Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
CONFIRMED: Horses denied a fair start in jump races will be classified as non-runners following a BHA rule change set to come into force this season
Show More
https://x.com/RacingPost/status/1970899530506813899
Horses denied a fair start in jump races will be classified as non-runners following a BHA rule change set to come into force this season.
The stewards will deem a horse a non-runner if their chance is impacted through no fault of their own and they are prevented from starting on "equal terms", such as being significantly detached or facing the wrong way when the race is started.
But horses who whip round at the start, refuse, or whose behaviour is detrimental to breaking on terms would not be classified as a non-runner.
Starts at the Cheltenham Festival came under scrutiny last season, with the Mares' Novices' Hurdle slammed as "farcical" by the owners of Maughreen after the 11-1 shot lost her chance at the beginning of the race.
The BHA pointed out, however, that under its new guidelines, announced on Wednesday, Maughreen would still be deemed a runner, as the Willie Mullins-trained six-year-old spun round when the tape was released despite having obtained a position for a fair start under Patrick Mullins.
The change is worded in the rules of racing as "when the race is started, a horse is in such a position as to be denied the opportunity of starting on equal terms". The new rule will be introduced from October 1, and is an expansion of rule(H)6 announced in May 2024, which deems any horse a non-runner if denied a fair start due to a fault in the starting stalls.
BHA head of stewarding Shaun Parker said: “This rule change provides clarity for participants and bettors, harmonising the rules in Britain across the two codes to provide greater consistency. Ultimately, this is about fairness, both for the participants and betting public, and I’m very pleased we've been able to reach this point for this reason.
“While this is a rule that has been required only around half a dozen times since its introduction in races beginning with starting stalls last year, it is clear it has been well received and that there was a desire to see this further change come about."
A horse cannot be declared a non-runner under the provisions of rule (H)6.1 if they win the race.
The stewards will deem a horse a non-runner if their chance is impacted through no fault of their own and they are prevented from starting on "equal terms", such as being significantly detached or facing the wrong way when the race is started.
But horses who whip round at the start, refuse, or whose behaviour is detrimental to breaking on terms would not be classified as a non-runner.
Starts at the Cheltenham Festival came under scrutiny last season, with the Mares' Novices' Hurdle slammed as "farcical" by the owners of Maughreen after the 11-1 shot lost her chance at the beginning of the race.
The BHA pointed out, however, that under its new guidelines, announced on Wednesday, Maughreen would still be deemed a runner, as the Willie Mullins-trained six-year-old spun round when the tape was released despite having obtained a position for a fair start under Patrick Mullins.
The change is worded in the rules of racing as "when the race is started, a horse is in such a position as to be denied the opportunity of starting on equal terms". The new rule will be introduced from October 1, and is an expansion of rule(H)6 announced in May 2024, which deems any horse a non-runner if denied a fair start due to a fault in the starting stalls.
BHA head of stewarding Shaun Parker said: “This rule change provides clarity for participants and bettors, harmonising the rules in Britain across the two codes to provide greater consistency. Ultimately, this is about fairness, both for the participants and betting public, and I’m very pleased we've been able to reach this point for this reason.
“While this is a rule that has been required only around half a dozen times since its introduction in races beginning with starting stalls last year, it is clear it has been well received and that there was a desire to see this further change come about."
A horse cannot be declared a non-runner under the provisions of rule (H)6.1 if they win the race.
First thoughts: good, about time.
Second thoughts: hold on, this will create havoc and not just for in-running players. It will not always be clear if a horse has started or will be retrospectively ruled out. They've had to explicitly rule out declaring a horse a non-runner if it wins but what if it is second or third? And surely the fact the BHA can envisage these situations shows how confusing this rule might be.
Third thoughts: more work for Betfair's computer programmers.
Second thoughts: hold on, this will create havoc and not just for in-running players. It will not always be clear if a horse has started or will be retrospectively ruled out. They've had to explicitly rule out declaring a horse a non-runner if it wins but what if it is second or third? And surely the fact the BHA can envisage these situations shows how confusing this rule might be.
Third thoughts: more work for Betfair's computer programmers.
Notonly that but each way betting will be in chaos around the8 runner mark. A horse deemed a non runner after it has run changes the qualification for place betting. Even though the horse may be placed second !! ???
Who is going to adjudge what an “unfair” start is? And when?
Maybe if they done away with the tape at the start it would be a help.They is no need for a tape at the start of a race.
Another ambiguous rule for the stewards to mess up.
Mad Moose will be smiling down from above.
Mad Moose will be smiling down from above.
Wouldn't we all like to back horses and get paid out if it wins but a refund if it loses. What if there's good prize money for finishing 2nd 3rd or fourth? A can of worms, just get the starters to do their jobs properly.
BHA head of stewarding Shaun Parker said: “This rule change provides clarity for participants and bettors
All the clarity of a bucket of mud. This is the work of someone who never bets on horse racing seriously or even watches the sport.
All the clarity of a bucket of mud. This is the work of someone who never bets on horse racing seriously or even watches the sport.
