RCS2014#84 – Cones course safety

2014 RCS #
84
Summary
Cones course safety
Date Received
23Feb13
Proponent
Cathy Thomas
Change Date
Next Rulebook
Status
Closed for comments: 01Sep13
Not Recommended: 15Sep13
Activity
Initial Posting: 01Aug13

Current Wording – Article 951.1.5 The Course:Building and Measuring the Course

  1. Courses must be laid out so that Athletes (Drivers) have a chance to maintain a reasonably fast pace throughout the major part of the course. Certain obstacles and combinations
    of obstacles will inevitably slow down the pace, but such a layout should be limited to a small proportion of the whole course (refer to Annex 7 – Open Multiple Obstacles for the dimensions of Multiple Obstacles).

Suggested Wording – Article 951.1.5 The Course:Building and Measuring the Course

  1. Courses must be laid out so that Athletes (Drivers) have a chance to maintain a reasonably fast pace throughout the major part of the course. Change of terrain (hills) must be avoided in combination with required turns and obstacles. Certain obstacles and combinations
    of obstacles will inevitably slow down the pace, but such a layout should be limited to a small proportion of the whole course (refer to Annex 7 – Open Multiple Obstacles for the dimensions of Multiple Obstacles).

Reason for change

The objectives of Competition C – Obstacle – Cone Driving – is to test the fitness, obedience and suppleness of the horses after Competition B, and the skill and competence of the Athletes(Drivers). The competition should not be dangerous for those driving 2 wheeled vehicles. Safety of the complete turnout should be taken into account especially as required speeds are increased.

9 Response(s)

  1. Candis says :

    August 4, 2013

    This change is not necessary. The TD checks the course for safety and also the degree of incline is subjective. The competitor should be quite capable of determining a safe speed.

  2. hoofnit says :

    August 6, 2013

    I disagree with this suggested change. Change of terrain can be as little as a foot and someone will complain that the course is not legal. Allow the TD and Course Designer to provide the safest and most challenging course with the available space.

  3. Ted Campbell says :

    August 6, 2013

    I disagree with the proposed change.

  4. Zantke says :

    August 21, 2013

    I do not support this RCS a) for reasons as outlined above by the previous comments and b) as this would also be a change to the FEI rule, which is not within our jurisdiction, so would need to be an ADS exception, which I think is not warranted.
    hardy

  5. keithy says :

    August 22, 2013

    I do not support this change.
    For the reasons stated above.

  6. daves says :

    August 25, 2013

    I do not support this change for reasons stated above.

  7. cepinwv says :

    August 26, 2013

    Disagree with change. Allow common sense of the officials to make adjustments when needed instead of dictating it for situations that don’t need it.

    1. RhinehartM says :

      August 30, 2013

      Unfortunately, there already have been devastating results of officials not making adjustments to these situations. That is exactly why this RCS is being presented. A major accident was caused by such a situation as having a “gate” on a hill in a cones course. I would rather place burden on course designers than on the drivers recovering in the hospital, where this proposal was probably drafted.

  8. wgallen says :

    August 28, 2013

    I disagree with this proposal. While I understand and sympathize with the
    reasoning, I think it places an undue burden on course designers. Better to
    discuss this in the information provided to course designers.

Comments are closed.