The DQ (or non-DQ) complaint thread

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

Ok guys. You've convinced me. Three disgruntled bettors are correct and 4 trained stewards are incompetent, unethical and just plain WRONG.

Seems plausible to me.

First legitimate point that I've ever seen you make on this board.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

Having officiated other sports, the most problematic calls are the ones where the crowd doesn't see the violation, doesn't understand the rule that created the call, or simply believes it is a bad rule. Dez Bryant's catch/non-catch in last years playoff game is a good example where the referees got the call right in accordance with the rule but the majority of the public saw it as a catch. Bad rule = bad call as far as the crowd is concerned. I can attest that most sports try to take the subjectivity out of calls. They tweak the rules to make it harder and harder to make judgement the primary determinant of a call. Did a basketball defender put his hand on a player driving to the basket? Yes means a foul, and whether the official thinks it affected the play or not is irrelevant. You're supposed to make the call. Think about the tuck rule in football. Take the subjectivity out of the call. Racing is in the unfortunate position of making the question of whether a foul cost a horse a finish position central to issue of disqualification. In many cases that is subjective. When you watch an NFL telecast along with the replay there is a rules "expert" who gives the technical particulars of the rule and an opinion about whether a call should be upheld or overturned. While the referee and the expert agree a lot of the time, even they sometimes disagree with each other. The point is that if you tell someone the rule, they should be able to understand the explanation for the call. In racing the rules seem to have a squishier quality. Bayern seems to take out part of the field at the start of the BC Classic, and we are supposed to believe it had no impact on the outcome. The keys to officiating are having rules that the fans can see, can understand, and are applied consistently. And if the best explanation an official has is, we know what we're doing and you don't, so just accept the call, that is a problem. And considering two "experts" can watch the same play and come to different conclusions, I wouldn't discount the possibility that an experienced fan is right when the stewards are wrong in some cases.

Just like sports, not all calls can be made. Like some of your nfl examples, they say there's holding on every play, but they "let go" most of it and pick and choose which ones to call. In racing, not all bumps get dqd which means they're picking and choosing too.
If humans are stepping In and altering results in situations that are not extreme obvious cases, that's what causes the inconsistent decisions, if you nitpick, you'll make mistakes on occasion.

If there was 70 holding penalties called per NFL game, it wouldn't be as fun to watch even though the "rules" are technically being upheld. People would also say that they want to an NFL game to see the players decide the games, not the refs. If there's a few scattered penalties called here and there, people don't say the refs got in the way. When an ump or ref ejects a star player out of the game you'll hear fans say "I didn't pay my Money to see the ref, I want to see the star"

Same in racing, people don't bet races so that over officious jerks (quoting Marv levy) play god with their cash.

The race at Belmont the other day was a great example, that DQ was akin to calling 70 holding penalties in an NFL game, it was playing god with OPM.

[Dark Horse]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

Just like sports, not all calls can be made. Like some of your nfl examples, they say there's holding on every play, but they "let go" most of it and pick and choose which ones to call. In racing, not all bumps get dqd which means they're picking and choosing too.
If humans are stepping In and altering results in situations that are not extreme obvious cases, that's what causes the inconsistent decisions, if you nitpick, you'll make mistakes on occasion.

If there was 70 holding penalties called per NFL game, it wouldn't be as fun to watch even though the "rules" are technically being upheld. People would also say that they want to an NFL game to see the players decide the games, not the refs. If there's a few scattered penalties called here and there, people don't say the refs got in the way. When an ump or ref ejects a star player out of the game you'll hear fans say "I didn't pay my Money to see the ref, I want to see the star"

Same in racing, people don't bet races so that over officious jerks (quoting Marv levy) play god with their cash.

The race at Belmont the other day was a great example, that DQ was akin to calling 70 holding penalties in an NFL game, it was playing god with OPM.

Exactly. A ref who can't get out of his own way is never very good. A good referee has a feel for the game, and applies the rules accordingly.

In other words, as I tried pointing out earlier, a foul, or a bump in racing, is not isolated, but defined by the type of race in which it occurs. A rider is supposed to do everything within his power, within the rules, to win the race. That includes diving into a hole if it opens up. He can't know at that point that the hole may partially close again, nor should it concern him.

