curious ruling by the stewards - Kee 5th

[hockey2315]

You need to watch the replay again, Scav. The 10 bumped the 4 like 3 times. I'm surprised it took them that long to take him down. I bet the 9 and was kind of pissed about the DH- I could've really lucked out.

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by hockey2315

You need to watch the replay again, Scav. The 10 bumped the 4 like 3 times. I'm surprised it took them that long to take him down. I bet the 9 and was kind of pissed about the DH- I could've really lucked out.

I must be blind, I've watched that replay several times and I cannot see a single instance where they bumped.

[AeWingnut]

What have I done...

[hockey2315]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

I must be blind, I've watched that replay several times and I cannot see a single instance where they bumped.

You watch the head-on? They bumped at least once and the 10 came out on him 2 other times and may have made contact.

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by hockey2315

You watch the head-on? They bumped at least once and the 10 came out on him 2 other times and may have made contact.

no, try not watching the head-on, its misleading. they never touch.

[hockey2315]

Wouldn't the head-on be a better angle?

[Scav]

Even Chris McCarron today said it was a great acting job by Kent in the race. Now, I know he is old as hell, but surely most of you have better eyes then him. Watch the pan view FIRST, and realize HOW FAR IN FRONT the 10 was on the 4, AND THEN watch the head on, and don't watch the 10 on the head on, watch the acting job from Kent on the 4, great jerking the head.

I again say, it is was so obvious, like most here are saying, where was the STEWARDS INQUIRY?

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by Scav

Even Chris McCarron today said it was a great acting job by Kent in the race. Now, I know he is old as hell, but surely most of you have better eyes then him. Watch the pan view FIRST, and realize HOW FAR IN FRONT the 10 was on the 4, AND THEN watch the head on, and don't watch the 10 on the head on, watch the acting job from Kent on the 4, great jerking the head.

I again say, it is was so obvious, like most here are saying, where was the STEWARDS INQUIRY?

And I again say, Kent made the objection four seconds after they hit the wire.

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by hockey2315

Wouldn't the head-on be a better angle?

the head-on is a better angle to witness the drifting, but what you're perceiving as contact is misleading because the 4 was behind the 10 when he veered out. you see the 10 veer out and the 4 reacts simultaneously so from the headon it appears as a bump.
watching the pan replay there is never a moment when there isn't clear daylight between the horses. the chart comments don't mention anything about bumping either.

[hockey2315]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

the head-on is a better angle to witness the drifting, but what you're perceiving as contact is misleading because the 4 was behind the 10 when he veered out. you see the 10 veer out and the 4 reacts simultaneously so from the headon it appears as a bump.
watching the pan replay there is never a moment when there isn't clear daylight between the horses. the chart comments don't mention anything about bumping either.

Ok - even if he didn't bump him - I think the right call was still made. He veered out pretty badly.