 6 behind the 7 but ahead of the 4, the 4 is punished for no reason. Also, since the 4 and 7 were tied for third, in which case those two are entitled to their finish in a tie.

Agreed, the punishment should be assessed on the 6, alone, not the 4. The 4 cannot be punished unless it committed a foul, which it didn't, so it deserves, at least, its original finishing position, or higher, but never lower.