Also, it's only fair to players that tracks make the stewards data available, including their voting records and changes in steward lineups, and including meetings they may have had about changes in policy (usually refs kneejerk to changes before things even out again). If one or two stick out like sore thumbs, informed players should be able to sidestep them.

[LottaKash]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

The keys to officiating are having rules that the fans can see, can understand, and are applied consistently. .

Most. if not all of the Harness Tracks have adopted that policy....

After their official reviews, if there were any DQ's or Order of finish changes, they offer up, via onscreen replay, the reason's and the rules for making those Official final changes to the outcome of that particular event....

Some tracks will even go so far as to explain why there were no changes to the official outcome and why there was an inguiry to begin with...

Is that so hard ?...

[Stillriledup]

DH, congrats On 1k posts, i enjoy reading your thoughts!

You touch on a good point that i want to expand on, when that hole opened up, was rosario supposed to NOT "try and win the race"?

[Stillriledup]

Wow no dq at bel in race 3? Shocking.

[Dark Horse]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

DH, congrats On 1k posts, i enjoy reading your thoughts!

You touch on a good point that i want to expand on, when that hole opened up, was rosario supposed to NOT "try and win the race"?

1) Of course he was supposed to take that hole; because he is supposed to try to win the race. Right before that you could see how much horse he had and that he was being held up. And then he just exploded into the hole.
2) He had no way of knowing that it would partially close again.
3) The #2 was ridden by Irad Ortiz, 'Mr Contact Initiator'. A good ref is aware of the tendencies of players, so he won't fall for their tricks.
4) Ortiz was on the even money favorite. Rosario on a 7/1 horse. Whenever it's about the benefit of the doubt the favorite certainly seems to receive it more often than a longshot, and therefore value bettors are bitten by stewards more often than the public. If that's a Revolutionary bursting through the hole, everybody goes 'yeah baby, it took him a long time to get through, but he got it done'. Not a word about the losing longshot.

[castaway01]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

First legitimate point that I've ever seen you make on this board.

And the toady chimes in....now the gang's all here.

[EMD4ME]

Originally Posted by castaway01

And the toady chimes in....now the gang's all here.

You are NOT a toady castaway01....

[EMD4ME]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

First legitimate point that I've ever seen you make on this board.

I can't speak for Vic's other posts as I haven't been here that long but yes, I would agree , that post hit the nail on the head completely.

[Dark Horse]

Can we talk about the actual model of the steward system? Or is that, as mountainman would have it, self-congratulatory? As someone who feels that his money has been stolen by wrong stewards decisions, I want an improved model, because if things remain the same, more of my money will be stolen.

Compared to other jury systems, the model of three participants is too simplistic. After all, in case of a 1-1 split, the juror with the least defined opinion is going to be elevated to 100% of 'the decision'.

Compare this to ice skating. I don't watch it enough to know if they have 8 or 10 judges, but I do know that the highest and lowest two figures are discarded, and the remaining numbers are averaged.

Imagine that in horse racing.

Or imagine something equivalent to the figures that jurors give in ice skating. A steward would no longer have to represent his opinion as 100% certain, but instead could give it a value of 70 or 80% certain. Then you could set a minimum combined number necessary for a decision either way. If that number isn't reached, the original race result stands. How much more fluid would that be? All the forced decisions that we see today, when the third steward is forced into taking a stand, would be off the table. A steward wouldn't have to represent a black-or-white view, but instead could voice an educated, graded opinion.

It bothers me greatly that we're dealing with this outdated model, that not one horse player seems to be happy with, and that could so easily be improved, yet nobody seems willing to take the first step towards improving it.

