eventing (20) - us equestrianprc.usef.org/documents/eventing.pdfeventing eventing (20) ... those...

Eventing

(20)Eventing

Rule Tracking ProponentDraft Effective Date

GR 151.1 Governance269-17

Draft 1: Recommends Approval 11/07/2017

1 12/1/2018

GR 309.0 USEF Officers339-17

Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 11/07/2017

1 12/1/2018

GR 603.1 AHA323-17


1 12/1/2018



1 12/1/2018

GR 801.0 Matty O'Rourke210-17


1 12/1/2018

GR 809.3 Council - Natl Breed & Discipline340-17

Draft 1: Needs Action Draft 2: No Action 11/07/2017 Draft 3: Needs Action

3 4/1/2018


Draft 1: Needs Action Draft 2: No Action 11/07/2017 Draft 3: Needs Action

3 4/1/2018


Draft 1: No Action 11/07/2017 Draft 2: No Action 12/09/2017 Draft 3: Needs Action

3 4/1/2018



1 12/1/2018

GR 843.7 Veterinary272-17

Draft 1: Recommends Approval 11/07/2017 Draft 2: Needs Action

2 12/1/2018

GR 1040.0 Licensed Officials Task Force330-17 2 4/1/2018

Tuesday, January 09, 2018 11:10 AM of 52

Eventing

(20)Eventing

Rule Tracking ProponentDraft Effective DateDraft 1: Recommends Approval 11/07/2017 Draft 2: Needs Action

GR 1102.5 Bill Moroney343-17

Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 11/07/2017 Draft 2: Recommends Disapproval 12/09/2017

2 4/1/2018

GR 1211.5 Safety267-17


1 12/1/2018

GR 1302.0 Steve Sarafin041-17

Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 11/07/2017 Draft 2: Needs Action

2 12/1/2018

GR 1302.2 USHJA266-17

Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 11/07/2017 Draft 2: Needs Action

2 12/1/2018

GR 1304.22 Hearing Committee329-17


1 12/1/2018

GR 1316.4 Matty O'Rourke211-17


1 12/1/2018

EV 114.5 Stephanie Reimers048-17


1 12/1/2018

EV 115.0 Mary P Hunter044-17


1 12/1/2018

EV 115.0 US Eventing156-17


1 12/1/2018

Tuesday, January 09, 2018 11:10 AM of 52

GR151.1 Tracking #269-17 Draft #1 Active

Rule Change Type Effective Date Draft Received Board Action

Standard 12/1/2018 8/31/2017

Proposed Change

GR151 Rule Change Procedures [CHAPTER 1-B Adoption and Amendment of Federation Rules]

GR151 Rule Change Procedures

These rules may be added to, altered or amended at any meeting of the Board of Directors by a majority vote of those present as provided herein below. The USEF Legislative Committee is responsible for review, analysis, and oversight of the Federation’s rule change process, subject to review and approval by the Board of Directors. Rule Change Categories: Standard, Clarification, Extraordinary, and FEI.

1. Standard Rule Changes. Individual Federation members, Federation Senior Staff, Federation Committees, and Recognized Affiliate Associations (Recognized Associations and International Discipline Associations), and eligible Individual Federation members may propose standard rule changes. Individual Federation members are eligible so long as the member is a Lifetime member or has held a Federation Senior Active membership for at least five (5) consecutive years. If an Individual Federation member is ineligible to submit a rule change due to these requirements, he may contact the appropriate Recognized Affiliate Association or Federation committee and request that either one consider proposing his desired rule change.

1. Standard Rule Changes.

a. Standard rule changes must be submitted to the Federation in writing on the USEF official form within the following deadlines in order to be considered within the current rule change year.

