stewards sandown

Backed Hubert and layed it off @ 1.1, so quite happy either way.

It looks so bad if the second doesn't get it, FPP may well have held on but it was a coin flip. Benefit should be given to impeded horse

Do the rules say "benefit should be given to impeded horse"?

i concur entirely uber..

Anyone know how you can find the rules?

shoodacoodadidnt 25 Jul 19 15:15 
Do the rules say "benefit should be given to impeded horse"?


has the winner causer interference?  yes
has it cost the 2nd the race? debatable.

BHA Website

Debatable is enough for the 2nd to egt it if the rules were stated correctly

usually favour the impeded horse in tight calls but think they've got that right..his edging right ff made it look like he was closing faster than was the case...dont think he would have got there in time

https://www.britishhorseracing.com/regulation/rules-guides/

result stands

initially I thought fptp goes, but i'm not now convinced

really?

Must assume the pundits got the rules completely wrong.

is that true, it stands?

How can that possibly stand?

Yes - I think that was the right call by the rules - but don't know why they take SO long

if it stands my only thought was distance from line

BHA website shooda. In any event the stewards are only to DQ if they  think the horse causing the interference 'improved it's placing'

So the culprit gets the benefit of the doubt. Absurd!

Jul 25, 2019 -- 3:19PM, bilbobaggins wrote:

How can that possibly stand?

inept BHA-led stewarding

result stands

ta steve

I'm not complaining, i'd already given up on £1600 there

A shocking decision imo, even tho i'm grateful

I think that was the correct decision.

the stews got a nice holiday out that 1 no wonder theres a waiting list to got on the roster

well I really must say I have seen it all now. I looked at the race as if I had backed the FPTP. When the otherranged up I would have expected to lose. Little doubt in my mind the second was getting up.

enpassant 25 Jul 19 15:19 
Must assume the pundits got the rules completely wrong.


mellish had doubts whether 2nd would have won.

well you called it early slippy so wd

Well that is quite extraordinary. Well done the pundits who got it right but no other country would have upheld the result and I suspect that most UK stewards would have changed it as well.

Didn't see the stewards enquiry but did the 2nd not bump the winner into the rail 1st which caused it to lose balance and swerve off the rail.

Or was I seeing things

JUstice for Just Hubert.

My faith in stewards of making the right decision has risen exponentially.

I mean; it really is a farce trying to double guess these stewards.

It was a jink not an usual occurance, I think its the correct result personally.

w muir, other horse bumped us.

muir is lying through his back teeth here

there is no bump from the 2nd to the winner

MillionaireMaker 25 Jul 19 15:21 
Didn't see the stewards enquiry but did the 2nd not bump the winner into the rail 1st which caused it to lose balance and swerve off the rail.

Or was I seeing things

2nd did come over a few strides before but not sure that would be classed as interference lol

I agree 100% Sageform!

Joined: 10 Oct 02 | Topic/replies: 813 | Blogger: shoodacoodadidnt's blog
Yes - I think that was the right call by the rules - but don't know why they take SO long
Rate reply:
your pocket rules??

there is no doubt its the wrong decision based on 'their' rules

stewards decision hasnt suprised me..i along with plenty wasnt convince 2nd would have deffo won.

Anywhere else in the world placing reversed. Our rules almost encourage win at all cost interference..One day someone is getting to get seriously hurt or worse...

Shafty you wrote it would get disq yfdc

Jul 25, 2019 -- 3:23PM, Aladdin Sane wrote:

Anywhere else in the world placing reversed. Our rules almost encourage win at all cost interference..One day someone is getting to get seriously hurt or worse...

and sadly even then it won't change

a jockey cant help it if a horse veers alladin.

a jockey cant help it if a horse veers aladin.

Don't blame the stewards, blame the BHA for such ridiculous interference rules.

on this occasion no blame to marquand imo...horse should have been placed 2nd though

The commentators or the stewards..................have not got a scooby about the rules ? Either way, one side is incompetentt

eat more spinnach

greenteethnarrabacktroutmoy 25 Jul 19 15:05 
im not convinced 2nd would have deffo won..but as winner started moving left it made it look like 2nd was joining it...the hd on looks terrible so for that reason it gets disq..but nowt would suprised me.

Jul 25, 2019 -- 3:21PM, sageform wrote:

Well that is quite extraordinary. Well done the pundits who got it right but no other country would have upheld the result and I suspect that most UK stewards would have changed it as well.

Quite correct sageform, if that happened in America, Australia, South Africa or wherever else that would have been reversed but not in the U.K.!

But we're in good 'ol Blighty

Shafty, talk about covering your bases..

Green. Interference is interference even if it is accidental. The only relevance of what the jockey did or didn't do is whether he should get days.

The wd & dist from line probably swayed the decision but where the margin is so tight, the hampered horse should get any benefit of the doubt

But greenie, you also said


25 Jul 19 15:13
Joined: 23 Nov 02 | Topic/replies: 277 | Blogger: Uberalles's blog
It looks so bad if the second doesn't get it, FPP may well have held on but it was a coin flip. Benefit should be given to impeded horse
Rate reply:






|











greenteethnarrabacktroutmoy
25 Jul 19 15:15
Joined: 04 Jun 09 | Topic/replies: 754 | Blogger: greenteethnarrabacktroutmoy's blog
i concur entirely uber..





well done to slippyblue though, he did call it correct from the start

very rarely i doint have a strong opinion and bet on a stewards..no bet they're.

Anywhere else in the World it would. wesdaq, but not here!

post ya no bet
tar

correct james..it looked terrible on the hd on..but i wasnt convinced 2nd would have won.

