Invercargill HRC 21 January 2019 – R 4 – Chair, Prof G Hall
ID: JCA16355
Meet Title:
Invercargill HRC - 21 January 2019
Meet Chair:
GHall
Meet Committee Member 1:
MConway
Race Date:
2019/01/21
Race Number:
R 4
Decision:
We thus find the charge proved.
Penalty:
We impose a fine of $250.
Facts:
Mr Wallis alleged that Mr Williamson breached rr 869(4), 6(b) and (c) in race 4, the STRATEGY T WORMERS AT FARMLANDS TROT 2200 metres, in that he shifted his horse ZONED SCARLETT outwards forcing ROBBIE ROYALE (B Barclay) to race wider on the track passing the 1700 metres.
Rule 869(4) states:
No horseman shall during any race do anything which interferes or is likely to interfere with his own horse and/or any other horse or its progress.
While r 869(6) provides:
Subject to sub-rule (4) hereof:-
(a) horseman are permitted to move ground inwards or outwards at any stage of the race to improve their racing position;
(b) a horse making a forward movement during any race shall not be forced to race wider on the track;
(c) a horse during a race shall not move ground outwards once the nose of the wider runner coming forward is in line with or past its sulky wheel and until the wider runner going forward is fully past.
Submissions for Decision:
Mr Wallis showed videos of the race in question. He identified ROBBIE ROYALE as being 6 back and in third last position in the field just before the 1700 metres. Mr Williamson was racing in front of him. Mr Barclay commenced a forward move. Mr Williamson was half carting briefly and he shifted outwards and pushed Mr Barclay wider on the track in contravention of the push out rule. Mr Barclay’s chances were not affected as he won the race. Mr Wallis believed, however, that Mr Williamson had gained an advantage as he was able to take a trail at the 1250 metres.
Mr Williamson stated that he had been the victim of circumstances. He believed the horse racing one off and 4 drivers ahead were half carting. He also believed he (Mr Williamson) was already out when Mr Barclay came off his back. He said his horse was keen and he probably would have hit the wheel of the cart in front had he not come out further or significantly checked his horse. He believed had he not shifted he would have been likely to have been charged with careless driving.
Mr Williamson called Mr Barclay to give evidence. Mr Barclay said the horse he was driving was an unruly bad mannered horse. It was touchy in the mouth. Once he had “gone”, he had no choice to go back and onto the back of the respondent.
Mr Barclay said he decided he had better get going and decided to improve forward. Mr Williamson had decided to go before him. He had been pushed wider on the track as a consequence, but it had not affected the outcome of the race. He believed the head of his horse was right on the wheel of Mr Williamson, when Mr Williamson came out.
In response to questioning from Mr Williamson, Mr Barclay agreed he would have been 3 wide if the field was racing normally. He believed the field was racing one cart off the pylons.
Significantly, Mr Barclay said at the time he believed he had been pushed out and, after viewing the videos, he still believed he had been pushed out. He had been forced over extra ground.
Mr Williamson continued with his defence to the charge. He said it was just a racing matter. The horses racing in front of his were in an illegal position. The only horse racing in the correct position on the track was the last horse in the field and it was over a cart length inside the rest of the field. He accepted he had forced Mr Barclay over extra ground for a short time, but it was not a breach of the push out rule. However, he accepted the nose of Mr Barclay’s horse was on his wheel when he shifted out. He believed he was out 2 ½ cart widths and Mr Barclay was out 3 ½ cart widths, therefore he was entitled to be there.
Mr Wallis summed up by stating he agreed with the Committee’s observation that the running line had been established by the leading horse. He agreed they were not racing tight on the pylons. There was some half carting but only to some extent. Mr Williamson was the worst offender, but that was not the charge. Mr Barclay was entitled to make a forward move without being pushed wider on the track by Mr Williamson.
Mr Williamson said the horses following Mr N Williamson were not racing one off and he had had to dodge an illegal wheel, and, in so doing, he had to force Mr Barclay out wider.