1. Individual Federation members June 1

2. Federation Senior Staff June 1

3. Federation Committees September 1

4. Affiliated Entities (Bylaw 221) September 1

5. Recognized Affiliate Associations (Bylaw 222) September 1

b. The proponent’s name must be clearly listed on the official rule change form. When the proponent is other than an individual, upon request, such submissions shall be accompanied by minutes or certification signed by the Committee Chair or Recognized Affiliate Association’s President that document the review and action taken at a meeting.

c. The Legislative Committee may reject a proposal for:1. failure to comply with the requirements of the official form;2. lateness;3. incompleteness;4. inexact or confusing language;5. a proposal that was disapproved the prior year;6. attempts to amend a rule or rules in effect for less than a year;7. proposing to change a rule that is solely within the Federation’s purview8. any other specified reason in the Committee’s discretion.

d. In the event the Legislative Committee rejects a proposal, the proponent must be notified in writing. Proponents of a rejected proposal may revise and resubmit a proposal. Any decision to reject a proposal made by the Legislative Committee shall prevail subject to review by the Board of Directors.

e. The Legislative Committee will designate review of the proposed rule change by any and all standing Federation Committees and each assigned entity deemed appropriate.

Proponent Details Contact Information

Sonja KeatingGovernance

[email protected]

Rule Change Intent

This proposed rule change is being submitted to ensure proposed rule changes come from those individual members of the Federation who are involved in

Tuesday, January 09, 2018 11:10 AM of 52GR 151.1 | Tracking #269-17

the Breed or Discipline impacted by the proposed rule change. Those individuals are most likely to know the rules and effects that changes to such rules will have on the Breed or Discipline. Additionally, those individuals will best understand the purposes for such rule changes and the enforcement of such rules. Therefore, those individuals with a history in the particular Breed or Discipline are best suited to propose rules with an impact on the sport.

Linked Rules CommentsWeb: Rule Change Process - Individual Members

Committee Actions

Draft 1: No CommentsDraft 1: Recommends Approval 11/27/2017

American Saddlebred


Andalusian/Lusitano


Arabian

Draft 1: No CommentsDraft 1: No Action

Breeds/Disciplines


Carriage Pleasure Driving


Competition Management


Connemara


Council - Admin & Finance


Council - Intl Discipline


Council - Natl Breed & Discipline


Dressage


Driving


Endurance


English Pleasure


Eventing


Friesian


Governance


Hackney


Jumper


Licensed Officials


Morgan


National Hunter Committee



National Show Horse


Paso Fino


Reining


Roadster


Saddle Seat Eq


Shetland

Draft 1: USHJA is voting to approve this proposal, but also wanted to provide a comment to indicate it suggests the Federation amend this RCP to clarify that a Lifetime member needs to be 18 years of age or older to be eligible to submit a rule change proposal under this rule. Instances exist where individuals obtain a Lifetime Membership when they are still children.


USHJA


Vaulting


Welsh


Western Committee


Western Dressage


GR309 Tracking #339-17 Draft #1 Active


Standard 12/1/2018 9/5/2017

Proposed Change

GR309 Special Competitions [CHAPTER Sub-Chapter 3-B, Competition Classification]

GR309 Special Competitions

A Special Competition is a competition that the Federation deems n event, which may not fully meet the requirements for obtaining Federation licensing; however, it has been deemed to be in the best interest of the breed and/or discipline and/or sport, and is therefore issued a competition license. the Federation that the event be sanctioned by the Federation. After submitting a written application to the Federation at least six months prior to an event the start of competition, and in accordance with applicable guidelines, a competition may be approved for Special Competition classification upon approval of the Board of Directors. Competitions classified as Special Competitions are exempt from the mileage rules for the classes and divisions approved by the Board of Directors and shall not receive mileage protection against new or existing competitions.

The Federation must provide the applicable Recognized Affiliate, Council, and discipline or breed committee with all information pertaining to the request, including mileage and any other conflicts, for the purpose of making a recommendation as to approving or disapproving the request. A non-refundable processing fee must be submitted with the application.

Special Competition classification may include, but is not limited to, the following: Olympic Games or Trials; Pan Am Games or Trials; World Equestrian Games or Trials; World Cup Finals or Qualifiers; FEI CSI 5* events held as a standalone event and not in conjunction with any other competition; Nations Cup Finals; Nations Cup CSIO’s; Federation National Finals; Federation National Championships; Recognized Affiliate championships; and additional competitions as determined by the Federation. any other events deemed by the Board of Directors as fitting in this classification. Competitions classified as Special Competitions are exempt from the mileage rules for the classes and divisions approved by the Board of Directors.


