Saratoga 5th - No DQ?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

As DrugS has repeatedly said, she was 7 lengths behind third. She wasn't finishing any better than 4th. While I disagree with the decision, it didn't cost the 7 a placing.

In football do you think they should call pass interference if the receiver was fouled but the ball was uncatchable? If not, why not?

[Travis Stone]

Today's second race at LAD featured some young-guns who were clearly green. In the stretch, the eventual winner veered-in and interfered with the ultimate second place finisher. The winner was definitely the better horse, but was DQ'd for the infraction.

In one case it's DQing the obvious infraction, in the other it's not-DQing the obvious infraction because it affected the outcome.

I think both sides have legitimate arguments, but regardless, across the industry as a whole, the decisions should be consistent.

[CSC]

Surprised no one has mentioned this yet, but they somehow decided to take down the #4 Laylaben in the 1st race yesterday. Yes, the horse drifted out in the stretch, however with what they have been letting thus far in the meet this DQ was surprising.

[MaTH716]

Originally Posted by CSC

Surprised no one has mentioned this yet, but they somehow decided to take down the #4 Laylaben in the 1st race yesterday. Yes, the horse drifted out in the stretch, however with what they have been letting thus far in the meet this DQ was surprising.

It was actually discussed briefly in the playalong thread from yesterday.

http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/showthread.php?t=37932

[CSC]

Originally Posted by MaTH716

It was actually discussed briefly in the playalong thread from yesterday.

http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/showthread.php?t=37932

I see there was a brief discussion on it, if you watch the replay of the race in this thread and then watch the replay of the 1st yesterday, I'm sure there would be more than a little head scratching going on with this decision. I didn't have a bet on the race, but considering there was no contact with the 3rd horse and that maybe he was 50/50 to get up anyway, I don't agree with the call. To me the #4 would have won regardless. I'm sure someone will argue that it may have affected the 2nd place finish, yes I may agree there; however from what I have noticed not only in N.Y but in So Cal, they rarely seem to take exacta and tri bettors into account, I can recall a Bejarano horse staying up on an obvious foul because the horse that was interfered with was apparantly falling back even though his horse caused a chain reaction on the 2nd place horse that was gaining, there was no regard for the horse that was fouled when indeed he may have figured into the tri or super.

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by CSC

I see there was a brief discussion on it, if you watch the replay of the race in this thread and then watch the replay of the 1st yesterday, I'm sure there would be more than a little head scratching going on with this decision. I didn't have a bet on the race, but considering there was no contact with the 3rd horse and that maybe he was 50/50 to get up anyway, I don't agree with the call. To me the #4 would have won regardless. I'm sure someone will argue that it may have affected the 2nd place finish, yes I may agree there; however from what I have noticed not only in N.Y but in So Cal, they rarely seem to take exacta and tri bettors into account, I can recall a Bejarano horse staying up on an obvious foul because the horse that was interfered with was apparantly falling back even though his horse caused a chain reaction on the 2nd place horse that was gaining, there was no regard for the horse that was fouled when indeed he may have figured into the tri or super.

It would have been interesting what decision the stewards would have made had the third place finisher won the place photo rather than losing it. Since she only missed second by a nose, I think it's hard to argue with any sense of certainty that Laylaben drifting did not impact that horse's ability to achieve a maximum placing.

[CSC]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

It would have been interesting what decision the stewards would have made had the third place finisher won the place photo rather than losing it. Since she only missed second by a nose, I think it's hard to argue with any sense of certainty that Laylaben drifting did not impact that horse's ability to achieve a maximum placing.

This is a good point, however I find it interesting that stewards in general fall back on the horse interferred with was falling back and thus a DQ is not warranted. Either way it comes down to a judgment, to me if a horse is bumped hard, it inevitiably may have a significant effect on his or her performance, just because a horse doesn't run on after being bumped hard doesn't mean it could not have achieved a better placing if it hadn't. A horse could have been disinterested, nicked or knocked off stride when bumped and as I cited in the Bejarano case, the stewards guessed the horse was fading regardless and it wouldn't have figured into exotics, to me if the horse wasn't bumped it would have achieved a better placing. There doesn't seem to be any consistency with stewards lately.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

The horse that was impeded was beaten a nose for 2nd. It's not hard to figure out their decision ... two things have to happen, 1.) a foul has to take place 2.) that foul has to cost a horse a chance at a better placing.

Like Rupert said - it's a little like pass interference in football. If the contact is significant - but the ball flies 15 yards over the recievers head and lands way out of bounds - it's no flag.

[CSC]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

The horse that was impeded was beaten a nose for 2nd. It's not hard to figure out their decision ... two things have to happen, 1.) a foul has to take place 2.) that foul has to cost a horse a chance at a better placing.

Like Rupert said - it's a little like pass interference in football. If the contact is significant - but the ball flies 15 yards over the recievers head and lands way out of bounds - it's no flag.

I understand the point, and all things considered I don't disagree. The consistency issue is what I don't like. How do you determine a horse was fading only when after a horse was significantly bumped then fell back, it's like saying the bumping had absolutely no effect on a horse's desire to run or had no effect on an outcome in a race. Just as in the original post of this thread, how do the stewards know Prado's horse achieved maximum placing had it not been bumped, since we do not know for 100% certain it would have placed higher had it not been bumped so vigorously. It's like saying all horses run the same race regardless whether they are bumped or not?