Interference Survey - Please Voice Your Opinion

[ubercapper]

The Racing Officials Accreditation Program is asking for input on a topic discussed at length these days - consistency in decisions when there are infractions during a race.



Please help by taking this survey -



https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/2018InterferenceSurvey

[Dave Schwartz]

Done.

Interesting races.

[Lemon Drop Husker]

Done.


Extremely surprised by the current pool of answers. :confused:

[Cuffdaddy]

Best survey ever!

[Dave Schwartz]

Done.


Extremely surprised by the current pool of answers. :confused:

There are answers?

[Lemon Drop Husker]

There are answers?


Ha.



At the end they show you a chart of the answers already submitted.

[Cuffdaddy]

There are answers?

Yes, after you finish the survey it has the number of survey takers and their answers by percentage for each question.

[CheckMark]

Did it! Thanks for the post!

[rastajenk]

Done.


Extremely surprised by the current pool of answers. :confused:How so?

[bobphilo]

The Racing Officials Accreditation Program is asking for input on a topic discussed at length these days - consistency in decisions when there are infractions during a race.



Please help by taking this survey -



https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/2018InterferenceSurvey

I chose the least popular answer that a foul is a foul regardless of whether it alters the final placing. Fouls can cause accidents that can endanger the horses and riders, even if they do not affect the order of finish and reckless "race riding" should be strongly discouraged.

In addition, the stewards are not psychics and cannot tell for sure how much they will affect the horses involved.

[TonyK@HSH]

Loved this exercise- interesting results as well. Funny how different stakeholders have different opinions. The question regarding the 'philosophy' on interference overwhelmingly wanted stewards judgement to steer their decisions. a bit different form most sentiments I've read on this board

[mountainman]

The Racing Officials Accreditation Program is asking for input on a topic discussed at length these days - consistency in decisions when there are infractions during a race.



Please help by taking this survey -



https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/2018InterferenceSurvey

Great thread and topic. But, as I've said before, the demand for consistency on DQ calls can be a trap. Since no two incidents are quite alike, consistently good JUDGEMENT is what should be asked of stewards. I could elaborate considerably, but no desire to hijack or alter the course of your thread, sir.

[Tom]

I was not surprised to see that "Customer" was not one of the choices.

That seems to me to be the underlying problem with racing.

[rastajenk]

But 'Fan' and 'Handicapper' were available.

[Tom]

Neither really mean customer.

I am a fan of football but not a customer.
The guy selling tip sheets is a handicapper.

CUSTOMER is a special relationship.

I chose to ignore the survey after that.
If they have to ask if we want common rules and decisions, there is no point taking them seriously to begin with.

In another month or so, I will probably not be a customer of horse racing anymore, then I can take the survey! :bang:

[Elkchester Road]

Neither really mean customer.

I am a fan of football but not a customer.
The guy selling tip sheets is a handicapper.

CUSTOMER is a special relationship.

I chose to ignore the survey after that.
If they have to ask if we want common rules and decisions, there is no point taking them seriously to begin with.

In another month or so, I will probably not be a customer of horse racing anymore, then I can take the survey! :bang:

I understand and agree with what you are saying, Tom, to include not being a customer anymore. I am becoming more and more aware that I am a fan of what horse racing WAS. What it is becoming...not so much. Horse racing better be correct with their mindset that bettors don't matter...because if they aren't...they can put up their own money to race for.

There are other options out there that are better...or at least less bad.

[rastajenk]

Semantic hair-splitting, a distinction without much of a difference, or vice versa. It's too bad they didn't consult you before putting the survey together.

[Tom]

Shut up and bet.

[Dave Schwartz]

Yes, after you finish the survey it has the number of survey takers and their answers by percentage for each question.

I must have checked out before seeing it.

I did finish the survey, though.

[v j stauffer]

That was big fun

I miss being a Steward.

Here's what I wrote for the four films and final question.

1st film

Every horse is entitled to a clear and unobstructed path. #3 at two separate points layed in on and pressured #4 into a very tight spot on the rail. Eventually causing #4 to check sharply. Since #4 finished 3rd it was most assuredly cost an opportunity at a better placing. When I was a steward I always told the riders. Go straight. There's never been a horse taken down that went straight.

2nd film

Every horse is entitled to a clear an unobstructed path. #2 came inward and forced #1 to check very sharply. Causing that rival to take up and lose position. #1 was cost an opportunity at a better placing. #2 should be disqualified and place behind #1.

3rd film

#2 came out into the path of both #1 & #4 without sufficient clearance. Causing both #1 & #4 to check sharply and lose position. Both were cost an opportunity of a better placing. Especially #1 who was re-rallying and managed to finish 4th while coming back on toward better placings after the incident. #2 should be disqualified and placed behind #4.

4th film

By far the toughest of the 4 films so far. I would have left the result unchanged. #10 did come inward into the path of #9. However #9 contributed to the incident by both breaking outward slightly and breaking slow making it very tough for him to gain early position. The most compelling factor is after the incident #9 did nothing with ample time to recover. But there's the rub. What if the incident caused #9 to be injured in some fashion and that's the reason he never became relevant? This was a close call for me. But I decided no DQ because if this horse was taken down a case could be made for a DQ in about 40% of the starts in races around the country

Comment on 3 choice question. I chose the middle answer.

A foul is a foul will never work. What if a tiring horse was brushed and slightly fouled, but fouled, at the quarter pole by a horse that was rolling by on his way to win by 10 lengths. While the offended horse finished 10 lengths behind the 2nd to last horse. If a foul is a foul was applied in that instance it would be a great miscarriage of justice and serve no good purpose for anyone involved in the incident.

:cool:

[v j stauffer]

Great thread and topic. But, as I've said before, the demand for consistency on DQ calls can be a trap. Since no two incidents are quite alike, consistently good JUDGEMENT is what should be asked of stewards. I could elaborate considerably, but no desire to hijack or alter the course of your thread, sir.

Ah, the REAL "C" word. Consistency. IMO people have no idea what the word means and or especially how it's applied.

As a steward if you "agree" with all the decisions I make. Then I'm wonderfully consistent. However, If a call goes against you or you just "disagree" then my consistency is gone!

[Track Phantom]

Ah, the REAL "C" word. Consistency. IMO people have no idea what the word means and or especially how it's applied.

As a steward if you "agree" with all the decisions I make. Then I'm wonderfully consistent. However, If a call goes against you or you just "disagree" then my consistency is gone!

Why don't we just agree that all of your posts are incredibly pompous and leave it there?

[Franco Santiago]

Thanks to all who took the survey in the name of improving the game for those of us that are too lazy to take it.


I would submit that the entire DQ problem is two-fold:


1. There is no overall governing body as there is with, say, MLB or NFL, so the rules are different across jurisdictions. I am usually all for leaving the laws to each state, but in this case, I am not. We all know this is a problem, so it's old, old blather.


2. The rules, at least as they seem to me, are very subjective and allow for too much "judgment" (good or bad).



For my part, a DQ or non-DQ matters not. I play so many races that I am going to get lucky and unlucky and it is all going to be a wash in the long run.



And, thanks, Vic (and others) for posting your replies. They were interesting and informative.

[Lemon Drop Husker]

Ah, the REAL "C" word. Consistency. IMO people have no idea what the word means and or especially how it's applied.

As a steward if you "agree" with all the decisions I make. Then I'm wonderfully consistent. However, If a call goes against you or you just "disagree" then my consistency is gone!


I honestly disagreed with every single one of your selections, and went the other way.



Makes me consistent as well. :lol: