KICK THAT OUT

should be a formality

no chance

agree i backed both but incrdible inteference almost cost them both the race

whats your resoning Eddie ?

2 lots of interferance!!!!

drifted across but won on merit

from the furlong pole to the finish that creature of Baldings was happy to lie up against always trying horse

should only take a couple of mins, they will all want to go home. Mymatechris promoted to the winner

kick it out

yes but if the second stayed on a true line it won easily - so it was heavily impaired - regardless of how the winner won .. but interesting theory

drifted across but won on merit

could only win by continually interfering with the second, is that you mean by winning on merit?

never had to stop rding

Has to go. Cant blame the horse, but don't think the jockey did all to correct and the margin was so small at the end

if johnstons stayed straight it would have still beaten it

In USA, that would take 10 secs
In France, 1 min
In Ireland, 3 mins
In UK ?????

what was he supposed to do with it Flagship, catch it by the ears, its still only a horse with 2 runs previously

Jockey did everything he had to,put both hands back on the reins. Whether he keeps it I don't know,but jock did nothing wrong

margin was the same a furlong down as it was near the line imo

maybe if they were 2 year olds - result stands - does that come into equation ?

how the fck can it possibly keep it??? the drift is worrying now 

Stewards market tightening up... I want it reversed.

reversed

13 mins to reverse the result. What on earth were they talking about, what they were having for tea?

wot a fecking joke

what a squeeze!!

can someone help me out here, i had £25 on mymatechris 2/1, only been paid out £37.50, is that right?

never had to stop rding

eddy, I've seen that argument put up before.

Why does that matter if the second has lost ground by being prevented from taking the racing line due to the antics of the first past the post?

Are you saying that if horse A (winner) causes horse B (2nd) to run 10 wide round Chester and beats it a head, it should be allowed to keep the race because the jock on the 2nd never stopped riding having been  alongside the hanging winner all the way round?

Who was that bet with?

It has been settled as a Dead-Heat.

