RCP CD 965.7.1 Training scores 18-021 – NOT APPROVED

BOD did not approve RC 15Oct17 

RC#: 18-021
Rule/Article: CD 965.7.1
Change Type: Modify
Proponent: CD Committee
Status: 31May17 received and posted 1June17. Recommended by CDC (posted 25July17). From CDC 25Oct17 for BOD

See also 18-003

Current Wording: …

At ADS-recognized events other than Arena Trials, Obstacle elapsed time for Training division competitors shall not be provided. The five-minute time limit shall apply (See 7.3 below). Only total Section times will be recorded and penalty points posted, in keeping with the intended objective for the division.

New Wording: 

Add: At CDE and DT events, the Organizer has the option to post Training division obstacle times and scores only if the Organizer has given pre-event notice of this intention by publishing it in the event Omnibus.

Reason for Change: Option to also score and post obstacle times for Training Division CDE and DT events if posted in the Omnibus listing

9 Response(s)

  1. Theresa La Voie says :

    August 3, 2017

    I believe that training level times in obstacles should be recorded at the option of the show organizer/scorekeeper. As a hazard judge, I have always done this and provided the information to the organizer/scorekeeper. I do think that it is important for competitors at the training level to know these types of scores. However, I am not in favor of the timed hazard scores being counted in a training level competitor’s overall score to determine the final results. Many people at the training level should be more concerned with learning how to maneuver through hazards smoothly and carefully so their horse is trained properly, and worry less about speed. As the driving horse improves (goes smoothly around obstacles without hitting them or being jerked around), speed will come. Without worrying about speed, the training level competitor will then focus on correct hazard control, and not just whipping around in a haphazard way scaring the horse or even having a accident. Once proper hazard control has been mastered, the training level competitor can look forward to the next stage – the preliminary level where speed now becomes more important. This was something I looked forward to when I started my green horse, but first things first. It also encourages competitors to move up to the preliminary level. Once this incentive is taken away, many competitors would just stay at the lower level where they feel comfortable and win and refuse to push forward as a competitor. I see this a lot at the preliminary level where people get dressage scores in the 40’s, are good at the marathon, ok at cones, and still refuse to move up to the intermediate level. Why? Because they like winning at the lower level. But that makes it less competitive for those moving into from training into the preliminary level. There are good sound reasons for not counting hazard times at the training level – because it is a “TRAINING” level. I strongly recommend that this rule not be changed.

  2. wildwoodfarm says :

    August 8, 2017

    I do not agree with this RCP. While many drivers are responsible and use training level as it is intended to be used – to gently and safely introduce their equines to obstacles – some do not. I cannot imagine times being posted without a crowd at the results board comparing times spent in the obstacles. Drivers wishing to know their times are at a point where they should be moving to Preliminary level and this rule will discourage that move.

  3. Sharon Waite says :

    August 9, 2017

    I disagree with this proposal. This would just add to the stress level for beginning competitors. Most people don’t have marathon obstacles at home for practice, so they should using competitions to school themselves and/or their equines in the job. Keep the emphasis off speed until control and confidence have been obtained through practice. Training level competitors get their times on their timesheets at the end of the competition, and if they want to compare them among themselves or with their trainers, fine.

  4. daves says :

    August 15, 2017

    I strongly disagree with this proposal, as I have every time it’s been brought up. I much prefer the language Hardy has added to 18.003. Define what we’re talking about and include it in the rules. NO OPTIONS ALLOWED!

  5. Zantke says :

    August 18, 2017

    I strongly disagree with this proposal. We have often discussed it over the years and have always come to the conclusion NOT to provide the marathon obstacle times to Training Level competitors on the score sheets, nor score them. They should take their time and learn the sport. Once they are ready to be timed, they can move up to Prelim. ( Besides, the obstacle judges do time them anyhow (to make sure, nobody is over the 5 minute rule) and at most events then also indicate the times in the obstacle score sheets. So when the competitors get their packets after the event those sheets with their times are included. So they have them for their own information!)

  6. porterjh says :

    August 28, 2017

    I strongly agree with the proposed rule change, If we are truly trying to encourage training level people to learn the sport then they need to to have the same rules and scoring as everyone. I believe that not timing training obstacles encourages people to move up before they are ready. Also by timing training in the obstacles they will learn how to drive the obstacles quickly and safely. It is important the training level competitors learn that getting quickly through the obstacles does not mean you have to canter.

  7. ematulich says :

    August 29, 2017

    I completely agree with this RCP. Training competitors are always screaming to compare their times so I wind up providing them anyway. Without any feedback, there is no way to learn or figure out how to improve. From an educator’s standpoint, no times are the equivalent of no grades….students or competitors can only guess at how successful they were or whether they need to do more practice. Training level competitors need feedback, and need to either know they are ready to move up or need to stay at training and try some more. This RCP only provides the OPTION to a show organizer to score times, NOT a requirement. If a show organizer knows their competitors and does not want to execute this option, then they don’t have to. Personally, I would use this option, as I know my competitors want and need it, but other shows are certainly welcome not to use the option. At least allow the OPTION — every show and every group of competitors is different!

  8. Linda Bennett says :

    August 30, 2017

    I strongly agree with this change. I think it is very important to be able to see how you are doing in the Training level and know what you need to work on. If you are very slow in the obstacles, training is the place to try and find new routes and figure out what you need to do. I found it very discouraging to move up to Prelim and then figure out you need to learn how to drive obstacles better. At that point you don’t have the luxury of trying things to improve, you just drive faster and as we know that is not always the answer. Without pressure to change your placing in training, you can work on the best routes. Once you move up to Prelim it all about speed to be able to improve your placing. PLEASE provide the option to post the times for educational purposes.

  9. marc says :

    August 31, 2017

    SO, Training is already required to trot through the Obstacles. We already allow “scoring” Training level Marathon Obstacles in our Arena Trials. In different markets, providing scoring as an option, might be appropriate. Offering scores for Obstacles is not going to change the character of Training marathons, it will just give the option of scoring them…just like Horse Trials, for those that like to make that comparison. If your market does not ask for scoring, you don’t need to do it. The sport is shrinking. What we have done to “encourage” drivers has actually discouraged others. If a Training level driver has a high Dressage score and a couple hits in Cones, their result is pretty well sealed. These drivers paid for a CDE or DT, not a Combined Test. I’ve seen this discourage junior drivers, many times, competing against adults. We don’t have enough entries to split the classes, either. This option should be offered.

Comments are closed.