RCP2015#91 – Mention Advanced Division in AT & DT events (was #74)

2015 RCS #
91 (was 74, split into 91 & 92)
Summary
Mention Advanced Division in AT & DT events
Date Received
04Aug14
Proponent
Combined Driving Committee
Change Date
2015
Status
Open for comments – 25Aug14; Recommended for approval 14Oct14; BOD APPROVED 23Oct14
Activity
Initial Posting: 25Aug14

Current Wording – CD-Article 987 Composition of the Ground Jury

1 .4 …

For ADS-recognized events, the minimum number of officials depends on the event type (CDE, DT, AT) total number of competitors entered in the event and divisions offered (Training, Preliminary, Intermediate or ADS-Advanced (name change to Intermediate-II effective 01Jan15). (See Appendix CD-H.)

Proposed Wording – CD-Article 987 Composition of the Ground Jury

1 .4 …

For ADS-recognized events, the minimum number of officials depends on the event type (CDE, DT, AT) total number of competitors entered in the event and divisions offered (Training, Preliminary, Intermediate  or Advanced (DT or AT) or Intermediate-II (CDE). (See Appendix CD-H.)

Reason for change

Mention Advanced division in AT and DT events

6 Response(s)

  1. KYutzy says :

    July 20, 2014

    The word “Advanced” also needs to be removed as the Advanced division should be offered at only USEF or FEI sanctioned events. It was my understanding that that was one of the reasons for the division name change from ADS-Advanced to Intermediate II. If the Advanced division is not allowed in ADS CDE’s then why is the Advanced division allowed in the ADS sanctioned DT’s or ATD’s?

  2. Linda Yutzy says :

    September 17, 2014

    I agree with Keith. There is no reason to have an Advanced division at a Driving Trial or Arena Driving Trial.

  3. marc says :

    September 18, 2014

    Driving Trials have offered Advanced to moving up and schooling competitors for 14 years. Perhaps the officials and competitors accustomed to large Driving Trials would be better suited to comment on this than those that haven’t. It has to do with the market an Organizer is working with. Surely suggesting that we remove a possible competiton offering that has existed for many years, not conflicting with USEF entries or qualifications, would be a disservice to the organization.

  4. Zantke says :

    September 21, 2014

    I agree with Marc. The reason we deleted the word Advanced from CDE’s is that we need to reserve Advanced level CDE’s for USEF. But that does not apply to HDT’s, ADT’s etc, as those are not offered by USEF, so we are not taking anything away from them, but give our ADS competitors a way to also drive Advanced Dressage Tests, marathon obstacles and cones of the advanced level and specs in HDT’s and ADT’s.

  5. keithy says :

    October 4, 2014

    With the new USEF/FEI levels, reference Article 901.4, the Advanced level is now allowed in a DT style format so why not require the DT’s and ADT’s that want to offer the Advanced division to offer them under the USEF/FEI instead of ADS. The ADS should leave all Advanced level competitions to the USEF/FEI.
    Since the Advanced division is not permitted at ADS CDE’s then why should the Advanced division be permitted at ADS DT’s & ADT’s which are lower level competitions. Allowing the Advanced division at DT’s and ADT’s is what caused the creation of the Intermediate II (ADS Advanced) division in the first place because some competition offer the ADS Advanced DT along with the ADS CDE. The Intermediate II division was created to remove the Advanced division from ADS competitions and then provide an opportunity for ADS competitors to try the Advanced Dressage and Cones without having to enter a USEF/FEI event. With the Intermediate II division available, the only reason why a competition would want to offer Advanced at the DT’s & ADT’s is to have 6 gates in the marathon obstacles. With the new USEF/FEI levels, if these competitions want 6 gates in the marathon obstacles they now have that option available by becoming a USEF/FEI recognized event.

  6. marc says :

    October 21, 2014

    That’s not exactly what 901.4 says. The wording is vague, but does not specifically say that the options are the same as a driving trial. None of the options in 960 outline a single section marathon.

Comments are closed.