been posted as a dead heat? that's turd that. bet was with willhill

. INTERFERENCE IN RACES -
RULES (B)53 - (B)55
INTERFERENCE PROCEDURE TO BE FOLLOWED AFTER
HEARING THE EVIDENCE
After the riders have left the room, the Chairman or Stipendiary Steward will ask the
following questions of the Panel:
2
Was there interference?
If the answer is
NO
the enquiry should be closed. If
YES
2
Who caused it?
If it cannot be established who caused it, the enquiry should be closed and the
appropriate notice issued. If the cause is established:
2
THE STIPENDIARY STEWARD WILL SUM UP.
It should then be established whether the interference was
serious
by asking the
following question:
2
Was the nature of the incident such as to place in serious jeopardy the safety of
any horse or rider?
If
YES
, the Chairman or Stipendiary Steward should start at the top category and work
down the left-hand side (the ‘definitions’) bearing in mind that a decision should be
reached on the balance of probabilities and if the Panel is having difficulty reaching
agreement he will move on to the next category. The Panel should only refer to the right-
hand side (the ‘examples’) after agreement has been reached on the category of
interference.
If
NO
, the Panel should consider the placings by proceeding to the section headed
‘Determining the Result Following Interference’ on pages 16 and 17 before returning to
Careless Riding.
INTERFERENCE
14.
CATEGORY AND DEFINITION
EXAMPLES
(These are the more common examples of interference
but they are by no means exhaustive)
1. FOR DANGEROUS RIDING THE RIDER MUST CAUSE SERIOUS INTERFERENCE. SERIOUS
INTERFERENCE IS WHEN INTERFERENCE CAUSES A HORSE AND/OR RIDER TO FALL OR
VERY NEARLY FALL OR THE HORSE IS SEVERELY HAMPERED EG. UP AGAINST THE
RUNNING RAIL, OR IS PUSHED OR NEARLY PUSHED OFF THE COURSE.
WAS IT DANGEROUS RIDING?
A rider is guilty of Dangerous Riding
if he
causes serious interference by:
a) purposely interfering with another
horse or rider
or
b) riding in a way which is far below that
of a competent and careful rider and
where it would be obvious to such a
competent and careful rider that riding
in that way was likely to endanger the
safety of a horse or rider.
RIDER CAUSES SERIOUS INTERFERENCE BY:
a) Riding across to prevent a horse from going ‘up the
inner’.
b) Attempting to force a horse off the track eg. at the
wing of a fence.
c) Deliberately barging his way between two horses.
d) Persistently attempting to get past any horse when
there is insufficient room.
e) Failing for a sustained period of time to take
corrective action.
f) Intentionally striking another horse or rider.
g) Manoeuvring/changing direction, suddenly or
gradually (particularly on to the rail)
If the rider is guilty of Dangerous Riding the horse must be disqualified.
Advice to Stewards
There are two parts to Dangerous Riding. Firstly, there has to be serious interference but this is not enough
on its own to warrant a breach of Dangerous Riding - serious interference can be caused by Careless
Riding or can even be Accidental. The second part relates to the culpability of the rider in terms of his riding
- see 1a) and b) and the examples a) to g) in the righthand column.
IF YOU ARE SATISFIED THAT THE INTERFERENCE IS NOT DANGEROUS YOU SHOULD PROCEED
TO THE SECTION HEADED ‘DETERMINING THE RESULT FOLLOWING INTERFERENCE’ ON
PAGES 16 AND 17 TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE PLACINGS NEED TO BE ALTERED. HAVING
COME TO A DECISION ON PLACINGS, WHICH SHOULD BE IMMEDIATELY ANNOUNCED, YOU
SHOULD REVERT BACK TO DECIDE ON THE CATEGORY OF INTERFERENCE.
2. FOR CARELESS RIDING THE RIDER USUALLY CAUSES INTERFERENCE OF A LESS SERIOUS
NATURE BY FAILING TO TAKE CORRECTIVE ACTION OR BY MISJUDGEMENT, INCLUDING A
MANOEUVRE.
WAS IT CARELESS RIDING?
A rider is guilty of Careless Riding
if he fails to take reasonable steps to avoid
causing interference or causes
interference by inattention or
misjudgement, including when
manoeuvring for position.
a) Horse drifts into another without rider straightening
it up, either by switching his whip, or, if that is
insufficient, by using his reins.
b) Horse hangs into the whip but the rider does not
take sufficient action to straighten it up.
c) Horse hangs in on bend without rider taking any
action.
d) Rider manoeuvres/changes direction, causing
another rider to be moved off his intended line or to
take evasive action.
e) Rider pushes through, thereby creating a gap or
widening an existing gap which never looked like
being big enough
f) Rider moves across to the rails at the start causing
interference.
g) Rider unintentionally strikes another horse or rider
but should have moderated his use of the whip
because of the close proximity of another horse or
rider.*
* see page 29
- striking horses or riders with whip.
Advice to Stewards
Demotion only occurs if the horse causing the interference has improved its placing as a result of that interference
15.
3. FOR IMPROPER RIDING THE RIDER INTENTIONALLY INTERFERES WITH OR STRIKES
ANOTHER HORSE OR RIDER WITHOUT CAUSING SERIOUS INTERFERENCE. THE
INTERFERENCE IS NOT INTENDED TO IMPROVE THE INTERFERER’S PERFORMANCE BUT
RATHER TO AFFECT THE PERFORMANCE OF THE SUFFERER.
WAS IT IMPROPER RIDING?
A rider is guilty of Improper Riding if he
intentionally strikes other riders or horses
and may also include other forms of
misconduct in the course of riding such as
riding that would be dangerous but for the
fact that it did not cause serious
interference.
a) Rider intentionally interferes with another horse or
rider but not with the intention of improving his own
position.
