July objection - upheld or not ????

Interesting that:

There was a question as to why Fourie never changed his whip hand..................Old man Snaith admitted today that he couldn't ...........the "other hand" is the injured hand and was out of use.........wonder if stewards took into account that if Fourie had been fully fit he may have avoided the interference?

i see it is the considered opinion of none other than mr m de kock that wyllie hall should have kept the race. great minds think alike

None other than...? :sick:

To be fair Mr De Kock also said he did not rate the three-year-olds and they ran 2(1), 3rd and 5th so it is just an opinion as he points out - the stipes must work with the rules they have

1- The contact by Legislate on WH at the 200m did not affect the result - WH still won the race and from the head on there is no evidence that WH was in any way prejudiced by that contact or he would not have garnered victory - According to the rules the contact MUST affect the placings ie Legislate must have finished ahead of WH for that contact to have any bearing on the result.
2 - The multiple contacts delivered upon Legislate were severe as the horse was taken off his racing line by 5 or more horse widths - This would easily have accounted for the .25 he finished behind WH. At this point you have to make the presumption(the rules dictate this) that Legislate would have beaten WH BUT for the contact. This presumption is a grey area as any punter worth his salt can attest to horses coming back when they look beaten hence my dissatisfaction with the Rule as it stands. I do beleive that Legislate would have won the Race but for the contact but that is my OPINION - Opinions make betting boards but they have NO PLACE in deciding the result of a race -
3 - A revision of this Rule is needed.
4- Intrestingly I thought there were grounds for a Race Review when Virgo's Babe won -

c) In the latter stages VIRGO’S BABE (A Delpech) shifted inwards away from the crop resulting in CRESCENDO (K de Melo) and WALTZED HOME (A Mgudlwa) becoming cramped for galloping room and being forced to check. Jockey A Delpech the rider of VIRGO’S BABE signed an admission of guilt for a contravention of Rule 62.2.7 in that he failed to ensure that he did not cause interference to CRESCENDO (K de Melo) and WALTZED HOME (A Mgdudlwa) in the closing stages. He was suspended for a period of 7 days.

Now 69.3.2 any HORSE in the RACE was interfered with by any other HORSE and/or its
RIDER and as a result of which the chances of the HORSE interfered with were
jeopardised, the OBJECTION BOARD may, if it believes that the nature of the
interference warrants such action, disqualify the HORSE which caused the
interference.
69.4 For the purposes of RULE 69.3, a placed HORSE shall mean any of the HORSES
placed in the first five to finish the RACE by the judge.
69.5 When an OBJECTION is lodged in terms of RULES 6

hmmm yes i agree - imho I am not a race reader by any means but also thought Wylie Hall the deserved winner however Legislate so close could've been a DH or .01 win finish were it not for the 2 brush-bumps received. The first brush from L to WH didn't affect the running. Tough decision!! Also wondered why the whip hand wasn't changed thanks for clarifying. But puzzled by L's jockey hanging towards the other horse at some stage...? towards, why not away?

Have had bigger bumps from an old granny in a supermarket

Mike De Kock is a great trainer but his opinion on this should be taken no differently than Justin Snaiths or mine

I did not back either horse but personally believe that Legislate got WH interested with the first bump, taking into account that L has not been running straight in the last 200m of his races anyway the result should have stood, just my personal opinion.

Mr Hawaii raises the most important issue on the day for me & that is the "best stipes" in SA were there, decided on the outcome of the July and then duly turned a blind eye to the race where Virgo's Babe won. I would have hated to take the race away from Mr Leaf but either you follow the rules or you don't. Virgo's Babe should have been relegated to fourth as the interference clearly cost Crescendo 3rd place. For me this is the biggest issue simply because the stipes have shown NO consistency which once again brings racing into the muddy light it lives in. Delpech being suspended is secondary to what should have happened. The stipes should be suspended...

If i had backed Crescendo to place or if this was a PA leg with a 6/10 shot what would have happened? Because a punter cannot object then who should on their behalf. This example is exactly why people get angry......... zip, zero, nada consistency

Tigershark wrote: I did not back either horse but personally believe that Legislate got WH interested with the first bump, taking into account that L has not been running straight in the last 200m of his races anyway the result should have stood, just my personal opinion.