Sounds like chaos and one that will have everyone confused
Suppose you put an E/W bet on with the high street bookies
8 runners your horse finishes 3rd then they say one horse is declared a non runner
You thought you had a winning bet but no it is a loser
8 runners your horse finishes 3rd then they say one horse is declared a non runner
You thought you had a winning bet but no it is a loser
Asking the people who bet what they would prefer would be the right thing to do.
Punters, prepare for battle - BHA's new non-runner rule is a nightmare waiting to happen
The latest rule change could leave stewards in a no-win situation
author image
Chris Cook
Senior writer
Maughreen (last): her owners are not happy following the Mares' Novices' Hurdle
Maughreen (last): whipped round and lost several lengths at the start of the Mares' Novices' Hurdle at this year's Cheltenham Festival
Angels and ministers of grace, defend us from well-meaning officials trying to tidy things up. We heard on Wednesday of the latest rule change from BHA Towers, which will allow stewards to declare a horse a non-runner in a jumps race if they believe it has been denied a fair start for reasons other than its own bad behaviour.
It sounds reasonable but I suspect it will generate a quantity of ire and frustration broadly equivalent to the situation as it has existed up to now. Perhaps tempers may even flare more readily, because now it looks as though officials have accepted responsibility for a problem that is never actually going to be fixed to everyone's satisfaction.
A grim little chuckle escaped me as I read the BHA's press release. "This change provides clarity," was the beginning of a comment from Shaun Parker, head of stewarding. Oh, Shaun, how brave of you. One day, I'll write: "This article provides the winner of the Grand National," and will have a similar chance of being proved right.
The BHA gave us three examples, beautifully illustrated and described, showing how the new rule would operate. As a journalist, I'm grateful for the effort. But if that effort is necessary to help me understand it as I sit here in peace, sipping coffee and chomping doughnuts, how much harder is it going to be to explain the rule to an irate punter in the Cheltenham ring next March?
I can just see some poor betting ring manager searching through her phone for the right email so she can show said punter a picture of Maasai Mara facing the wrong way at Sandown last year. "There you are, sir. A completely different situation, I'm sure you'll agree. That one counts as a non-runner under the new rule, but yours was a runner and I'm afraid you've done your money."
Maasai Mara: 16-1 for the Boodles Juvenile Handicap Hurdle
Maasai Mara: refused to race at Sandown last year
The problem is that the rule creates a dividing line and there is going to be an element of subjectivity as to which side of the line certain cases fall. A horse is to be declared a non-runner if it is "denied a fair start, and its chances are materially affected". But a horse will still be a runner if its "own behaviour led to the horse not jumping away on terms".
The BHA cites the example of Maughreen at the Cheltenham Festival. "She was in position to obtain a fair start when the tape was released," we're told. "Maughreen then spins around after the start and the field leaves her adrift." Under the new rule, Maughreen would still be a runner and her backers would not get their stakes refunded unless bookies decide to be generous.
It will be remembered that connections of Maughreen blamed the standing start and said the starter should have let them go at the first attempt. As ever in racing, we have to argue about which problem needs solving.
For worried people like me, the BHA has some calming words. It points out an equivalent version of the new rule has been in place for races involving starting stalls since May 2024. In 16 months, it has been used "around half a dozen times".
In other words, it's a rule that makes no noticeable difference to anyone until one day, out of a blue sky, it mucks everything up and sets us all at each other's throats. There will be a case where the question of whether the horse was at fault is unclear. It will, inevitably, happen in a major televised handicap.
We'll all have to hold our breath while the stewards, poor souls, decide which way to jump. And then we'll have to deal with the fallout when about half of the invested onlookers are thoroughly disgusted by the outcome.
If the horse is ruled a runner, its backers will have had their hopes raised for naught and will spend the rest of that day, and maybe the week, wishing the stewards had seen things their way; if the horse is ruled a non-runner, winning punters will have a Rule 4 deduction taken from their payouts for controversial reasons; and in the middle will be bookmakers, trying to explain and to soothe and making no extra cash while being accused of robbery.
What fun it will be for in-running punters, having to bet all through a race while not really knowing if one of the runners will be retrospectively deleted. It'll be like an extra mine floating around in an already dangerous sea.
Simplicity is best. Instead of all that argufying, how about this: if the start goes wrong for your horse, you take it on the chin. I'm not saying you can't moan – it's a punter's right to throw their hands up and complain at every outcome – but we all know that, if we're getting our stakes back on a late non-runner, someone else is getting it chiselled out of their winnings under Rule 4, and maybe tomorrow we'll be that person. So just leave it alone. Let winners be winners and let losers deal with the agony, which we're all very used to doing.
When I back a horse in a jumps race, one of the million things that can go wrong is the start. I accept that. If it happens and my money's gone, well, shucks. I really don't want officials rushing over to dry my tears as if I just scraped my knee in the playground.
They should focus on making starts work as often as possible. It's a waste of their time to be constantly redefining what it means to be a runner.
