Quote:
Originally Posted by arw629
Anyone care to comment on the DQ in the opener Monday the 11th? Bayern left the gate and wired the field but he was DQd for interference leaving the gate
|
Here's what I see based on the head on shot:
- The #5 broke outward a bit. The rider of the #5 then corrected by angling his mount inward - and crossed over in front of the field rather quickly. Or took what the stewards may have seen as too sharp an angle when crossing over in front of the field.
There's a fine line when it comes to crossing over. Do it too sharply and other riders can be caught off guard - increasing the likelihood of a spill. Do it too gradually and you risk giving other riders the chance to deny you the rail.
Was that line crossed here? In my opinion no.
But in the opinion of the stewards? I'm thinking it was.
- The rider of the #3, Ashley Kauffman, appears to steady ever so slightly as the #5 crosses in front of her. But Imo both the head on and pan shots show the #5 was clear of the #3 at that point in the race.
- The rider of the #2 horse checked sharply.
What I'm about to say is based on my gut reaction after watching the replay several times -- AND after looking at stats in my database.
Prior to the running of the race in question, my database shows Logan Holbrook the rider of the #2 horse with:
1 win from 49 starts at Mahoning Valley and 4 wins from 159 starts at all tracks everywhere over the most recent 365 days.
I guess that's my way of forming an opinion -- combining what I think I'm seeing as I watch the replay with numbers pulled from a database.
I think the rider of the #2 horse PANICKED and checked far more severely and took his mount much further back than what was called for --
Or at the very least, overreacted compared to what I think a more talented/experienced rider would do in a similar situation.
- Imo, the rider of the #5 never actually crossed over in front of the #2 or even took away the path of the #2.
Imo, the rider of the #5 stopped his mount from coming over just prior to the point of contact had the #2 been there.
But because the rider of the #2 had checked so severely there was no contact -- only extra space which the #5 promptly occupied -- making the whole thing look far worse from the head on view than it actually was.
Here's what I see based on the pan shot:
- At the point in the race when the #5 crossed over in front of the #3, it appears to me the #3 (who the stewards placed the #5 behind in their ruling) was a few lengths behind the #5 and was therefore not affected by the crossing over incident.
- I thought the rider of the #2 clearly overreacted -- and that the #5 never really took away the path of the #2 or committed a DQ worthy foul against the #2.
All of that said:
If you focus strictly on the head on shot without ever considering the pan shot, I could understand a ruling where the stewards believed the #5 had fouled the #2 and as a result decided to place the #5 behind the #2.
But that isn't where the stewards placed the #5.
They placed the #5 behind the #3 -- who in my opinion was far enough behind the crossing over incident that the #5 did not commit a foul against the #3.
If the stewards ruled the #5 fouled the #3: Then I say it's a bad call.
If the stewards ruled the #5 fouled the #2: Then I see it as a bad call because I don't want stewards rewarding the kind of severe overreaction exhibited by the rider of the #2.
If the stewards ruled that a foul must have occurred because the rider of the #2 checked so severely -- that a rider doesn't check that severely unless he's been fouled: Then I see a racing jurisdiction with a bad steward problem.
However, if the stewards ruled the rider of the #5 crossed over in front of the field too quickly or took too sharp an angle in crossing over the field -- and in so doing put the other riders at risk from a safety standpoint:
Then I am perfectly ok with the call.
-jp
.