Matt FineUSEF Officers

[email protected]

Rule Change Intent

As currently written, the Special Competition rule leads to confusion as to what constitutes a Special Competition and what competitions may apply for the classification. The intent is to clarify those competitions that qualify for classification as a special competition based on the type of competition (e.g. Olympic Games) and those competitions that must apply for the classification.

Linked Rules CommentsWeb: Definition of Special Competition

Committee Actions

Draft 1: Not comfortable with the wording of "determined by the Federation" and that the affiliate review wording is removed



Draft 1: The Committee wants to see the procedures before approving this rule.Draft 1: Tabled 01/08/2018


Draft 1: Approve the principle but not the current language.Draft 1: Tabled 12/21/2017


Draft 1: No CommentsDraft 1: Tabled 01/04/2018



Draft 1: The Eventing Sport Committee would be amendable to approving the proposed change to GR309 if amended to require approval of Special Competitions other than Olympic Games or Trials; Pan Am Games or Trials; World Equestrian Games or Trials; World Cup Finals or Qualifiers; Nations Cup Finals; Nations Cup CSIO’s; Federation National Finals; Federation National Championships and Recognized Affiliate championships, by the specific Breed/Discipline Committee.


Eventing


Jumper

Draft 1: The committee is waiting for a second draft of this rule change in favor of the current draft.



Draft 1: USHJA feels this current draft is too vague and the RCP does not provide adequate specifics for how Special Competitions are defined, evaluated or assessed. Additionally, USHJA would like to see the evaluation process for Special Competitions provide for the ability for existing competitions within reasonable proximity to a) be notified that a Special Competition application has been submitted, and b) have the ability to provide comment about the potential impact. Currently, the Special Competition application and evaluation process provides absolutely no transparency. Finally, USHJA would like assurance that the existence of standalone Hunter Derby competitions will not be jeopardized by not establishing (either through modification of this RCP, or creation of an alternate licensing process) the mechanism for such exceptional hunter events to exist.


USHJA




Standard 12/1/2018 9/5/2017

Proposed Change

GR603 Protests [CHAPTER Subchapter 6-A FILING AND CONTENTS OF PROTESTS, CHARGES AND ATHLETE]

GR603 Protests

1. Any Only a rider, driver, handler, vaulter, longeur, exhibitor, owner, agent, trainer or the parent of a junior exhibitor, or any Life, Senior, or Junior member present at the competition in any of these capacities, may file a protest with the Show Committee of a Licensed Competition or The Federation Hearing Committee alleging violation of any Federation rule(s). The protest must contain all information as specified in GR602.1 and must be:

a. in writing,

b. signed by the protester,

c. addressed to the Show Committee of the competition at which the alleged violation occurred, or to the Hearing Committee,

d. accompanied by a deposit of $200 if made by a Federation member or the parent of a junior exhibitor member or $300 if made by a non-member (if check, payable to the competition or to the Federation); said deposit will be refunded in the event the protest is upheld, and

e. received by the steward, technical delegate, a member of the Show Committee, the competition manager or the competition secretary within 48 hours of the alleged violation. If made directly to the Hearing Committee, the protest must be received at the Federation office by the tenth business day following the last recognized day of the competition, or by the tenth business day following the date on which the alleged violation occurred if it occurred other than at a Licensed Competition.


Sarah Beth HollowedAHA

[email protected]

Rule Change Intent

To make clear that only individuals present at the competition and acting in the capacities listed may file a protest. The intent is to strike out "Any" and replace with "Only a" and also add "in any of these capacities".

Linked Rules CommentsWeb: protests

Committee Actions


American Saddlebred


Andalusian/Lusitano


Arabian


Breeds/Disciplines







Connemara








Dressage


Driving


Endurance


English Pleasure


Eventing


Friesian


Governance


Hackney

Draft 1: From a welfare standpoint the Hearing Committee has concerns about taking the ability away from a spectator to file a Protest when they witness a violation, especially matters concerning welfare/abuse. The Committee also finds that this RCP contradicts the language in GR602.8 which states in part that any member of the Federation may file a protest pertaining to any matter within the cognizance of the Federation. The Committee was also concerned that it may require changes to the current Bylaws if we do not allow any member to file a Protest.


