Cross Country: Rotational falls?

bnagrrl

I recently saw a documentary on ESPN about the dangers of solid fences in cross country, namely the rotational fall.

Many people on the programme want to see cross country fences modified with frangible pins whereby if a horse were to strike them with heavy force they would collapse. However some people are against this as they believe this will take away the element of danger and said that the deaths that have been caused are mainly down to rider inexperience than any problems with the courses.

What are people's opinions on this? Would you mind if a course was modified to be made safer or would this put you off competing?

(P.S. for anyone who doesn't know, a rotational fall is where the horse's upper forelegs and/or chest hit the fence causing the rider to fall ahead of the horse yet the momentum causes the horse's hindquarters to come over the fence and land on the rider, usually causing severe crushing injuries and often death.)

needadvice

I think its essential and if it can be done without increased risk it would be criminal not to

bnagrrl

I agree, that's why I was really surprised to see top equestrian riders (Mark Phillips for example) who said they would refuse to ride/allow a team they had trained compete on a course that had been modified with frangible pins...

fits

What was the reason Mark Phillips gave?

I dont really know enough about this issue to comment.

On the one hand I think a solid fence should be solid. On the other, these rotational falls seem to be disastrous in their consequences.

needadvice

ITS AVERY INTERESTING QUESTION. i WORKED IN THE EVENTING AREA MANY YEARS ago. The solid fences are the heart of the sport however in the last 2 decades deaths have definitely increased and the question of tackling that has arisen. As to the safety of these pinned fences a great deal of work would ebe required to assess that they do not further endanger the horse and rider. I would say insurance and the question of liability would also become more complicated. Even the smallest yard has to have every solid fence examined individually for the purpose of insurance which is all very restrictive and as I'm hearing.. it isn't about safety its about a litigious society.

As a mother of little jockeys I'm all for increased safety but I'm also in favour of individuals taking responsibility for their decision to ride.

bnagrrl

fits wrote: »

What was the reason Mark Phillips gave?

I dont really know enough about this issue to comment.

On the one hand I think a solid fence should be solid. On the other, these rotational falls seem to be disastrous in their consequences.

Mark Phillips was not interviewed directly on the documentary but his stance on the issue is making the fence 'safe' detracts from the excitment of cross country and he is against these changes as a course designer. He was quoted on the programme as saying something along the lines of "you can't make horses safe". Fair enough.
A former US Olympic rider, can't remember his name, believes inexperienced riders are the main cause of these falls.

bnagrrl

needadvice wrote: »

ITS AVERY INTERESTING QUESTION. i WORKED IN THE EVENTING AREA MANY YEARS ago. The solid fences are the heart of the sport however in the last 2 decades deaths have definitely increased and the question of tackling that has arisen. As to the safety of these pinned fences a great deal of work would ebe required to assess that they do not further endanger the horse and rider. I would say insurance and the question of liability would also become more complicated. Even the smallest yard has to have every solid fence examined individually for the purpose of insurance which is all very restrictive and as I'm hearing.. it isn't about safety its about a litigious society.

As a mother of little jockeys I'm all for increased safety but I'm also in favour of individuals taking responsibility for their decision to ride.

I agree people should take responsibility if they choose to event. I've been riding for 20 years and would never take part in something I felt I was not able for or get up on a horse I did not feel confident/safe on.
A similar point was made on the documentary that some riders are young, inexperienced but have the means to buy these big, expensive horses that they are unable to ride properly.

Another opinion raised on the documentary as to why these falls were happening is to do with the Olympic committee who decided XC was too long to be included as a sport so they cut the course from 18 miles to 4 miles but still kept the same amount of fences in.

The first 10 mins of the documentary is available on the net, just google E:60 After The Fall.

togster

Collapsable fences won't get rid of riders who are incapable of riding cross country. Some people and horses should never be allowed to go cross country. They have tried many things in recent years, changing the 3 day format, optimum times, increased the emphasis on rider responsibility.

For me rider responsibility is key. Too often you see people pushing horses that are clearly too tired. There should also be a system that if a rider is seen to be riding dangerously, that a steward of some sort should be in a position to pull the rider up.