b) Rider intentionally rides across to cause
interference,
c) Rider intentionally strikes another horse or rider.*
d) Rider intentionally attempts to interfere with or
strike another horse or rider with his whip.*
e) Rider rides dangerously but does not cause serious
interference eg. rider moves a considerable
distance across the course at the start.
* see page 29
- striking horses or riders with whip.
Advice to Stewards
This category is to be used where you are satisfied that the interference was caused by some culpable
misconduct by the rider which was neither Dangerous nor Careless Riding and may include intentional
interference and striking other riders or horses when riding that would be dangerous but for the fact that it
did not cause serious interference. Demotion only occurs if the horse causing the interference has
improved its placings as a result of that interference.
4. FOR ACCIDENTAL THE RIDER WILL HAVE BEEN TAKING REASONABLE STEPS TO PREVENT
THE INTERFERENCE FROM OCCURRING OR THE INTERFERENCE WILL HAVE BEEN DUE TO
CIRCUMSTANCES BEYOND THE RIDER’S CONTROL.
WAS IT ACCIDENTAL?
a) Horse hangs without warning.
b) Horse continues to hang despite rider’s best efforts
to prevent it.
c) Horse runs down an obstacle without warning
The interference can probably be regarded as accidental but the following must still be asked:-
Was the rider taking reasonable steps to prevent the interference from occurring?
Was the interference due to circumstances beyond the rider’s control?
If the answer to both questions is
NO,
probably a riding offence has been committed and therefore go back
to question 2. If the answer to either question is
YES,
the interference must be regarded as accidental.
Advice to Stewards
Demotion only occurs if the horse causing the interference has improved its placing as a result of that
interference.
NOTE: It s
hould be remembered that being taken off one’s
intended line (intimi
dation) constitutes
interference. It follows that there does not have
to be physical contact for interference to occur.
To conclude the enquiry the Chairman must complete the Aide Memoire and read it out to the riders.
INTERFERENCE
16.
DETERMINING THE RESULT FOLLOWING INTERFERENCE
One of the most difficult and contentious decisions a Panel has to make is to determine
the result following interference. If the Panel considers that interference might have
affected the result ie. the interferer might have improved his placing as a result of the
interference, an enquiry must be called under Rule (B)11.6 which has the effect of
freezing the ‘payout’ until the Panel has come to its conclusion.
THE STEWARDS HAVE TO DECIDE WHETHER THE SUFFERER WOULD HAVE
BEATEN THE INTERFERER BUT FOR THE INTERFERENCE.
There are a series of factors to take into account. The questions (below) and Guiding
Principles (opposite) provide a framework within which the Panel work in order to come to
their decision. They do not provide the answer but try to ensure that the Panel addresses
the correct questions when making a decision.
The Panel should ask themselves the following questions, being mindful of the relevant
Guiding Principles:
1. Where did the incident take place in relation to the winning post?
2. How were the horses involved in the interference going at the time of the
incident?
3. How serious was the interference ie. how much momentum did the sufferer
lose and/or how much ground was lost?
4. If the sufferer had had an uninterrupted run to the line,
might it have finished in
front of the interferer?
If NO - order placings to remain unaltered
If YES ie there is some doubt - proceed to question 5.
5. How easily did the interferer beat the sufferer?
Having considered those factors relevant to the incident in question, if the Panel is
satisfied that on the balance of probabilities the interference did improve the placing of
the interferer in relation to the sufferer(s), the placings must be altered. Otherwise, the
placings must remain unaltered.
Generally speaking, the longer the Panel discusses
whether the placings should be altered, the less likely it is that they should be. If
the Panel is unable to conclude one way or the other, the result should stand.
After reaching a decision on placings, which should be announced immediately, turn back
to Careless Riding in order to continue your deliberations on the category of Interference.
Remember:
in amending the placings you are demoting the interferer not promoting
the sufferer.
17.
GUIDING PRINCIPLES
a) Dangerous Riding - the placing(s) must be altered as the interferer must be
disqualified.
b) Careless, Improper or Accidental - if the Panel is satisfied that the interference
improved the placing of the horse causing it, the placings must be altered.
c) The benefit of doubt should go to the horse which finished in front.
d) The Panel should have in mind that interference is likely to have impeded the sufferer
to some degree and therefore a reversal of placings is more likely to follow where
there is only a nose between the horses.
e) The further away from the winning post that the incident occurs, the less likely it is that
the result should be changed.
f) The Panel must make allowance for the momentum and ground lost by the sufferer by
imagining that it had an uninterrupted run to the line.
g) The Panel must
NOT
make an allowance for any effect on the horse causing the
interference.
h) The Panel must take into account the ease with which the interferer beat the sufferer.
i) If a horse is carried off its intended line, the effect will vary depending on the distance
from the winning post

