Status: Posted 5Jun18, Withdrawn by CDC 19July18
|Name:||Marc Johnson / CDC Chair|
|Subject:||Eligibility for ADS-recognized Events|
|Rule #:||913.3.2 – 913.3.4|
|Current Wording:||913.3 Eligibility for ADS-recognized Events
3.2 Preliminary division
3.3 Intermediate division – the driver has completed* at least three Preliminary division CDEs.
3.4 Hybrid divisions offering Advanced Dressage and Cones – the driver has completed* at least four Preliminary or Intermediate division CDEs.
|New Wording:||913.3 Eligibility for ADS-recognized Events
3.2 Preliminary division
3.3 Intermediate division – the driver has completed* at least three Preliminary division CDEs, with one Dressage average score of 65 points or less.
3.4 Hybrid divisions offering Advanced Dressage and Cones – the driver has completed* at least four Preliminary or Intermediate division CDEs, with one Dressage average score below 65 points.
|Reason for Change:||Establish a more concise measure of an athlete’s ability to participate in the next higher level of competition.|
|Type of change:||Modify|
Zantke says :June 14, 2018
I am not in favor. Why change something that isn’t broke? I think our system has worked fine as it is for many years. Who would keep track of the new requirement of below 65 penalty points? We cannot burden the office with that – nor the show organizer to look up previous results – or would you want to burden every driver with submitting the required previous results with each entry – and the show secretary or TD to check them all ? All really way too burdensome in my opinion.
Kmorgan1 says :June 17, 2018
While I understand the desire to have quantative criteria for determining eligibility, unfortunately, the real world doesn’t evolve along prescribed lines. I know many Preliminary drivers who will never score below 65 points in Dressage – not because they are bad drivers, but because Dressage is NOT their passion, Cones and Marathons are. We should not presume that Dressage scores are the only yardstick by which proficiency may be measured.
Tracey Morgan says :July 18, 2018
What is the intended meaning of “average”? Is it referring to the score from one competition which may have either two or three judges at the Preliminary ring which are already “averaged” to create the penalty point score. Or, is this a reference to creating an average between the scores of three competitions to create an “average”?
Since there is no mechanism to track scores this would be an Honor System without enforcement.
DanRosenthal says :August 12, 2018
This RCP would place an obligation on Organizers with no mechanism for compliance save the word of the competitor.
Further, like Tracey I wonder what the word “average’ is meant to convey?
Comments are closed.