|
|
11-17-2018, 08:04 PM
|
#16
|
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Near Lexington, KY
Posts: 3,246
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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!
|
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.
__________________
Just when you least expect it...just what you least expect-The Pet Shop Boys.
|
|
|
11-17-2018, 10:41 PM
|
#17
|
Just Deplorable
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Lebanon, Ohio
Posts: 8,068
|
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.
|
|
|
11-18-2018, 08:20 PM
|
#18
|
The Voice of Reason!
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Canandaigua, New york
Posts: 112,856
|
Shut up and bet.
__________________
Who does the Racing Form Detective like in this one?
|
|
|
11-18-2018, 10:41 PM
|
#19
|
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 16,909
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cuffdaddy
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.
|
|
|
11-20-2018, 02:47 PM
|
#20
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,284
|
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.
__________________
"Just because she's a hitter and a thief doesn't mean she's not a good woman in all the other places" Mayrose Prizzi
|
|
|
11-20-2018, 03:03 PM
|
#21
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,284
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainman
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!
__________________
"Just because she's a hitter and a thief doesn't mean she's not a good woman in all the other places" Mayrose Prizzi
|
|
|
11-24-2018, 08:38 AM
|
#22
|
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Austin, Tx
Posts: 2,752
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by v j stauffer
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?
|
|
|
11-24-2018, 09:09 AM
|
#23
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 117
|
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.
|
|
|
11-24-2018, 09:22 AM
|
#24
|
Veteran
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Lincoln, NE
Posts: 11,474
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by v j stauffer
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|