Matamata RC 18 April 2018 – R 4 (instigating a protest) – Chair, Mr G Jones
ID: JCA15462
Code:
Thoroughbred
Meet Title:
Matamata RC - 18 April 2018
Meet Chair:
GJones
Meet Committee Member 1:
ADooley
Race Date:
2018/04/18
Race Number:
R4
Decision:
Accordingly, the protest is upheld and the amended placings are:
1st No. 5 ARMAGUARD
2nd No. 3 DIRECT CAPITAL
3rd No. 11 CONFESSIONAL
4th No. 10 LEICA WARRIOR
We order the payment of dividends and stakes in accordance with the amended placings.
Facts:
Following the running of Race No 4, the Boltholder Ltd, an Information was filed Instigating a Protest pursuant to Rule 642(1). The Informant, Mr J Riddell, alleged that horse number 11 CONFESSIONAL placed 2nd by the Judge interfered with the chances of horse number 3 DIRECT CAPITAL placed 3rd by the Judge.
The interference was alleged to have occurred in the final straight.
The Judge's placing were as follows:
1st No. 5 ARMAGUARD
2nd No.11 CONFESSIONAL
3rd No. 3 DIRECT CAPITAL
4th No. 10 LEICA WARRIOR
The official margins were ¾ of a length and a head (between 2nd and 3rd).
Rule 642(1) provides:
“If a placed horse or its rider causes interference within the meaning of this rule 642 to another placed horse, and the Judicial Committee is of the opinion that the horse so interfered with would have finished ahead of the first mentioned horse had such interference not occurred, they may place the first mentioned horse immediately after the horse interfered with”.
For the purposes of Rule 642 “interference” is defined as:
(i) a horse crossing another horse without being at least its own length and one other clear length in front of such other horse at the time of crossing;
(ii) a horse jostling with another horse, unless it is proved that such jostling was caused by the fault of some other horse or Rider or that the horse or Rider jostled with was partly at fault; or
(iii) a horse itself, or its Rider, in any way interfering with another horse or the Rider of another horse in a Race, unless it is proved that such interference was caused by the fault of some other horse or Rider or that the horse or Rider interfered with was partly at fault.
At the commencement of the hearing all parties indicated they understood the nature of the ‘Protest Rule’ - Rule 642(1).
Submissions for Decision:
Mr Riddell submitted that when passing the 200-metre mark CONFESSIONAL ridden by Mr R Elliot who was racing one out, shifted inwards and denied him his rightful running line on the rails. He said that Mr Elliot’s run was one off the rails and when he crossed, his mount (DIRECT CAPITAL), was interfered with. He said as a result he took hold of his mount and came off CONFESSIONAL'S heels and this definitely cost his mount 2nd placing given the narrow margin at the finish. Mr Riddell used the available race films to demonstrate his submission. He emphasised that he had every right to the run that was available on the fence which he was denied as a result of Mr Elliot’s shift inward. He estimated that as a consequence of having to “pop off the fence” he lost at least ½ a length and in the run to the finish he made up not only the lost ½ length but also one further length.
When asked, Ms Nicholson said she had nothing further to add.
In his opening comments Mr Rogerson clarified that the margin between the 2nd and 3rd horse was a head as it had erroneously been previously referred to as a nose. He then submitted that Mr Elliot was probably near to 2-lengths clear when he shifted in. He said that Mr Elliot advised him that Mr Riddell did not call out, and he (Mr Elliot) thought that he was his own length and one further horse length clear when he shifted in. He said the race was nearly over and DIRECT CAPITAL was never going to beat CONFESSIONAL and it was significant that the margin between the two horses at the finish was a head. He added it was only in the last 3 strides that DIRECT CAPITAL got close to CONFESSIONAL. Mr Rogerson concluded his submission by highlighting the fact that CONFESSIONAL raced very greenly.
Mr Elliot submitted that all the way up the straight his mount's head was ‘tilted outwards’ and throughout the running of the race his horse laid in.
Mr Williamson when asked for the Stewards' interpretation of the alleged interference submitted that it was clear on the films that both horses were under heavy pressure from the 300-metre mark. He said that at about the 150-metre mark CONFESSIONAL was 1 to ½ lengths in front of DIRECT CAPITAL when it shifted into that runner’s line. He said Mr Riddell had to take a brief hold of his mount; it changed ground and then finished the race off well to run CONFESSIONAL to a head margin. In conclusion he said the protest did have some merit and the committee has to determine whether the interference cost DIRECT CAPITAL more than the head margin, being the difference between the 2 horses at the finish.
Reasons for Decision:
The Committee carefully considered all of the evidence and submissions presented and also reviewed the video films several times.
The Committee established that when passing the 150-metre mark in the home straight Mr Elliot permitted his mount to shift inward 1-horse width when he was not sufficiently clear of DIRECT CAPITAL who was racing to its inside and behind on the running rail. As a consequence of the shift, Mr Riddell had to check his mount and came around off the heels of CONFESSIONAL. DIRECT CAPITAL definitely lost ground and some momentum as a direct result of this. It was clearly evident over the final stages of the race that once balanced; DIRECT CAPITAL made up more than 1 length on CONFESSIONAL and was finishing the race off strongly at the winning post.
In consideration of all the factors it is our opinion that DIRECT CAPITAL'S chances were interfered with and it would have finished ahead of CONFESSIONAL had such interference not occurred.
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: 962135a3a689af90ba0780c1be531052
informantnumber: A10381
horsename: CONFESSIONAL
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: 19/04/2018
hearing_title: Matamata RC 18 April 2018 - R 4 (instigating a protest) - Chair, Mr G Jones
charge:
facts:
Following the running of Race No 4, the Boltholder Ltd, an Information was filed Instigating a Protest pursuant to Rule 642(1). The Informant, Mr J Riddell, alleged that horse number 11 CONFESSIONAL placed 2nd by the Judge interfered with the chances of horse number 3 DIRECT CAPITAL placed 3rd by the Judge.