many sites such as attheraces confirming mymatechirs won by a hd with the decision getting turned around. special fighter confirmed second? can't i challenge this?

18.
INTERFERENCE OPTIONS
INTERFERENCE
DANGEROUS
Horse
MUST
be disqualified
Rider guilty of an offence.
(See page 21 - 23)
CARELESS .
.......
OR
IMPROPER
For the effect on the
placing of the
HORSE
follow flowchart as for a
finding of
ACCIDENTAL
*HORSE . .
.......................
If not satisfied that the
interference improved the
placing of the horse
causing it
Order placing to remain
unaltered
ACCIDENTAL
If satisfied that the interference
improved the placing of the
horse causing it
The horse causing the
interference
MUST
be placed
behind horse(s) with which it
interfered
If Accidental, no offence committed by rider
*Where in cases of Careless or Improper Riding or Accidental Interference more than one horse is interfered with either in turn as a result of the same oc
currence or simultaneously, each is a separate incident by the horse causing the

Dyso, unless you're on the wind up, of course you can, and should, challenge it. Your horse won, you should get £75 back, there's no argument about it at all.

This was the right decision but you have to laugh when they let Elusive Kate keep the Falmouth against Sky Lantern when doing basically the same thing.

I layed the eventual winner (although only for a fiver) but then went in with £100 on the outcome of the enquiry, as  whilst the first past the post (FPTP) almost threw away any chance of winning, it did so of its own accord but shouldn't be allowed to reduce another runner's chance of winning and had the original 2nd been the other side of the FPTP, then the FPTP would have lost far more ground than it "won" by or if the original 2nd had been able to switch round the FPTP earlier on, then that one could have kept straight whilst the FPTP carried on drifting.

Just because we are so used to seeing stewards make numerous poor decisions is these kind of circumstances in the past, it then becomes a bit of a shock to some when they get it right for a change.

Sorry - ima_mazed66     - But ...

Having given up - two-thirds way through your... "other side.... If," analysis  -

- I can only post ....

'If my Aunt had a pair of balls, then she would be my uncle'..

Yes of course she would onlooker but then again what exactly do you think they consider in a stewards enquiry if not what might or might not have happened if such and such a thing that did actually happen had not done so?

When a defender in football fouls a forward clear on goal with only the keeper to beat then do you not think they have to weigh up what might have happened if that defender had not committed the foul when deciding whether to send the defender off? If something would normally have happened but didn't then "what if" scenarios are exactly what is used to arrive at a decision.

It's patently obvious that the FPTP covered more ground then it needed to when it drifted but as I've already said, it did so of its own accord so that's just too bad. The original 2nd also covered more ground than it needed to but it wasn't of its own accord so you then ask would it have won if allowed to keep straight? One way of answering that is to ask what if it had been racing on the other side of the winner and the answer then is yes of course it would have been allowed to keep straight.

Do you not also think that the odd jockey might argue his case in the stewards room by saying if the other horse had not forced carried him over, if he had been allowed to keep a straight and if he could have ridden his finish as he wanted to then he feels he would have won?

Unless you do away with enquiries completely then you re always going to have to ponder what ifs to help you come to an outcome...I also ask myself what if you had not given up two-thirds way through?

ima, don't disagree with what you saying about the Falmouth. Though was staggered to calculate (according to Pythagoras) that Sky Lantern lost no more than 13-14 inches ...... a shade less than the nk she was beaten by.

Obviously doesn't factor in the intimidation element and whether that also hampers the efforts of the runner-up

Yes that's entirely true pedrobob and if the interfered horse holds its ground then there will be a collision and then if that horse still finishes 2nd then no doubt you get the clinched "six of one and half a dozen of the other" and "the best horse still won" lines just for good measure.

Sky Lantern that day shied off a true line from the intimidation so as not to cause a collision and her jockey also had to change whip hands that affected how he rode his finish too and with none of that happening almost certainly would have won.