Reasons for Decision:
We have had some difficulty in following Mr Williamson’s defence to the charge. It appears to revolve around the positioning of the field on the track. In our view the running line had been established by the leading horse driven by Mr N Williamson. It was one off the pylons, but this was understandable given the atrocious conditions that prevailed on the day. One or two of the horses following Mr N Williamson were half carting to some extent, but the horse out the furthest was that driven by the respondent . He was not a full cart width out. Significantly, as he admits himself, he shifted wider on the track when the nose of Mr Barclay’s horse was outside the wheel of his cart. He justifies this by stating he was already out. We disagree.
We are satisfied that Mr Williamson has made an outwards movement in contravention of r 869(4) and (6) in that Mr Barclay was forced to race wider on the track when Mr Williamson shifted out when the nose of Mr Barclay’s horse was in line with his sulky wheel.
Submissions for Penalty:
Mr Wallis produced Mr Williamson’s record. He had 452 drives last season and 200 this season. He has had no breaches of this rule in the time. Mr Wallis said the starting point in the JCA Penalty Guide is $250. He believed Mr Williamson had gained an advantage by progressing forward and obtaining the trail. He submitted a fine of $300 was appropriate.
Mr Williamson did not dispute Mr Wallis’ figure.
Reasons for Penalty:
We take the $250 starting point and increase this to $300 for this reason identified by Mr Wallis. Significantly, unlike many examples of a breach of this rule, Mr Barclay did not suffer any disadvantage, and thus we do not take the uplift any higher. Credit has to be given for Mr Williamson’s excellent record under this rule, especially when consideration is given to the frequency of his driving. As we did with an earlier case, we have regard also to the atrocious weather conditions on the day.
JCA Decision Fields (raw)
Dmitry: This section contains all JCA fields migrated from the raw data.
Data from these fields should be mapped appropriately to display amongst the standard fields above; please make note of any values below that are missing in the above standard fields but should be there.
hearingid: a93d4d7c715fefdf12bd23e7557e001e
informantnumber: A12471
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge: Breach of the push-out rule
plea: denied
penaltyrequired: 1
decisiondate: 24/01/2019
hearing_title: Invercargill HRC 21 January 2019 - R 4 - Chair, Prof G Hall
charge:
facts:
Mr Wallis alleged that Mr Williamson breached rr 869(4), 6(b) and (c) in race 4, the STRATEGY T WORMERS AT FARMLANDS TROT 2200 metres, in that he shifted his horse ZONED SCARLETT outwards forcing ROBBIE ROYALE (B Barclay) to race wider on the track passing the 1700 metres.
Rule 869(4) states:
No horseman shall during any race do anything which interferes or is likely to interfere with his own horse and/or any other horse or its progress.
While r 869(6) provides:
Subject to sub-rule (4) hereof:-
(a) horseman are permitted to move ground inwards or outwards at any stage of the race to improve their racing position;
(b) a horse making a forward movement during any race shall not be forced to race wider on the track;
(c) a horse during a race shall not move ground outwards once the nose of the wider runner coming forward is in line with or past its sulky wheel and until the wider runner going forward is fully past.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
Mr Wallis showed videos of the race in question. He identified ROBBIE ROYALE as being 6 back and in third last position in the field just before the 1700 metres. Mr Williamson was racing in front of him. Mr Barclay commenced a forward move. Mr Williamson was half carting briefly and he shifted outwards and pushed Mr Barclay wider on the track in contravention of the push out rule. Mr Barclay’s chances were not affected as he won the race. Mr Wallis believed, however, that Mr Williamson had gained an advantage as he was able to take a trail at the 1250 metres.
Mr Williamson stated that he had been the victim of circumstances. He believed the horse racing one off and 4 drivers ahead were half carting. He also believed he (Mr Williamson) was already out when Mr Barclay came off his back. He said his horse was keen and he probably would have hit the wheel of the cart in front had he not come out further or significantly checked his horse. He believed had he not shifted he would have been likely to have been charged with careless driving.
