RC#: 19-015
Status: Posted 5Jun18, Not Recommended by CDC & ESC 19July18
| Name: | Marc Johnson / CDC Chair |
| ADS #: | 9050 |
| Subject: | Groom assistance |
| Rule #: | 945.3 Permitted assistance |
| Current Wording: | The following are considered to be permitted outside assistance:
• Assistance during compulsory rests and in neutral zones between Sections. • Assistance to avoid accidents. • Assistance to Horses as a result of an accident inside an obstacle, providing the Grooms are dismounted. • Assistance by the Groom whereby a Horse is led through an obstacle by the bridle ends of the reins while harnessed to the carriage in either Marathon or Cones, will incur 20 penalties for the assistance, in addition to the penalties for dismount. • At ADS-recognized events for turnouts without a groom on the carriage, should groom assistance be needed, the driver may stop and ask for such assistance from any capable person, who may then act as a groom rendering the necessary help, and the turnout shall be penalized with the normal “groom down” penalty. |
| New Wording: | Same except
• At ADS-recognized events for turnouts without a groom on the carriage, should groom assistance be needed, the driver may stop and ask for such assistance from [delete: |
| Reason for Change: | The random capable person would not have signed a waiver to assist the competitor. In addition, too many VSE/Small Pony competitors arrive with no available help. Grooms must be available at the arenas and, possibly, following silently around the Marathon course, where practical, to assist the competitor at the Obstacles. |
| Type of change: | Modify |
Penny says :
June 9, 2018This makes no sense. We should not be encouraging any requirements that suggest it is OK to follow a competitor through the course. We strongly discourage people from following turnouts through the course. By stating that VSEs and small ponies must have “registered” grooms, and that assistance cannot be asked from others (i.e. hazard judges or timers) we will force followers onto the course and we create a much more serious potential safety problem. No amount of careful wording i.e. “and, possibly, following silently around the Marathon course, where practical ” can prevent this. It will be an officiating nightmare to determine who is and isn’t to follow. I would suggest that this may have been a problem in the vet box several years ago, but recently has not been an issue as drivers of these turnouts have become better educated.
Tracey Morgan says :
June 10, 2018Not Supported by the Driven Dressage Committee
Diane Kastama says :
June 10, 2018What if you need help from more than one person? Does this mean the only groom that can help in an accident is the one registered? What if they were flung off and not able to render assistance. Yes, wording specify’s for turnout without a groom, but still opens the door to the competitors with grooms on their carriage needing assistance from an outside source.
Zantke says :
June 14, 2018I am NOT in favor. Our current system works! (See my upcoming article in the July Wheelhorse)
Kmorgan1 says :
June 17, 2018This proposal attempts to fix a problem that does not exist, and will instead create several worse issues. The likelihood of a duly designated groom being in the perfect location at exactly the right moment is low. If only those who have signed the waiver can help, available competent (unsigned) help may be withheld when needed. Part of the charm of driving a VSE is the ability to do more without needing extra help. This rule would saddle VSE drivers with the need to enlist one or many grooms to pre-position at potential trouble spots.
keithy says :
July 19, 2018I am not in favor of this RCS. I agree with all of the above comments. I see this as the first step to requiring grooms on all single equine competitors.
DanRosenthal says :
August 12, 2018How exactly is that groom supposed to be on site in the event they are needed? Do we have them follow behind the carriage in a golf cart? The Rule change proposal is impossible and therefor I do not support it.
Zantke says :
August 28, 2018Perhaps just a technicality – but I see that it says: NOT recommended by CDC & ESC on 19.Jul 18, so that’s fine, I get it – but since it was originally proposed by the CDC Chair – why not simply withdraw it?