[taxicab]

The stewards blew this one.
They should of gone back a little further in the race.
When the field straightened for home Ortiz started to sense that Rosario had a ton of horse from behind him,so Ortiz yanked right on his reins{moving his horse to the right} to keep Rosario behind the horses in front(due to the action drifting off the rail).
What Ortiz didn't count on was the horse starting to tire,thus leaving a healthy opening towards the inside portion....
Rosario did what he was supposed to do and headed for daylight[very quickly because he had a ton of horse],Ortiz {still on Rosario's inside} then bumped Rosario's horse first (trying to stop the horse that was blowing by him)and Rosario being who he is fired back and bumped Ortiz(twice) knowing Ortiz was riding dirty....
Like I said, Rosario is old school and he's not going to put up with anything from anybody(just ask Martin Pedroza).
The stewards probably should of given Rosario a couple days for being a little too much tit for tat......but Ortiz was the problem in this race.

[Dark Horse]

Originally Posted by taxicab

The stewards blew this one.
They should of gone back a little further in the race.
When the field straightened for home Ortiz started to sense that Rosario had a ton of horse from behind him,so Ortiz yanked right on his reins{moving his horse to the right} to keep Rosario behind the horses in front(due to the action drifting off the rail).
What Ortiz didn't count on was the horse starting to tire,thus leaving a healthy opening towards the inside portion....
Rosario did what he was supposed to do and headed for daylight[very quickly because he had a ton of horse],Ortiz {still on Rosario's inside} then bumped Rosario's horse first (trying to stop the horse that was blowing by him)and Rosario being who he is fired back and bumped Ortiz(twice) knowing Ortiz was riding dirty....
Like I said, Rosario is old school and he's not going to put up with anything from anybody(just ask Martin Pedroza).
The stewards probably should of given Rosario a couple days for being a little too much tit for tat......but Ortiz was the problem in this race.

Good read.

Somebody who sees the whole race, and the bumping in its context, instead of blindly staring at the bumping as isolated incident.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by castaway01

And the toady chimes in....now the gang's all here.

Castaway...in case I haven't already said so...you are one of my favorite posters here too.

[mountainman]

Originally Posted by Dark Horse

Can we talk about the actual model of the steward system? Or is that, as mountainman would have it, self-congratulatory? As someone who feels that his money has been stolen by wrong stewards decisions, I want an improved model, because if things remain the same, more of my money will be stolen.

Compared to other jury systems, the model of three participants is too simplistic. After all, in case of a 1-1 split, the juror with the least defined opinion is going to be elevated to 100% of 'the decision'.

Compare this to ice skating. I don't watch it enough to know if they have 8 or 10 judges, but I do know that the highest and lowest two figures are discarded, and the remaining numbers are averaged.

Imagine that in horse racing.

Or imagine something equivalent to the figures that jurors give in ice skating. A steward would no longer have to represent his opinion as 100% certain, but instead could give it a value of 70 or 80% certain. Then you could set a minimum combined number necessary for a decision either way. If that number isn't reached, the original race result stands. How much more fluid would that be? All the forced decisions that we see today, when the third steward is forced into taking a stand, would be off the table. A steward wouldn't have to represent a black-or-white view, but instead could voice an educated, graded opinion.

It bothers me greatly that we're dealing with this outdated model, that not one horse player seems to be happy with, and that could so easily be improved, yet nobody seems willing to take the first step towards improving it.

ICE SKATING? Yes, THERE is a sport known for astute, objective , scandal-free judging. Were you sober when you came up with that? The answer isn't more complexity nor a system that breeds more indecisiveness. And, in my opinion, the cries for consistent calls also are slightly off the mark. Each incident must be taken separately, thus what's required is consistently good JUDGEMENT. Players have a right to that.

And the solution is BETTER STEWARDS and better oversight. Right now, the only way ANYBODY reviews-or has occasion or authorization to look into dq calls is when an aggrieved party protests. Want to guess how often that happens?? (hint: about as often as you and Vic hug things out).

In my opinion, the racing commission should take a stronger hand in overseeing the stewards and reviewing their dq calls. And race-watching skills and experience should become a criteria when stewards are hired.

Dude, I've known LOTS of stewards, but very few who could even FUNCTION under the system you propose. Good lord, lots of these people can't make up their minds NOW on whether to take a horse down even for an OBVIOUS infraction, and you want them fretting to come up with some abstract number?

The system isn't the problem-it's the people implementing the system. And the freedom from official oversight that they generally enjoy.

None of this is intended to single out any steward or board of stewards-just as my general take on the issue.