The interference was alleged to have occurred in the final straight.
The Judge's placing were as follows:
1st No. 5 ARMAGUARD
2nd No.11 CONFESSIONAL
3rd No. 3 DIRECT CAPITAL
4th No. 10 LEICA WARRIOR
The official margins were ¾ of a length and a head (between 2nd and 3rd).
Rule 642(1) provides:
“If a placed horse or its rider causes interference within the meaning of this rule 642 to another placed horse, and the Judicial Committee is of the opinion that the horse so interfered with would have finished ahead of the first mentioned horse had such interference not occurred, they may place the first mentioned horse immediately after the horse interfered with”.
For the purposes of Rule 642 “interference” is defined as:
(i) a horse crossing another horse without being at least its own length and one other clear length in front of such other horse at the time of crossing;
(ii) a horse jostling with another horse, unless it is proved that such jostling was caused by the fault of some other horse or Rider or that the horse or Rider jostled with was partly at fault; or
(iii) a horse itself, or its Rider, in any way interfering with another horse or the Rider of another horse in a Race, unless it is proved that such interference was caused by the fault of some other horse or Rider or that the horse or Rider interfered with was partly at fault.
At the commencement of the hearing all parties indicated they understood the nature of the ‘Protest Rule’ - Rule 642(1).
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
Mr Riddell submitted that when passing the 200-metre mark CONFESSIONAL ridden by Mr R Elliot who was racing one out, shifted inwards and denied him his rightful running line on the rails. He said that Mr Elliot’s run was one off the rails and when he crossed, his mount (DIRECT CAPITAL), was interfered with. He said as a result he took hold of his mount and came off CONFESSIONAL'S heels and this definitely cost his mount 2nd placing given the narrow margin at the finish. Mr Riddell used the available race films to demonstrate his submission. He emphasised that he had every right to the run that was available on the fence which he was denied as a result of Mr Elliot’s shift inward. He estimated that as a consequence of having to “pop off the fence” he lost at least ½ a length and in the run to the finish he made up not only the lost ½ length but also one further length.
When asked, Ms Nicholson said she had nothing further to add.
In his opening comments Mr Rogerson clarified that the margin between the 2nd and 3rd horse was a head as it had erroneously been previously referred to as a nose. He then submitted that Mr Elliot was probably near to 2-lengths clear when he shifted in. He said that Mr Elliot advised him that Mr Riddell did not call out, and he (Mr Elliot) thought that he was his own length and one further horse length clear when he shifted in. He said the race was nearly over and DIRECT CAPITAL was never going to beat CONFESSIONAL and it was significant that the margin between the two horses at the finish was a head. He added it was only in the last 3 strides that DIRECT CAPITAL got close to CONFESSIONAL. Mr Rogerson concluded his submission by highlighting the fact that CONFESSIONAL raced very greenly.
Mr Elliot submitted that all the way up the straight his mount's head was ‘tilted outwards’ and throughout the running of the race his horse laid in.
Mr Williamson when asked for the Stewards' interpretation of the alleged interference submitted that it was clear on the films that both horses were under heavy pressure from the 300-metre mark. He said that at about the 150-metre mark CONFESSIONAL was 1 to ½ lengths in front of DIRECT CAPITAL when it shifted into that runner’s line. He said Mr Riddell had to take a brief hold of his mount; it changed ground and then finished the race off well to run CONFESSIONAL to a head margin. In conclusion he said the protest did have some merit and the committee has to determine whether the interference cost DIRECT CAPITAL more than the head margin, being the difference between the 2 horses at the finish.
reasonsfordecision:
The Committee carefully considered all of the evidence and submissions presented and also reviewed the video films several times.
The Committee established that when passing the 150-metre mark in the home straight Mr Elliot permitted his mount to shift inward 1-horse width when he was not sufficiently clear of DIRECT CAPITAL who was racing to its inside and behind on the running rail. As a consequence of the shift, Mr Riddell had to check his mount and came around off the heels of CONFESSIONAL. DIRECT CAPITAL definitely lost ground and some momentum as a direct result of this. It was clearly evident over the final stages of the race that once balanced; DIRECT CAPITAL made up more than 1 length on CONFESSIONAL and was finishing the race off strongly at the winning post.
In consideration of all the factors it is our opinion that DIRECT CAPITAL'S chances were interfered with and it would have finished ahead of CONFESSIONAL had such interference not occurred.
Decision:
Accordingly, the protest is upheld and the amended placings are:
1st No. 5 ARMAGUARD
2nd No. 3 DIRECT CAPITAL
3rd No. 11 CONFESSIONAL
4th No. 10 LEICA WARRIOR
We order the payment of dividends and stakes in accordance with the amended placings.
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Protest
Rules: Rule 642(1)
Informant: Mr J Riddell - Rider of DIRECT CAPITAL
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent: J Riddell, Ms K Nicholson (trainer of DIRECT CAPITAL), Mr G Rogerson (co-trainer of CONFESSIONAL), Mr R Elliot (rider of CONFESSIONAL, Mr M Williamson (Senior Stipendiary Steward)
Respondent: Mr G Rogerson - Co Trainer of CONFESSIONAL
StipendSteward:
raceid: 9c45a70cc1ed3976dc6eaf8baa79b001
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R4
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: 3a30f8d770b4acdf06dc6c4331507494
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 18/04/2018
meet_title: Matamata RC - 18 April 2018
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: matamata-rc
meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
meet_chair: GJones
meet_pm1: ADooley
meet_pm2: none
name: Matamata RC