There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
19 Oct 25
16:39
Joined:
Date Joined:
07 Sep 18
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 60
|
By:
1.01 droners, side on not always the best
|
|
By:
Really interesting one because the 2nd was coming to win but strangely because the interference was such that it actually made the winning distance greater I think because the winning distance is so great they won't change it.
|
|
By:
Shame Hayes didnt keep riding or get closer, but no-one could pass the winner given his weaving all over the place
|
|
By:
prob get lucky but the 1.01 layers are sitting on a nice green while the backers are hiding in the bathroom
|
|
By:
clearly an egregious foul...but nearly 3l unlikely turnaround imo
|
|
By:
in america this winner taken down already
|
|
By:
1.01 £12,175.98
1.02 £2,105.21 the winners obv went 6yds right and stopped the 2nd who was closing and about 3/4L down..but,imo the winner would have won if it kept straight as the pack wernt closing..its won 4L are the stewards gona disq it? i cant see it but no bet. |
|
By:
Personally id give it to the runner up and winner has got to learn to ride straighter doc he's a menace
|
|
By:
similar rico
|
|
By:
He wasn't 3 lengths behind when he was hampered. Should be overturned imo.
|
|
By:
Personally id give it to the runner up and winner has got to learn to ride straighter cos he's a menace
|
|
By:
There's no way you can say the second was likely coming to win. Sure, the interference cost it all chance of winning, but the chance was not odds on.
|
|
By:
This is the scenario William Haggas was talking about earlier, of course the winning distance will be large if the closer has been stopped in his tracks, the final distance should have no bearing on the stewards decision, it's the distance between at point of contact, i.e. a length.
|
|
By:
I may be wrong but the winner obstructed the second twice ..iyt maybe a while - the stewards are just poiring another round of sherry
|
|
By:
Yes, some people say that the argument should be that because the chance of the second winning was taken away due to interference, it should be reversed. But I don't feel like anyone independent can claim the second was coming to win.
|
|
By:
If you remove the chance of winning or affect a runners position you should be placed behind the sufferer because its impossible to be sure and the winner has placed the doubt in the stewards mind and should go, and would anywhere ekse
|
|
By:
tough call to throw it
|
|
By:
verdict?
|
|
By:
looks like its still ongoing
|
|
By:
Gagging 19 Oct 25 16:48
I may be wrong but the winner obstructed the second twice .. it did. |
|
By:
could ewe be certain 2nd would of won? no chance
|
|
By:
amended
|
|
By:
Got to love the way the experts (like Ruby Walsh, and McNae) haven't got a clue about the rules or their interpretation. What chance have the rest of us got!
|
|
By:
 Lovely Jubbly |
|
By:
revised.
|
|
By:
stay in the bathroom
|
|
By:
surprising but it was an egregious foul
|
|
By:
Sweetjesis
|
|
By:
Got to love the way the experts (like Ruby Walsh, and McNae) haven't got a clue about the rules or their interpretation. What chance have the rest of us got!
It always comes down to judgement, which is why there is a market. Or in this case we are second guessing the judgement of others. They must have thought the second was coming to win. I'd say the Hayes theatrics played a part, personally I can't see how anyone can say that the second would have won otherwise. |
|
By:
Not according to Ruby Walsh. He clearly stated the way the rules are stated the result would stand.
|
|
By:
bit of sympathy for Noel there after losing out at Galway
|
|
By:
aint a man on planet earth can be sure 2nd wud hav won
winner wasnt stopping...i thort distance would save it. |
|
By:
Not according to Ruby Walsh. He clearly stated the way the rules are stated the result would stand.
So did Fran, but they are right. Nobody can guarantee the stewards will apply the rules correctly. As I allude to, it boils down to whether they think the second was likely to win otherwise. Which nobody can prove either way, it's just judgement/opinion. For me they are wrong in this instance. |
|
By:
they must have given the jock a few days off, be interesting to read what they say
|
|
By:
Fair enough .... for once!
|
|
By:
What the 2nd would have done should be irrelevant. The rules are wrong and should be re-written. If you foul someone you should be placed behind it, as everywhere else
|
|
By:
haha Fran and Ruby changing their opinions now lol
|
|
By:
Rules are rules but some flexibility should be given to the stewards or u might as well have a robot: I like to see the stewards using that rare thing ...'common sense'!!
|
|
By:
That's the point, Busyfool.
Most people would say in that example, the interference was extensive enough that they should be flipped for a fair outcome. But the rules don't have scope for that, currently they need to be confident that the winner improved its position. I feel that is near impossible. So it comes down to the fair outcome vs the correct interpretation of the rules. I'd say the outcome is fair/moral, but not a correct interpretation of the current rules. |