Mr Williamson called Mr Barclay to give evidence. Mr Barclay said the horse he was driving was an unruly bad mannered horse. It was touchy in the mouth. Once he had “gone”, he had no choice to go back and onto the back of the respondent.
Mr Barclay said he decided he had better get going and decided to improve forward. Mr Williamson had decided to go before him. He had been pushed wider on the track as a consequence, but it had not affected the outcome of the race. He believed the head of his horse was right on the wheel of Mr Williamson, when Mr Williamson came out.
In response to questioning from Mr Williamson, Mr Barclay agreed he would have been 3 wide if the field was racing normally. He believed the field was racing one cart off the pylons.
Significantly, Mr Barclay said at the time he believed he had been pushed out and, after viewing the videos, he still believed he had been pushed out. He had been forced over extra ground.
Mr Williamson continued with his defence to the charge. He said it was just a racing matter. The horses racing in front of his were in an illegal position. The only horse racing in the correct position on the track was the last horse in the field and it was over a cart length inside the rest of the field. He accepted he had forced Mr Barclay over extra ground for a short time, but it was not a breach of the push out rule. However, he accepted the nose of Mr Barclay’s horse was on his wheel when he shifted out. He believed he was out 2 ½ cart widths and Mr Barclay was out 3 ½ cart widths, therefore he was entitled to be there.
Mr Wallis summed up by stating he agreed with the Committee’s observation that the running line had been established by the leading horse. He agreed they were not racing tight on the pylons. There was some half carting but only to some extent. Mr Williamson was the worst offender, but that was not the charge. Mr Barclay was entitled to make a forward move without being pushed wider on the track by Mr Williamson.
Mr Williamson said the horses following Mr N Williamson were not racing one off and he had had to dodge an illegal wheel, and, in so doing, he had to force Mr Barclay out wider.
reasonsfordecision:
We have had some difficulty in following Mr Williamson’s defence to the charge. It appears to revolve around the positioning of the field on the track. In our view the running line had been established by the leading horse driven by Mr N Williamson. It was one off the pylons, but this was understandable given the atrocious conditions that prevailed on the day. One or two of the horses following Mr N Williamson were half carting to some extent, but the horse out the furthest was that driven by the respondent . He was not a full cart width out. Significantly, as he admits himself, he shifted wider on the track when the nose of Mr Barclay’s horse was outside the wheel of his cart. He justifies this by stating he was already out. We disagree.
We are satisfied that Mr Williamson has made an outwards movement in contravention of r 869(4) and (6) in that Mr Barclay was forced to race wider on the track when Mr Williamson shifted out when the nose of Mr Barclay’s horse was in line with his sulky wheel.
Decision:
We thus find the charge proved.
sumissionsforpenalty:
Mr Wallis produced Mr Williamson’s record. He had 452 drives last season and 200 this season. He has had no breaches of this rule in the time. Mr Wallis said the starting point in the JCA Penalty Guide is $250. He believed Mr Williamson had gained an advantage by progressing forward and obtaining the trail. He submitted a fine of $300 was appropriate.
Mr Williamson did not dispute Mr Wallis’ figure.
reasonsforpenalty:
We take the $250 starting point and increase this to $300 for this reason identified by Mr Wallis. Significantly, unlike many examples of a breach of this rule, Mr Barclay did not suffer any disadvantage, and thus we do not take the uplift any higher. Credit has to be given for Mr Williamson’s excellent record under this rule, especially when consideration is given to the frequency of his driving. As we did with an earlier case, we have regard also to the atrocious weather conditions on the day.
penalty:
We impose a fine of $250.
hearing_type: Hearing
Rules: 869(4), 6(b) and (c)
Informant: Mr S Wallis - Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer: Mr B Williamson - Open Horseman
Otherperson:
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: b124f3b95ff4448c4cfa636794c37d79
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R 4
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: 999641dc0cc2e1d5ff9f751d4dce90c2
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 21/01/2019
meet_title: Invercargill HRC - 21 January 2019
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: invercargill-hrc
meet_racingtype: harness-racing
meet_chair: GHall
meet_pm1: MConway
meet_pm2: none
name: Invercargill HRC