INQUIRIES: Make it like Football Challenges

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Give the Stewards 3 minutes under the hood. If an infraction isn't obvious enough by then, let the results stand. After 3 minutes, it becomes a coin flip anyway. If a foul isn't obvious enough within three minutes, there is obviously not enough evidence to overturn the results IMO.

As for talking to the jockeys involved. I would limit the phone call to only the jockey who claims foul. I don't see the point of interviewing the jockey on the alleged culprit.

[Robert Goren]

It takes more than 3 minutes for the stewards to get from the bar to the viewing room.

[CBedo]

Give the Stewards 3 minutes under the hood. If an infraction isn't obvious enough by then, let the results stand. After 3 minutes, it becomes a coin flip anyway. If a foul isn't obvious enough within three minutes, there is obviously not enough evidence to overturn the results IMO.

As for talking to the jockeys involved. I would limit the phone call to only the jockey who claims foul. I don't see the point of interviewing the jockey on the alleged culprit.I don't think this makes much sense personally. The only reason they limit the time in the NFL is to keep the game on schedule for tv contracts. Why limit trying to get the call correct in racing? They have a hard enough time without the time constraint! Also, why not interview both affected parties? There are always multiple sides to the story. More information "should" lead to better decisions.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

I don't think this makes much sense personally. The only reason they limit the time in the NFL is to keep the game on schedule for tv contracts. Why limit trying to get the call correct in racing? They have a hard enough time without the time constraint! Also, why not interview both affected parties? There are always multiple sides to the story. More information "should" lead to better decisions.
I'm not sure what info the rider of the horse who allegedly caused the infraction can provide, unless his or her horse was impeded by another horse.

My point is that if an infraction isn't obvious enough the results should stand.
Even when a horse gets whipped by another jockey, it is pretty cut and dry and can be ruled on within 3 minutes.

After 3 minutes or 4 minutes tops, if the evidence isn't enough to convict, you must acquit.

[therussmeister]

One reason the NFL can do it in 3 minutes is because there is only one person making the decision. In horse racing I think there is three, it becomes like jury-duty, they debate each other.

By the way, I don't think it ever becomes a coin flip; if it is not obvious they just rule in favor of the jock with the highest win percentage.

[Robert Goren]

By the way, I don't think it ever becomes a coin flip; if it is not obvious they just rule in favor of the jock with the highest win percentage. Actually they check to see if I a wager on one. If not, then they flip a coin.

[smartybadger]

Give the Stewards 3 minutes under the hood. If an infraction isn't obvious enough by then, let the results stand. After 3 minutes, it becomes a coin flip anyway. If a foul isn't obvious enough within three minutes, there is obviously not enough evidence to overturn the results IMO.

As for talking to the jockeys involved. I would limit the phone call to only the jockey who claims foul. I don't see the point of interviewing the jockey on the alleged culprit.

I agree. I also think in the US court system that the plaintiff should only be able to take the stand and that the defendant should not be allowed to testify. I definitely think we're onto something.

Also, if I'm not mistaken, the use of replay with objections and inquiries in horse racing doesn't postpone the next race, so why does it matter? With so much money at stake, shouldn't they take as much time as possible to make sure they get it right?

Needless to say I disagree with both of your ideas.

[wisconsin]

Actually they check to see if I a wager on one. If not, then they flip a coin.

What? I thought they checked thier own tickets.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

I agree. I also think in the US court system that the plaintiff should only be able to take the stand and that the defendant should not be allowed to testify. I definitely think we're onto something.

Also, if I'm not mistaken, the use of replay with objections and inquiries in horse racing doesn't postpone the next race, so why does it matter? With so much money at stake, shouldn't they take as much time as possible to make sure they get it right?

Needless to say I disagree with both of your ideas.
I don't even see much point in interviewing the jockey who claimed the foul. The Stewards are experienced judges and all infractions are physical and thus can be detected by the human eye.
It is no excuse if a jockey says his horse ran green or was spooked by a shadow.
And my major point here is that there is absolutely no consistency in what gets thrown down and what stays up, so I am of the belief that a race should stand if the Stews can't decide within 3 or 4 minutes.