Judge calls PHOTO WRONG ... What do YOU think?

in both pics  - the far side one seems to have a nose that disappears, poor quality photo

Never ever trusted photos..i know a few have been overturned/reversed in the past..

Never ever trusted photos..i know a few have been overturned/reversed in the past..

Never ever trusted photos..i know a few have been overturned/reversed in the past..

Never ever trusted photos..i know a few have been overturned/reversed in the past..

Never ever trusted photos..i know a few have been overturned/reversed in the past..

what the hell happened there?

did you fall asleep on the return button ?

i dont know but i have a feeling he may never have trusted photos

"Never ever trusted photos..i know a few have been overturned/reversed in the past."

Pressure from Shafty&co

Was sneezing...


BHA Adds Result Verification Procedure
Thursday, July 5, 2018 at 6:25 am | Back to: Europe, Shared News
Previous Story | Next Story
The British Horseracing Authority has instituted an additional results verification procedure after a wrong result was posted at Kempton in March. In that instance, an official result was later reversed after a photo finish was more closely examined and the result found to be incorrect.

The process, which has been trialled extensively since March, means that an additional line of verification is now in place before the ‘weighed in’ signal is given, whereby the stipendiary stewards on duty are required to verify the finishing order of the winning and placed horses. Should there be a query, a signal is given to the judge on duty to revisit the result until there is agreement between both parties, in which case the provisional result may be amended if it has been given.

Brant Dunshea, chief regulatory officer of the BHA, said, “Although the initial situation which caused us to look into results verification was disappointing, the outcome whereby all those affected by the result of a race can have increased confidence in its accuracy is a positive one. I’d like to thank all those who have been involved in the process both within the BHA and externally for their assistance in completing this project, which is now in place for all races run in Great Britain.”


Some real clever shoites on here.

Anybody want to put sunglass man up again.?...?

VISIONARY THREAD

The FORUM strike again !

Okay we accept that mistakes can be made, after all we're all only human.

Jockeys mistake winning post & get a lengthy ban, how long ban will the incompetent judge be given? (and will he be warned to his future conduct?)

Short delay to next race - Judge nipping out to Specsavers

Judge is probably studying the photo for the current race, taken as they passed the post for the first time!

Should have used VAR

Here is the Judge.

[   This image is no longer available.   ]

stewards & judges bar closed till 5pm

Was it Felix Wheeler? Surely a long ban if so (he has previous)

Judge: Paul Champion.

So why do we have two winning posts any way and why not put a cover on the one that isn’t used

Thanks

Because, Doncaster, those things are too obvious. We Brits like to be difficult!

LAdbrokes & Betway paying out on both results

even worse for my L31

1 loser, 7/1 winner 5/1 winner ami to come at 5/1 bog and time for rosie 12/1 would have been arghhhhh :(

365 arent :(

typical

I wonder if it had been a short head win for OFR whether the "mistake" would ever have been noticed

365 might be about to payout, the place money has gone and bet now as unsettled :)

skybet paid out

bet 365 paid out too :)

got an ew L31

12/1 7/1 5/1 winners and a loser and ami in next at sandown 5/1

obv the above all bog prices :)

Good luck MaleUK!

bugger

50p ew L31 so £31 paid £470, but would have been over £2,500 :(

thats racing.

Does anybody know which firms paid out on both results?

should stop boys being stewards
and judge being on the drink
what a mess

I think that Bookies should not pay out until 'Weighed in' is announced'

Surely was going to happen sometime.

It was the only race I saw live today as I was visiting my son who is a rugby fan. I marked off Third Wind as winner in my RP and could not believe the call from the judge. It was only later that I read what happened. What puzzles me is why the camera on the first line was switched on?
I have very good reason to hate those two posts. I once owned a share in a horse called Jefferies who passed the first post a half length up and then pulled himself up despite the frantic effort of Norman Williamson to keep him going. He was beaten a short head at the second post. I laugh when I read that horses don't know where the line is. Of course they do if they have run a few times. It is where the jockey stops riding them out and using the whip!

sageform
Absolutely, why was the camera on the chase course switched on?  That camera was useless until the chase at 3.35.

With regard to the mistake at Sandown, the steward said the judge was handed the wrong picture and wasn't to know it was taken on the wrong finishing line.