Hearing Committee


Jumper


Morgan




National Show Horse


Paso Fino


Reining


Roadster


Saddle Seat Eq


Shetland


Vaulting


Welsh



Western Committee


Western Dressage




Standard 12/1/2018 8/31/2017

Proposed Change

GR702 Violations [CHAPTER 7-A Individuals]

GR702 Violations

1. A violation is any act prejudicial to the best interests of the Federation, including but not limited to the following:

o. Making untruthful statements, misrepresentations, or engaging in fraudulent behavior in any horse sales or lease transaction.


Sonja KeatingUSEF Officers

[email protected]

Rule Change Intent

This rule change proposal will provide members of the Federation a forum outside of the courtroom, in which evidence may be presented to show that another member has made untruthful statements or misrepresentations in a horse transaction between them. It is important for the reputation of the sport and industry that members interact with one another ethically and as good horsemen.

Under this rule, the Hearing Committee has no jurisdiction to determine legal ownership of a horse or order restitution to be paid to another person.

Linked Rules CommentsWeb: Violations - Horse Sales/Leases

Committee Actions

Draft 1: Too subjective and would be difficult to enforce. Because of liability issues USE should not be involved.


American Saddlebred


Andalusian/Lusitano

Draft 1: The committee feels this is a civil matter. If needed, USEF could add a penalty after legal action has been taken.


Arabian

Draft 1: We disapprove based on the enforceability issues and the fact that USEF should not get involved in civil cases except to impose sanctions after a court ruling.


Breeders


Breeds/Disciplines


Budget&Finance

Draft 1: The concept is good but would be difficult to enforce. Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 11/09/2017



Draft 1: Not sure this is enforceable. Untruth is slightly unambiguous. If there is a question of a horse not USEF recorded or competing in USEF competitions, but the person is a USEF member, would this rule apply?


Connemara

Draft 1: Too broad and too difficult to enforce. Would be in favor if the scope was reduced to written contractual agreements only.



Draft 1: Too subjective and difficult to enforce. Opens up liability concerns for the USEF.Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 12/21/2017


Draft 1: The Council felt this would be unenforceable and the language is too subjective. Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 01/04/2018


Draft 1: The Dressage Sport Committee supports in principle; however, recommends disapproval as there are concerns about the potential costs for the Federation for litigation and lack of clarity as to which parties are covered under the rule. There are also concerns about how this rule would be enforced.


Dressage

Draft 1: Strongly oppose this change, as the Federation has no place getting involved in anything with the potential for civil legal action. The Federation would have no control over the amount of resources it would take to handle this rule.


Driving


Endurance


English Pleasure


Ethics

Draft 1: The Eventing Sport Committee voted against recommending approval as there are concerns about the potential costs to the Federation for litigation and lack of clarity as to which parties are covered under the rule.


Eventing

Draft 1: Believes USEF should stay out of litigation with members and that members should go through civil court. How would this be handled for horses that are not recorded with USEF?


Friesian


Governance

Draft 1: This would be difficult to enforce and monitor. Committee believes there would be liability concerns for USEF and this is more of a matter for Federal courts


Hackney

Draft 1: The Committee was sympathetic to the need to allow a platform outside of a civil court to hear matters such as this but they were not comfortable with that platform being with the Federation. The Committee appreciates the concept of this rule and found it may be provable in a hearing if a Proponent had sufficient evidence that a member had made fraudulent/untruthful statements. However, the Federation would have no authority to order restitution between the parties. Nonetheless, the Committee did find that such a platform would make for a strong membership benefit if their concerns could be addressed. The Committee did have concerns as to the impact this rule would have on the workload of the Regulation Department. The Committee would support a group being formed to research and re-write the rule such that it will not leave us open to swamping the current staffing structure. In addition, it may require a Bylaw change to expand our existing purpose as a horse show regulatory body.


