Commissioners update.Great to see.

Comments and discussions on front page news articles.

Moderator: Moderators

Steve Holzhauser
B grade participant
B grade participant
Posts: 76
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2004 8:48 pm
Location: Casino .

Commissioners update.Great to see.

Postby Steve Holzhauser » Tue Dec 09, 2008 12:29 pm

Good to hear from you Trevor.

The brief summary posted on a few issues covers a broad range of competitors and I am sure is most appreciated by all who use this site.

Your correct in stating the relivant penalty, Rule in the 2008 MoMS states, among a list of infringements,

“Riding over or riding on or dislodging a grade marker for the riders own grade” is a 5.

I along with a couple of other seasoned riders learnt the hard way that this was something that even though in the MoMS is not enforced at any prior events in most states. A quick run around confirmed this from experienced competitors from :SA: S.A. , :WA: W.A. :NSW: NSW. :TAS: TAS and :QLD: QLD. It caught me of guard and was a ruling I would liked to have been made aware of at a less important event.

Is it a ruling that should be enforced Nation wide ? Through your State reps, do you think all officiating clubs should be encouraged to enforce all MoMS penaltys at Open events.

Another point from the Veterans perspective is the observation you put forward ,

"On a slightly different tack, the results of the Veterans Class as issued at the Presentation Night were incorrect.You rarely, if ever, need to do a countback of ‘zeros’ to separate two Veterans who end up with same score.You simply look at the raw score, ie without the Venables handicap, and the rider with the lowest raw score secures the higher placing. Robbie White really finished 2nd, and Peter Curtis really finished 3rd. Pete actually confirmed this with me at the Presentation Night, but I don’t think he swapped trophies with Whitey."

You have Rob White at 2nd and Peter at 3rd, did not Greg Nordsvan secured 2nd placing ? or did you mean 3rd and 4th. for Rob and Peter.

Your term of the "raw score". I have not heard this term before.

There have been quite a few Open events over time that has seen Veterans with different age handicaps finish on equal scores, (not both on zero marks lost obviously) and the count back has always been applied.

Could you please clarify this change and why its use has now come to bear.

I look forward to some regular input from our commissioners throughout the year and think it a great opportunity for everyone to share their thoughts with you.

Again thanks for your update,

Regards Steve.

Return to “News article discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest