This NYRA rule true?

[Scav]

"Perhaps you aren't aware of this new rule. At NYRA tracks a DQ will only happen if a horse/jockey prevented another horse from placing 1st through 4th. This of course is a judgement call. So sometime in the middle of the Saratoga meet a horse running third banged into a horse who was making a winning move in the minds of many including the steward I'm using to make my case. This horse running third won the race, but the horse that he banged into came 4th in a non superperfecta race. If the 4th horse had come 2nd or 3rd. the winner would have been taken down, but since the horse finished 4th the rule said he wouldn't be taken down since it didn't effect the order of finish as to payouts."

Really? I don't believe this and while I really haven't thought the logic through, this seems not right.

[iamthelurker]

Pretty sure its just whether or not you cost someone a placing.

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by Scav

Really? I don't believe this and while I really haven't thought the logic through, this seems not right.

First off, it's a NYSRWB rule, not a "NYRA rule." A few years ago (after an incident at Saratoga involving the DQ of a Kimmel horse ridden by the Mig that was tons the best), the rule was changed from a "foul is a foul" to give the stewards some leeway to determine whether the impact altered the outcome of the race (akin to "no harm, no foul" in basketball). Because 3% of the purse is paid for 5th place at NYRA tracks, it would be surprising if the rule would only be applied for the first four places.

The description that you provided seems to be about the Pelican Lake incident (from August 6), one of a few controversial calls/non-calls at the Saratoga meet. (FYI, some of the facts in the description that you provided are misstated. For example, the horse interfered did eventually finish fourth, but there was superfecta wagering on the race.) In that case, I would have to believe that the issue was whether the Plesa horse (ridden by Prado) that was slammed very hard by the winner (ridden by Bridgmohan) was cost an opportunity to finish in the money. The stewards kept the winner up, but gave Bridgmohan days for careless riding.

[randallscott35]

This is a canard.

[Scav]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

First off, it's a NYSRWB rule, not a "NYRA rule." A few years ago (after an incident at Saratoga involving the DQ of a Kimmel horse ridden by the Mig that was tons the best), the rule was changed from a "foul is a foul" to give the stewards some leeway to determine whether the impact altered the outcome of the race (akin to "no harm, no foul" in basketball). Because 3% of the purse is paid for 5th place at NYRA tracks, it would be surprising if the rule would only be applied for the first four places.

The description that you provided seems to be about the Pelican Lake incident (from August 6), one of a few controversial calls/non-calls at the Saratoga meet. (FYI, some of the facts in the description that you provided are misstated. For example, the horse interfered did eventually finish fourth, but there was superfecta wagering on the race.) In that case, I would have to believe that the issue was whether the Plesa horse (ridden by Prado) that was slammed very hard by the winner (ridden by Bridgmohan) was cost an opportunity to finish in the money. The stewards kept the winner up, but gave Bridgmohan days for careless riding.

I have no idea what race this person is describing, it was just a cut and paste job that I read on another board and was just asking becuase of all the NYRA people here.

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by Scav

I have no idea what race this person is describing, it was just a cut and paste job that I read on another board and was just asking becuase of all the NYRA people here.

I understood that it was not your description of the race, but from the description, it appeared to touch on that race.

[Sightseek]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

First off, it's a NYSRWB rule, not a "NYRA rule." A few years ago (after an incident at Saratoga involving the DQ of a Kimmel horse ridden by the Mig that was tons the best), the rule was changed from a "foul is a foul" to give the stewards some leeway to determine whether the impact altered the outcome of the race (akin to "no harm, no foul" in basketball). Because 3% of the purse is paid for 5th place at NYRA tracks, it would be surprising if the rule would only be applied for the first four places.

The description that you provided seems to be about the Pelican Lake incident (from August 6), one of a few controversial calls/non-calls at the Saratoga meet. (FYI, some of the facts in the description that you provided are misstated. For example, the horse interfered did eventually finish fourth, but there was superfecta wagering on the race.) In that case, I would have to believe that the issue was whether the Plesa horse (ridden by Prado) that was slammed very hard by the winner (ridden by Bridgmohan) was cost an opportunity to finish in the money. The stewards kept the winner up, but gave Bridgmohan days for careless riding.

I bet Pelican and thought she should be taken down...

The chart guy must have also felt the same because he said she clobbered the other horse despite having an open path inside.

[saratoga guy]

The rule cited by the stewards in their online reports is this:

4035.2. Foul riding penalized.
(a) When clear, a horse may be taken to any part of the course provided that crossing or weaving in front of contenders may constitute interference or intimidation for which the offender may be disciplined.
(b) A horse crossing another may be disqualified, if in the judgment of the stewards, it interferes with, impedes or intimidates another horse, or the foul altered the finish of the race, regardless of whether the foul was accidental, willful, or the result of careless riding. The stewards may also take into consideration mitigating factors, such as whether the impeded horse was partly at fault or the crossing was wholly caused by the fault of some other horse or jockey.

...There is no mention of any restrictions to their decisions with respect to finishing positions.

Besides that - the example given in the post cited that started the thread is completely absurd:

"If the 4th horse had come 2nd or 3rd. the winner would have been taken down, but since the horse finished 4th the rule said he wouldn't be taken down since it didn't effect the order of finish as to payouts."

Say what?!? If the winner was DQ'd the 4th-place finisher would move up to 3rd and affect payouts.

All that said, practically speaking there probably aren't a lot of inquiries or objections involving 5th-place or lower -- but the rules don't prohibit it.