It was only when someone queried the winning distance of a neck that the error was spotted, fortunately the camera on the right line had operated as well and they were able to see who had won.

Are Betfair paying on One for Rosie ? As I had my winnings paid then withdrawn.If they are advertising this and not returning payment that is a disgrace.

Betfair Exchange wont be obviously...dont know whether Betfair Sportsbook is

Been to Sandown many times and have often commented on the ludicrous 2 winning posts. Why the hell haven;t they solved the problem years ago ? It is so simple, just cover the one that doesn't apply toa particular race. Sandown have been so stupid about this for years and I have known many people asking which post is it this time?  Shambolic amateurism. This time their own officials who must know the score cocked it up, but htey have arrogantly let punters at the course feel confused as long as I can remember.

Dr Crippen, The Judge should only be observing the correct winning line to determine the result.  I suggest he/she was & declaring a photo on the correct winning line & given evidence from the photo finish line from the chase course.

No excuse for having both cameras live but I suppose the system has worked for years do they didn't change it. It is still unfair on riders and horses though.

I think that what happened saxon farm.

The two winning posts system has created similar problems in the past.
Now they move a lollipop post to the correct one so the jockeys can easily tell which one is the finish, apparently.

But while it's possible to make mistakes they will keep happening.

It reflects very poorly on the people who run the racecourse.

It is not unfair on riders. Every self respecting jockey would understand the idiosyncrasies of the National Hunt courses at Sandown Park, especially their finishing lines. 

sageform, no horse or rider has been treated unfairly.

2nd owner: Miss S Blumberg

PompeyMike     09 Mar 19 20:02 

Been to Sandown many times and have often commented on the ludicrous 2 winning posts. Why the hell haven;t they solved the problem years ago ? It is so simple, just cover the one that doesn't apply to a particular race.
--------------

WHY the NEED for TWO Winning POSTS ? - in the first place ... Totally UNNECESSARY.

They cannot claim it is so the RACE DISTANCE is CORRECT  - Because ALL Racecourses have since been RE-MEASURED - Resulting in all sorts of DAFT DISTANCES ...

Those Race DISTANCES are then further ALTERED with continual RAILS MOVEMENTS - meaning Clerks of the Course then DECLARE DIFFERENT RACE  DISTANCES to those advertised.

All that they need is JUST ONE Winning POST.

Finally, about 3 hours after others,Billy's agreed to pay out on both horses.

billys have always paid double result, first past the first post & first past the second

was it ever first past the post?

it just seems its a given, that when things like this happen the books will pay. i dont think they had any reason to pay out on the both today, it was hardly under the FPTP concession. good on them for doing so and good luck to those who got paid on the wrong winner but a bit harsh to have a dig imo

corals paid out on two results.
sad to say a regular customer was out of the door  faster than  mr bolt as I paid him out 36.00
before the   change of result was noted .
Ronnie.

if it wasnt the week before Cheltenham i doubt as many would have paid both, maybe wrong.

at the end of the day it was nowt to do with them

bit cheeky expecting to get paid out on One for Rosie.  It didn't win ...

Dealer
sad to say for the books this year I think they will cut each others throats with all the giveways

Ronnie.

its madness Ronnie and for me get rid of them all,including double result and BOG and lay a guaranteed minimum stake to everyone

sorry should be a minimum takeout

hulk
paid out over 300.00 on the second horse  yes second horse I want a hours overtime the riot squad and swat police turn up NO RONNIE YOU CAN NOT HAVE A HOURS OVERTIME .
regards
Ronnie.

All that they need is JUST ONE Winning POST.

says onlooker

onlooker, the winning line has nothing to do with your bumptious remeasuring assumptions. Rail movements etc are irrelevant to determine a winning line.

The reason for the different winning lines comes from elementary trigonometry.

onlooker, I enjoy reading your posts on these pages, but you’ve got the the wrong angle on this one.

The two winning posts at Sandown are nothing to do with race distances. They're necessary because the straight on the hurdles/flat course is at a completely different angle to the one on the chase course, so you need two mirrors set at different angles.