Hearing Committee

Draft 1: The JCS feels this could get messy with the liability for the Federation and that this is really a civil matter.


Jumper

Draft 1: The committee feels this belongs in civil court and is unenforceable. Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 11/21/2017

Morgan

Draft 1: This rule would be difficult to enforce as the Federation likely has no authority in this area. The rules should focus on governing competitions, not business activities outside of competition.



Draft 1: The Committee feels this should be left in civil court, would be difficult to enforce and a large undertaking for USEF and the Hearing Committee.


National Show Horse



Owners


Paso Fino


Reining

Draft 1: Difficult to monitor and enforce. This would assign unnecessary liability to USEF.Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 11/21/2017

Roadster

Draft 1: This would be difficult to enforce and USEF does not need to be responsible for liability concerning this rule.


Saddle Seat Eq


Shetland

Draft 1: All rules of an organization should rest on the foundation of its bylaws, and the bylaws of the Federation govern competition, not business activities outside of the competition environment. The Federation likely has no authority in this area and would not be able to enforce this rule, if passed.


USHJA


Vaulting

Draft 1: The Veterinary Committee supports the concept, but is unsure of the implementation.Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 12/18/2017

Veterinary

Draft 1: We are concerned about how this rule will be enforced. We feel it would be more beneficial for a person to be required to go through the regular court system before bringing it to USEF, and would like more information on how these will be processed and the impact this will have on the number of hearings/staff time before making a decision.

Draft 1: Tabled 10/25/2017

Welsh

Draft 1: Agree with concept but this would be difficult to monitor and enforce. Do not approve of the liability responsibility that USEF would assume with this rule.


Western Committee

Draft 1: Feels these matters should not be taken on by USEF. Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 11/07/2017

Western Dressage




Standard 12/1/2018 8/31/2017

Proposed Change

GR801 Dress [CHAPTER 8-A ATTIRE AND EQUIPMENT]

2. It is compulsory for all persons at Federation licensed hunter, jumper or hunter/jumper competitions when mounted anywhere on the competition grounds, to wear properly fastened protective headgear which meets or exceeds ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials)/SEI (Safety Equipment Institute) standards for equestrian use and carries the SEI tag. It must be properly fitted with harness secured and tight enough so it cannot be pulled over the chin or allowing the helmet to come off without unfastening the harness. Exception: In Hunter or Jumper classes, adults may be allowed to remove their headgear while accepting prizes and during the playing of the National Anthem only; they must refasten their headgear prior to the lap of honor. It is compulsory for riders in Paso Fino classes, both open and breed restricted including Hunter Hack, where jumping is required and when jumping anywhere on the competition grounds to wear properly fastened protective headgear which meets or exceeds ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials)/SEI (Safety Equipment Institute) standards for equestrian use and carries the SEI tag. It must be properly fitted with harness secured and tight enough so it cannot be pulled over the chin or allowing the helmet to come off without unfastening the harness. A Show Committee must bar riders without properly fitted protective headgear or hair not conforming to the rules from entering the ring for classes in which protective headgear is required and may bar any entry or person from entering the ring if not suitably presented to appear before an audience.

3. Except as may otherwise be mandated by local law, all sub-junior exhibitors in the Paso Fino division, while riding or driving or while in the driving cart anywhere on the competition grounds, must wear properly fitting protective headgear which meets or exceeds ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials)/SEI (Safety Equipment Institute) standards for equestrian use and carries the SEI tag. Harness must be secured and properly fitted and tight enough so it cannot be pulled over the chin or allowing the helmet to come off without unfastening the harness. Any rider violating this rule at any time must immediately be prohibited from further riding until such headgear is properly in place. For all exhibitors competing in the hunter, jumper, or hunter seat equitation section, if a rider’s chin strap becomes unfastened, the rider may stop, re-fasten the chin strap and continue his/her round without penalty or elimination. A judge may, but is not required to stop a rider and ask them to refasten a chin strap which has become unfastened, again without penalty to the rider. Members of the Armed Services or the Police may wear the Service Dress Uniform.