Horse Racing: £143.21  Total P&L:  £143.21

Horse Racing    Showing 1 - 7 of 7 markets
Market    Start time    Settled date    Profit/loss (£)
Horse Racing / Sand 25th Jul : 1m6f Hcap    25-Jul-19 14:50    25-Jul-19 15:16    1.50
Horse Racing / Yarm 25th Jul : 1m2f Hcap    25-Jul-19 15:10    25-Jul-19 15:13    34.51
Horse Racing / Yarm 25th Jul : 6f Nov Stks    25-Jul-19 14:35    25-Jul-19 14:43    29.18
Horse Racing / Sand 25th Jul : 7f Listed    25-Jul-19 14:15    25-Jul-19 14:22    2.32
Horse Racing / Yarm 25th Jul : 6f Hcap    25-Jul-19 14:05    25-Jul-19 14:14    56.43
Horse Racing / Sand 25th Jul : 7f Mdn Stks    25-Jul-19 13:45    25-Jul-19 13:48    7.71
Horse Racing / Sthl 25th Jul : 2m4f Mdn Hrd    25-Jul-19 13:30    25-Jul-19 13:37    11.56

won a nicker delty

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 i.e. 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 i.e. 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.


For me, there was definitely enough doubt - you couldn't be SURE the 2nd would have won - therefore, it was the right decision.

Thank you to those who pointed me to the relevant site. VERY useful.

No facetime today from sandown then greenie?

also, for the person who mentioned "benefit of doubt", the guiding principle states - "d) The benefit of doubt should go to the horse which finished in front."

Jul 25, 2019 -- 3:38PM, shoodacoodadidnt wrote:

also, for the person who mentioned "benefit of doubt", the guiding principle states - "d) The benefit of doubt should go to the horse which finished in front."

Then the commentators are incompetent because they said the reverse in effect.

Currie should have made more effort the last few yards instead of just giving up to get as close as possible, correct decision for me.

Amatuer stoords making up their own interpretations

"commentators ...incompetent"? - surely not ;)

An enquiry was held to consider the placings in this race following interference on the run to the line when
the winner, JUST HUBERT (IRE), ridden by Tom Marquand, interfered with BUCKMAN TAVERN (FR),
placed second, ridden by Nicola Currie. The Stewards considered that the interference had not improved
JUST HUBERT (IRE)’s placing as although BUCKMAN TAVERN (FR) had received a significant bump the
interference had happened close to the line and it was considered that the ground lost by the gelding was
less than the half a length by which it was beaten. The interference was found to be accidental as JUST
HUBERT (IRE) had ducked quickly left-handed before being corrected by Marquand.

@ProSniper

Doesn't work like that these days AIUI?  Stewards' panel these days is one amateur and two stipendaries, and one of the stipes is the Chief Steward.  Not much scope for amateurs making up the rules I'd have thought?

Jul 25, 2019 -- 3:44PM, shoodacoodadidnt wrote:

"commentators ...incompetent"? - surely not ;)

Quite but why aren't they held to account for their ignorance of the rules ?

jamesdean 25 Jul 19 15:36 
No facetime today from sandown then greenie?


yes but still rock hard.

shooldacoodadidnt - the key word is MIGHT. It definitely might have won.

Thank you jamesdean, I did call it straight away as they crossed the line but like I said a bit earlier, only in the U.K. would that result have stood.

did u lay the 1.4 slippy?

bridgey, I was talking about the clowns on here I find it staggering that anyone could be shocked by that decision. Unless you're of the opinion that "any" type of interference from the front runner close to the finish line should go punished, that was never a 75-25 call in favor of the runner-up. I suspect most who've watched racing for years would've said the 2nd wouldn't have passed. But it's not as simple as just piling on when you believe the odds make no sense. I've said many times I don't trust those rotten stewards, so it's not worth having any financial interest on their ultimate conclusion.

I backed it , money where mouth is, great bet at 3.3 in the stewards room , great result.

Well done fireman.

chers slippy , nice when it comes off.

snipey..is 1.5 and 3 75/25 iyo?

mid 60's. When eye 1st seen odds they were 700/30 and I thought they went lower? Maybe not. Either way, to not at the very least be "50-50" was ludicrous. If any hoss deserved the odds-on it was the winner.

how much 1.5 or lower did u lay please..

eye already explained y I don't get involved in those events, thanks.

Shood thank you for reading the relevant rule. I was too lazy to do it!

snipey yfdsc..im referring to slippyblue.

In that case, I agree. Where's ya mouthy bets slippy???

What "mouthy" bets? I said the result would stand which it did, I was right.

Can you point out exactly what "mouthy" bets I said I had?

Jul 25, 2019 -- 3:01PM, SlippyBlue wrote:

Nah, that result will stand.

I posted that as they crossed the line, I was right. No mention of "mouthy" bets. Hope this helps you both.

Can ProSniper and greenteethnarrabacktroutmoy please copy and paste exactly what my "mouthy" bets were as that will certainly be news to me.

surely if you state result will stand and you're a gambler..you either bet the 2/1 or lay the 1/2?

Can you copy and paste my "mouthy" bets for me and others on the forum.

i will repost when you post them.

Calm down slippy. U seem to have taken real offence to that word mouthy? Not to worry, we'll blame it on the xtreme heat it does make people go a little nutty. I'm fine cos I've been keeping cool in a cold bath drinking lots of ice-cold water etc..

its looking like a thinly veiled did have a bet.

is ya nob went wrinkled snipey?

Nah, I always play with it or have a lil tug to keep it decent

respect.