Mr Hawaii raises the most important issue on the day for me & that is the "best stipes" in SA were there, decided on the outcome of the July and then duly turned a blind eye to the race where Virgo's Babe won. I would have hated to take the race away from Mr Leaf but either you follow the rules or you don't. Virgo's Babe should have been relegated to fourth as the interference clearly cost Crescendo 3rd place. For me this is the biggest issue simply because the stipes have shown NO consistency which once again brings racing into the muddy light it lives in. Delpech being suspended is secondary to what should have happened. The stipes should be suspended...

If i had backed Crescendo to place or if this was a PA leg with a 6/10 shot what would have happened? Because a punter cannot object then who should on their behalf. This example is exactly why people get angry......... zip, zero, nada consistency

I actually mentioned the ride on Virgo Babe, looked way worse than the one above and cost a horse a place imo

Tigershark wrote: I did not back either horse but personally believe that Legislate got WH interested with the first bump, taking into account that L has not been running straight in the last 200m of his races anyway the result should have stood, just my personal opinion.

Mr Hawaii raises the most important issue on the day for me & that is the "best stipes" in SA were there, decided on the outcome of the July and then duly turned a blind eye to the race where Virgo's Babe won. I would have hated to take the race away from Mr Leaf but either you follow the rules or you don't. Virgo's Babe should have been relegated to fourth as the interference clearly cost Crescendo 3rd place. For me this is the biggest issue simply because the stipes have shown NO consistency which once again brings racing into the muddy light it lives in. Delpech being suspended is secondary to what should have happened. The stipes should be suspended...

If i had backed Crescendo to place or if this was a PA leg with a 6/10 shot what would have happened? Because a punter cannot object then who should on their behalf. This example is exactly why people get angry......... zip, zero, nada consistency

This is exactly the reason I think the UK interpretations are/were relevant , bearing in mind our change of rules...............on our old system a horse like Virgo's Babe could be placed behind the horse that it cost a place(which is relevant to places ,swingers ,trifectas ,quartets PA's etc)
We deliberately changed to the UK rules and the reason given was that with globalisation of racing aligning rules was deemed important???
I see no point in aligning the rules with the UK unless you align the interpretation!!!!!!

One thing is for sure the old rules were easier to understand and predict and less subjective and were therefore less controversial.They were also aligned with the French rules which are surely just as global?????

About 80% of the trainers etc spoken to here at Summerveld felt it was the right decision. Young horse coming from behind and then being lent on and bumped even though not badly and carried many metres across the course in what I think was intimidation although not intentionally by the winner. Would it have made the head difference? IMHO yes. I was on the fence until I watched the head on from the top of the straight and then said straight away to the people I was with that it would be upheld. If Wylie H had just straightened for a few strides and MJ could have used his stick properly we might have had a different result but he is hanging onto Legislate and he cannot use his stick normally. Look where MJ's right hand is in a close up. Way off to the off side of the horse as he tries to keep him off Legislate.

Craig Eudey wrote: About 80% of the trainers etc spoken to here at Summerveld felt it was the right decision. Young horse coming from behind and then being lent on and bumped even though not badly and carried many metres across the course in what I think was intimidation although not intentionally by the winner. Would it have made the head difference? IMHO yes. I was on the fence until I watched the head on from the top of the straight and then said straight away to the people I was with that it would be upheld. If Wylie H had just straightened for a few strides and MJ could have used his stick properly we might have had a different result but he is hanging onto Legislate and he cannot use his stick normally. Look where MJ's right hand is in a close up. Way off to the off side of the horse as he tries to keep him off Legislate.

Must also have been difficult for Legislate to get his head in front with MJ's stick coming down near his face in those final stages

Mr Eudey did u also c how unbalanced fourie was on legislate all his weight on his right I think his injury had lots to do with tht ride my view is I like the rules they use in england simply cause theres more consistantcy