I agree the problem is multi-faceted. Courses have become more technical. The optimum times are still hard to get. Riders spend so long setting horse up for tricky combinations, that they often let a horse gallop to a stand alone fence. And the majority of rotational falls occur at these fences.

But then accidents sometimes just happen. Horses make mistakes too. It will be impossible to eliminate all the possiblities of a rotational fall happening. Just make it less likely.

I think we should, make the optimum times easier to attain. Adopt a system of deciding who gets to ride cross country (horses and riders), some sort of licence system. Have a system to stop dangerous riding. Decise if we really want such tricky sombinations on our cross country or should they be left for the showjumping arena.

People will say that cross country is about bravery and balls, but we need to change if we are to avoid further bad press and loose the sport all together.

Borderfox

Did they not start using weight tested zip ties to secure the jumps together?

convert

I definitely think people need to start taking responsibility for themselves and it's great to see that a 'flagging' system has been introduced in eventing in the UK. However, as has been mentioned here and in the other thread, while rider responsibility is major, the performance of the horse has to be taken into account too. 'Green' or unschooled horses shouldn't be competing at levels above their ability. Too often owners are so eagre for their horses to compete at high levels they don't want to listen to advice from those who are riding their horses; afterall, and speaking from experience, there is a proportion of owners who believe that their horse is sometimes better than it actually is, and blame the rider for their lack of prorgress or its poor performance. While the 'better known' riders may be able to put their foot down in a situation like this, it is the less well-known riders who are pressurised into competing the horse or else have it taken from their yard, which is really tough for an individual struggling to make a living. and it's here where a 'flagging' system for horses would come in.

However, as has been mentioned, if such 'flagging' systems were introduced here, I fear that too much bureaucracy may be attached and riders and horses may be 'flagged' unnecessarily, or have to complete training courses in order to be unflagged, which may become too much of a business and, in fact, do more harm to the sport rather than good.

However, I do feel rider common sense really is the best thing that can happen for the sport (or, in the case of children, parents' common sense). Like many other posters here, I compete at an amateur level in most equestrian sports. I break horses and compete them as youngsters. However, I always make sure that the horses are never over-faced, that too much is not asked of them, and that I am happy with their performance before they go cross country or hunter trialling. If I'm not happy with the horse, or if there's a fence that may be too advanced for it, I either don't compete or, in hunter trials, I'll omit the fence. That way the horse still gets an outing, gets the experience of cross country fences, and we both come home safe and sound (however, when competing young horses I always try to compete at a venue I know well, so I'll know what to expect. If I'm going somewhere new, I'll always, if possible, try to walk the course the night before to see what the course is like. If I don't like it, I don't compete).

Regarding collapsable cross country fences: This is a difficult area. While I think most of us would agree we don't want to see cross country fences that would fall with the least touch, like showjumping, I do feel there's some merit in collapsable fences. However, finding a happy medium is going to be difficult.
Remember, hitting a fence made from a telegraph pole, even if collapsable, is still going to require an awful lot of pressure for the pole to collapse.

togster

convert wrote: »

Remember, hitting a fence made from a telegraph pole, even if collapsable, is still going to require an awful lot of pressure for the pole to collapse.

So true. I can't see how collapsable fences will stop rotational falls. It doesn't require much resistance for a horse to suffer a rotational fall. Leaving a leg to a fence would suffice. Also i think course designers should be more responsible. I saw an event on TV lately (Burghley??) and there was a combination of fences coming down a hill. The first part was a skinny round top at the top of a hill. To me it seemed dangerous. It was quite high, skinny and invited a horse to leave a leg i.e it was a round top coming down a hill and the horse focus was drawn away from the fence to the fences below. I flagged it is dangerous before i saw 2 horses get nasty falls.

So how do we find a balance between a challenging course and a safe course. Bravery and a sense of danger are intertwined in the sports doctrine. But...we have a responsibility to our riders and horses to make it as safe as possible. If that means comprimising on some things, then so be it.