There was talk, about 15 years ago, of putting a single winning post on some kind of motorized rail to solve the problem, but nothing seems to have come of it. Quite right too. The two finishing lines at Sandown is one of those little traditional quirks which I like about horse racing.

Sandown still can't compete with Maisons-Laffitte though, which has three winning posts, despite having just the single straight. If only they'd used the first one when Brian Swift sent the 5-furlong specialist Prince Sabo over for the Prix Robert Papin (5.5 furlongs) in 1984.

Or what saxon farm said ...

screaming
Intriguing and interesting, I will enjoy delving into the intricacies of Maisons-Lafitte.

Fair enough - boys

I accept your alternative views - as it explains the rationale.

You also mention Maisons-Lafitte - which prompts the thought - are there not differing Winning Posts at Longchamp, too?

I've been an Annual Member at Sandown since 1994. They move the red disk as appropriate for hurdle or chase races and from the way that they rode out the finish at least the jockeys knew where the correct finish post was.

From the explanation given by Hudson RaceTech are responsible for the shambles. However,the Stewards are culpable in not announcing an enquiry and no
explanation was given as to what was going on and they simply announced an amended result.

One bookmaker was heard complaining that he'd paid out two Grand on One for Rosie. Will the bookmakers be compensated and by whom or will they be told that it's their tough luck for paying out before the Weighed-in was called?

I saw 2 guys searching through a bin for their discarded ticket. There's a lesson there for them.

And Chantilly if memory serves.

Send either the hurdlers or the chasers round a bend after they've jumped the last - like they do at Fontwell over the fences - so they allign with the other course and then they only need one winning post. Has that bend after the last fence at Fontwell always been as pronounced as that? I don't remember it being like that when I was young, ie 80's.

It begs the question, if there are two photos, which image is used to determine the result? Obviously most results are clear, but what about the ones where there's a pixel in it. I'd find it hard to believe that two different cameras capture exactly the same image every time.

"No blame attached to the judge" says the steward. So you watch the finish of a race that is obviously a nose or a short head at most, but get handed a photo showing a long neck between the two horses, but don't realise there's something wrong with that? If they'd put that picture up as the freeze frame on TV, we'd all have known it wasn't right.

Second point, given he was using a photo showing a neck between the two horses, why did it take so long to announce the 'wrong' result in the first place?

Third point - the set-up of the hurdle and chase courses at Leicester is almost indentical to Sandown, as can be clearly seen on any head on shot of the finish of a chase shown there. Leicester used to have two winning posts, same as Sandown, but the arrangement was dropped after a mistake and they now have only one post. I haven't heard a single complaint anywhere about the apparent 'unfairness' of this.

The course is a lot narrower at the finish at Leicester. At Sandown I'd guess there'd be such a disadvantage to the horse finishing on the "wrong" side in a close finish that you'd get a load of complaints about clearly beaten horses being placed first if there were just a single winning post.

If they'd put that picture up as the freeze frame on TV, we'd all have known it wasn't right.

They did show it on RTV - no one on this forum posted that it was wrong.  I just assumed that the two noses close to the line were different horses and not the same in a mirror image and thought "dead heat surely?".  Though obviously me half glancing at a poor quality image is quite different to a judge looking at a better image and identifying the horses.

Does anyone know if there are two judges boxes at sandown?

One thing is fair play to the books who paid out on both. I backed Rosie and in no way expected to get paid. Never won the race in any form.

One thing is fair play to the books who paid out on both. I backed Rosie and in no way expected to get paid. Never won the race in any form.

They paid both horses because they didn't want to force staff to ask for the "winners" to repay and lose customers who refused or lose customers who would simply never return to the shop.

Dave,

I think you've misunderstood what I was getting at - I meant if they'd showed the picture from the chase winning post, in which there's a neck between the two horses, on TV seconds after the race ended. My point being that the judge should have known automatically that he wasn't looking at a picture of the actual finish of the race.