8. The Federation makes no representation or warranty, express or implied, about any protective headgear, and cautions riders that death or serious injury may result despite wearing such headgear as all equestrian sports involve inherent dangerous risk and as no helmet can protect against all foreseeable injuries but a properly fitted and current helmet is required.

9. Helmets may not be more than 4 years old, verified by the manufacturer date in the helmet.


Matty O'RourkeMatty O'Rourke

[email protected]

Rule Change Intent

Wearing hair up and in a helmet limits the effectiveness of the helmet and can lead to greater injury than a helmet properly fitted.In no other sport or profession where a helmet is worn, do people wear their hair up in their helmet. Not in any form of motor racing, bicycle racing, snow sports, ice hockey, football, lacrosse, extreme sports, amateur boxing, fighter pilots, Armed Forces, Police or Fire Fighters. Hair is worn in a bun below the helmet as in Dressage, the Armed Forces and Police. In sports where there is danger of fire, hair is worn loose or in a ponytail under the balaclava and under the uniform.This can be a mandate that is phased in, similar to when harnesses became required on helmets. All juniors must comply, amateurs and professionals by a certain date to be determined.Though there is backlash against jumper riders with loose, unkempt hair, there can be a middle ground with the traditional hunters and equitation choosing a bun or a neatly braided pony tail with no adornments other than a suitable hairnet as seen in dressage.Helmets are routinely worn with chin straps too loose which defeat the purpose of wearing the helmet. Judges, stewards and all officials should be empowered to check the strap and require the rider to make an adjustment.

The Federal Government also requires that in states that require helmets for Motorcyclists to be no more than 5 years old, verified by the DOT sticker on the helmet. Helmets can appear fine on the outside but sweat, hair products, extreme temperatures, all serve to continually compromise a helmet over time and is not considered effective after 5 years of normal wear. In a sport where some riders and trainers can wear a helmet for 12 hours a day, that amount of wear is well beyond "normal." Instituting a helmet date check is similar to checking the length of a dressage whip, horse boots, blood rule or jog for soundness. A helmet check for fit and/or date of manufacture can be done concurrently with a jog for soundness, model class, boot check, etc. In motor racing a car finishing on the podium gets a quick check to make sure the car was legal; top three competitors can be required to show their helmet or get eliminated from class and points and money lost if the helmet or hair is non compliant.

Linked Rules CommentsWeb: Helmet Fit


Committee Actions

Draft 1: Difficult to enforceDraft 1: Recommends Disapproval 11/27/2017

American Saddlebred

Draft 1: Helmets last longer than four years when taken care of properly and have not been damaged. It would be difficult for competition stewards to check each exhibitor helmet especially at larger licensed competitions.


Andalusian/Lusitano

Draft 1: This rule change would be difficult to enforce. Who would enforce the rule at the competition? What if the tag is no longer in the helmet?


Arabian


Breeds/Disciplines

Draft 1: Committee feels this rule change is unenforceable. Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 11/09/2017


Draft 1: There are currently no rules about hair being in a helmet as referred to in this proposal. While this may be a well meant idea, it is not really enforceable.


Connemara

Draft 1: Goes against current standards for replacing helmets. Would be difficult to enforce.Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 01/08/2018


Draft 1: Too difficult to enforce. It is not the purpose of the USEF to dictate and police the correct fit of helmets.



Draft 1: No CommentsDraft 1: Recommends Disapproval 01/04/2018


Draft 1: Would be difficult to enforce. Many helmets can be used over four years per manufacturer based on amount of uses, etc.


Dressage

Draft 1: Strongly oppose these changes for many reasons: cannot be enforced, puts potential legal obligation on Officials & the Federation, not clear to “who” is responsible in these situations, should be left for the Organizer’s to handle (not the Federation), cannot clearly define ‘properly fitted’ in a general sense across disciplines.


Driving


Endurance


English Pleasure

Draft 1: The Eventing Sport Commtitee does not recommend approval as there are concerns about the administration of the rule.


Eventing

Draft 1: It should be up to parents, trainers and individuals to ensure helmets are up to standard. Too much work for competition management and stewards.