The latest rule change could leave stewards in a no-win situation
author image
Chris Cook
Senior writer
Maughreen (last): her owners are not happy following the Mares' Novices' Hurdle
Maughreen (last): whipped round and lost several lengths at the start of the Mares' Novices' Hurdle at this year's Cheltenham Festival
Angels and ministers of grace, defend us from well-meaning officials trying to tidy things up. We heard on Wednesday of the latest rule change from BHA Towers, which will allow stewards to declare a horse a non-runner in a jumps race if they believe it has been denied a fair start for reasons other than its own bad behaviour.
It sounds reasonable but I suspect it will generate a quantity of ire and frustration broadly equivalent to the situation as it has existed up to now. Perhaps tempers may even flare more readily, because now it looks as though officials have accepted responsibility for a problem that is never actually going to be fixed to everyone's satisfaction.
A grim little chuckle escaped me as I read the BHA's press release. "This change provides clarity," was the beginning of a comment from Shaun Parker, head of stewarding. Oh, Shaun, how brave of you. One day, I'll write: "This article provides the winner of the Grand National," and will have a similar chance of being proved right.
The BHA gave us three examples, beautifully illustrated and described, showing how the new rule would operate. As a journalist, I'm grateful for the effort. But if that effort is necessary to help me understand it as I sit here in peace, sipping coffee and chomping doughnuts, how much harder is it going to be to explain the rule to an irate punter in the Cheltenham ring next March?
I can just see some poor betting ring manager searching through her phone for the right email so she can show said punter a picture of Maasai Mara facing the wrong way at Sandown last year. "There you are, sir. A completely different situation, I'm sure you'll agree. That one counts as a non-runner under the new rule, but yours was a runner and I'm afraid you've done your money."
Maasai Mara: 16-1 for the Boodles Juvenile Handicap Hurdle
Maasai Mara: refused to race at Sandown last year
The problem is that the rule creates a dividing line and there is going to be an element of subjectivity as to which side of the line certain cases fall. A horse is to be declared a non-runner if it is "denied a fair start, and its chances are materially affected". But a horse will still be a runner if its "own behaviour led to the horse not jumping away on terms".
The BHA cites the example of Maughreen at the Cheltenham Festival. "She was in position to obtain a fair start when the tape was released," we're told. "Maughreen then spins around after the start and the field leaves her adrift." Under the new rule, Maughreen would still be a runner and her backers would not get their stakes refunded unless bookies decide to be generous.
It will be remembered that connections of Maughreen blamed the standing start and said the starter should have let them go at the first attempt. As ever in racing, we have to argue about which problem needs solving.
For worried people like me, the BHA has some calming words. It points out an equivalent version of the new rule has been in place for races involving starting stalls since May 2024. In 16 months, it has been used "around half a dozen times".
In other words, it's a rule that makes no noticeable difference to anyone until one day, out of a blue sky, it mucks everything up and sets us all at each other's throats. There will be a case where the question of whether the horse was at fault is unclear. It will, inevitably, happen in a major televised handicap.
We'll all have to hold our breath while the stewards, poor souls, decide which way to jump. And then we'll have to deal with the fallout when about half of the invested onlookers are thoroughly disgusted by the outcome.
If the horse is ruled a runner, its backers will have had their hopes raised for naught and will spend the rest of that day, and maybe the week, wishing the stewards had seen things their way; if the horse is ruled a non-runner, winning punters will have a Rule 4 deduction taken from their payouts for controversial reasons; and in the middle will be bookmakers, trying to explain and to soothe and making no extra cash while being accused of robbery.
What fun it will be for in-running punters, having to bet all through a race while not really knowing if one of the runners will be retrospectively deleted. It'll be like an extra mine floating around in an already dangerous sea.
Simplicity is best. Instead of all that argufying, how about this: if the start goes wrong for your horse, you take it on the chin. I'm not saying you can't moan – it's a punter's right to throw their hands up and complain at every outcome – but we all know that, if we're getting our stakes back on a late non-runner, someone else is getting it chiselled out of their winnings under Rule 4, and maybe tomorrow we'll be that person. So just leave it alone. Let winners be winners and let losers deal with the agony, which we're all very used to doing.
When I back a horse in a jumps race, one of the million things that can go wrong is the start. I accept that. If it happens and my money's gone, well, shucks. I really don't want officials rushing over to dry my tears as if I just scraped my knee in the playground.
They should focus on making starts work as often as possible. It's a waste of their time to be constantly redefining what it means to be a runner.
Chaos and anger will be the result. 5 runner race. Something whips round at start and loses lengths but, as is usual, starts and plods home in last place. Just after you have got to the front of the Arkle bar and paid for 2 bottles of Moet and 6 pints of Guinness having scooped a big placepot on the 2nd, they announce the horse in last was, in fact, a NR and only winner counts for placepot purposes.
Is it possible they have brought this in to be able to say “well we responded to the concerns of all consulted race goers” as a future get out? Is it BHA window dressing?Or is that fanciful and cynical. For me, at the end of the day two things need taken into account in any such situation. Has the trainer adequately trained the horse to behave suitably at a start and what input should the licenced jockey have had at the start to ensure the horse did start. That is why he’s on top after all.
If not, fine them both. They’ll maybe get it right next time?
If not, fine them both. They’ll maybe get it right next time?
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539