To be fair to the judge, it's not just the first past the post he's supposed to be watching. He also has to ensure everything else is placed in the correct order. (There was prize money down to eighth in this race.)

the funniest thing of the year lasted 30 seconds till beaten by mr dennis saying he,d paid out 10 grand on wrong result , must have been all them female 2 quid punters

never got mentioned but I think twister did mistake the winning posts and made an unnatural lunge at the 1st [ wrong ] winning post,didnt Jacob in last yeaRS BET 365,GET MIXED UP with winning posts thought he,d won half a length but that was hurdle winning post
can understand the chase argument but why cant the hurdle races just finish at the chase winning post
Longchamp has 2 winning posts and a false straight whatever that is

and paddy brennan was pulling up after the chase winning post

was there a headwind at sandown yesterday Lydia didn't mention it

Delta going back to Jefferies, the official ownership was Miss S Blumberg 75%, Mr J M Sage 25% which appeared in the racecard but not in the RP who in those days hardly ever put 2 or more owner names. The colours were mine but as I didn't have another horse at the time and Sarah's dad, Bob decided to run it in her name, they adopted the colours which were subsequently carried by Freetown when he won the Pertemps at the Festival trained by Len Lungo. Sadly I didn't have a share in that one.

What I can't understand is...did the photo judge not watch the race? If I was the photo judge and watched the race and then someone hands me that first photo I would obviously know summat aint right here!...Unbelievable!!!

totally believable, given a print of the finish he judged on it which is what he's dome a thousand times before, he's probably never had to guess whether it's from the right finish line previously

they got lucky, what would have happened if it was a nose either way in both photo,s, allegedly connections were only made aware by a pro punter pointing it out
still don't understand why 2 photo,s were taken,presumably 2 different people set up the photo system at the same time, not sure on how it works but presumably if you go past a winning post 3 times it doesn't take photo,s every time

my understanding

2 finish posts, 2 cameras, both cameras should point at the finish line in use, yesterday for that race there was one pointing at each in error, wrong image sent to judge

if the 2nd had won at the  2nd winning post would we have even heard about it

Irrespective of the above, it is sheer MADNESS to have 2 winning posts, adjust anything else but there can only be one winning post..


On another point how many HONEST punters returned their WINNINGS, so much for honesty, how would you like to be the on track bookie ??


Yes some of them paid out early, no doubt to HELP the punter also to start taking bets on the next race, before you all shout I know they should of waited, but...

As I say there must be only one winning post, then there is no problem[s] imo…





A

probably the same amount as bookies who seek out owners of winning tkts left in the hod

I am beginning to get a handle on the technical bit. There are 2 finish lines and therefore 2 mirrors but only one camera position (whether or not there is a second back up camera in the same place) so surely both cameras should have been pointed at the second mirror?

yes, both cameras should have been pointing at same line, judge said racetech error as they failed to check that they were set correctly

that was were the steward tried to lay the blame but lydia was pushing as to why if they'd seen the race the error wasn't picked up before a result was called as clearly it was the wrong image, his only saving grace was they got it before weighed in, however as above some bookies paid on the incorrect photo announcement

The ultimate insult: RTV calling your outfit amateurish and shambolic.

Matt Chapman great question just now on SSR debate, KB sensibly saying lots & nothing at same time

BHA statement regarding the result of the 1:50pm at Sandown

The incorrect result was initially given in the 1.50pm at Sandown this afternoon announcing One For Rosie as the winner. The photo finish image that was sent to the Judge, and then subsequently to the Stewards, by the racecourse photo finish operator was from a camera which had been left  focused on the winning line for the chase course.

There are two cameras in operation, a primary and a secondary, which were tested by the operator as part of routine pre-race checks on both winning lines prior to racing. The primary camera was then not correctly re-aligned to focus on the winning line for the hurdles course.

An initial provisional result was given, shortly after which it was picked up through additional verification procedures by the Judge that the wrong image had been sent by the racecourse photo finish operator.

The result was then corrected to announce Third Wind as the winner, prior to the “weighed in” signal being given and the result becoming official.

Although the result is only official once the “weighed in” signal is given and the result was corrected prior to this, we are aware of the impact this will have on those bookmakers who settle bets based on the “fast” unofficial result, which is the one initially announced.

We will be investigating this incident thoroughly as a matter of priority to understand all of the circumstances involved, this will include engagement with the external racecourse contractors who operate the photo finish system.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I trust this will include you taking punitive measures after you have thoroughly investigated this fiasco including against yourselves - as you MUST be in some part responsible - just like you ALWAYS punish trainers & jockeys when they are in the wrong (however inadvertently).