Friesian


Governance

Draft 1: This would be too difficult to monitor and enforceDraft 1: Recommends Disapproval 11/20/2017

Hackney

Draft 1: JSC feels we should focus on better education regarding concussions and helmet safety. Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 11/28/2017

Jumper

Draft 1: This rule is unenforceable by competition management and would be extremely difficult to monitor.


Licensed Officials

Draft 1: This rule change would be difficult to enforce. There is not enough time for Stewards/TDs to check each helmet and the manufacturer date is not indicative of the helmets condition


Morgan

Draft 1: This rule is unenforceable.Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 11/06/2017



Draft 1: This rule would be difficult to enforce and too many factors come into play regarding proper fit and age of helmets.


National Show Horse

Draft 1: It would be difficult to verify helmet age and would burden competition management to enforce this rule.


Paso Fino


Reining

Draft 1: Too difficult to monitor and enforce.Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 11/21/2017

Roadster

Draft 1: Helmets can be used longer that the noted 4 years and who will monitor if the helmet fits properly. This rule would be too difficult to enforce.


Saddle Seat Eq

Draft 1: While the committee is in support of a rule enforcing the proper fit of helmets, it cannot approve this rule as written with the restriction of helmets over 4 years old and mandate on wearing hair outside of the helmet. There is research that has found helmets are effective for years with proper care. Additionally, there is ongoing debate and research regarding the best way to wear hair with a helmet.


Safety

Draft 1: This rule change would be difficult to enforce and verify helmet age. At competitions, who will check each helmet? This could cause hardship to competition management especially at competitions with a high number of exhibitors.


Shetland



Steward-Technical Delegate Committee

Draft 1: Proper helmet fit is already addressed within the current rule and the responsibility for ensuring proper fit rests with the individual, not the Federation.


USHJA


Vaulting

Draft 1: This rule is a great concept, but we feel it will be rather difficult to enforce. Who will enforce this rule at each competition - i.e. check each individual helmet & fit? This will potentially cause a hardship on those who may not ride often to have to purchase a helmet every four years, as well as the fact that the helmet may already be a year old when it is shipped to a store. The manufacture date does not indicate the intensity of how a helmet has or has not been used.


Welsh

Draft 1: No CommentsDraft 1: No Action 11/21/2017

Western Committee

Draft 1: The committee is okay with the language regarding the chinstrap but feels verifying the helmets age would be difficult to enforce. Who will check the fit and verify the age of the helmet?


Western Dressage


GR809.3 Tracking #340-17 Draft #3 Amended


Standard 4/1/2018 12/20/2017

Proposed Change

GR809 Performance Championships [CHAPTER SUBCHAPTER 8-B COMPETITION AWARDS, HONORS, AND PRIZES]

1. A Show Committee must designate all qualifying classes and can require any or all winners in a qualifying class at that competition to compete in a Performance Championship class provided this is stated in the prize list and the gaits required are the same as in the qualifying class. Any exhibitor failing to comply must forfeit all prize money in the qualifying class. If an exhibitor or trainer qualifies more than one horse for a Championship class he can elect to show only one. (This does not apply to Regional and National Breed Affiliate approved Competitions.)

2. To be eligible to show in a Performance Championship class a horse must have been properly entered, shown and judged in one qualifying class at that competition in the same division or section. (This does not apply to Regional and National Breed Affiliate approved Competitions.)

3. So long as a competition has not limited eligibility for a Championship class to ribbon winner of qualifying classes, An an entry which while performing in a qualifying class fails to qualify by reasons of equipment repair (limited to bridle, saddle, cart, wheels, and harness), shoeing time, illness (certified by the official veterinarian) or failure of a class to fill shall be permitted to pay double fee and make a post entry in another qualifying class in the section or if no subsequent qualifying class is available for such post entry, the horse shall be considered qualified for the Performance Championship class, provided the horse has previously been entered in the Championship or Stake. Exception: Dressage, Jumper (See JP135.6), and Paso Fino. (See also GR117.3)

4.To avoid divided Performance Championship classes, eligibility for a Championship class may be limited to ribbon winners in qualifying classes.


Lori NelsonCouncil - Natl Breed & Discipline

[email protected]

Rule Change Intent

Intent: 1. To make it more clear in #3 what “equipment” can be repaired (such as bridle, saddle, cart, wheels, harness; not to include shoes); to eliminate shoeing time from the rule because it is defined in GR833 as an elimination if the shoe is not able to be attached.2. Eliminate the ability for someone to come back in a championship that is restricted to ribbon winners by excepting that situation out in #3 based on #4.

Would like to have this rule change effective 4/1/18 to eliminate the conflict with GR810 and to make it more clear for managers and exhibitors how to proceedin circumstances that arise at the competitions.

Linked Rules CommentsWeb: Championship class

Committee Actions

Draft 1: No CommentsDraft 2: No CommentsDraft 3: No Comments

Draft 1: No Action Draft 2: Recommends Approval 11/27/2017Draft 3: Recommends Approval 12/21/2017

American Saddlebred


Draft 1: Recommends Approval 11/02/2017Draft 2: No Action Draft 3: No Action

Andalusian/Lusitano


Draft 1: No Action Draft 2: Recommends Approval 11/15/2017Draft 3: No Action

Arabian



Draft 1: No Action Draft 2: No Action Draft 3: No Action

Breeds/Disciplines

Draft 1: Too ambiguous. Would like to see the new language as a separate line item and have shoeing time added back into the rule. GR810 referenced in the intent does not conflict with rule. Draft 2: Committee approves but suggests changing "cart, wheels" to vehicle.Draft 3: No Comments

Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 11/09/2017Draft 2: Recommends Approval 12/18/2017Draft 3: No Action



Draft 1: No Action 10/25/2017Draft 2: No Action Draft 3: No Action

Connemara


Draft 1: No Action Draft 2: No Action Draft 3: Recommends Approval 12/21/2017



Draft 1: No Action Draft 2: No Action 12/04/2017Draft 3: No Action

Dressage


Draft 1: No Action Draft 2: No Action Draft 3: No Action 12/20/2017

Driving



Endurance



English Pleasure

Draft 1: No CommentsDraft 2: The Eventing Sport Committee recommend taking no action as the proposed change does not impact Eventing.Draft 3: No Comments


Eventing



Friesian



Hackney

Draft 1: No CommentsDraft 2: Would approve if an exception is added for Jumping (after Dressage) with JP 135.6 as a reference. Draft 3: No Comments

Draft 1: No Action Draft 2: Recommends Disapproval 11/28/2017Draft 3: Recommends Approval 12/21/2017

Jumper



Morgan

Draft 1: No CommentsDraft 2: Feels this limits possibilities for exhibitors to show back that have shown in the qualifier.Draft 3: No Comments

Draft 1: No Action Draft 2: Recommends Disapproval 11/13/2017Draft 3: No Action

National Show Horse

Draft 1: The Paso Fino committee takes no action as this rule change does not affect the Paso Fino breed; however, the committee requests an exception for the Paso Fino breed to GR809.3 as it is currently written. The committee does not feel a competitor should be able to show in a championship class who has not properly qualified. Draft 2: No CommentsDraft 3: No Comments


Paso Fino




Reining



Roadster

Draft 1: No CommentsDraft 2: Concern that the shoeing time was being eliminated from this rule.Draft 3: No Comments


Saddle Seat Eq



Shetland



Vaulting

Draft 1: This rule does not really impact the WelshDraft 2: No CommentsDraft 3: No Comments


Welsh



Western Committee

Draft 1: Feels this rule does not apply to the Western Dressage division. Draft 2: Feels this rule does not apply to the Western Dressage division. Draft 3: No Comments

Draft 1: No Action 11/07/2017Draft 2: No Action 11/07/2017Draft 3: No Action

Western Dressage


GR827 Tracking #230-17 Draft #3 Amended


Standard 4/1/2018 12/20/2017

Proposed Change

GR827 Hors de Concours [CHAPTER SUBCHAPTER 8-C COMPETITION AND CLASS CONDITIONS AND ELIGIBILITY]

GR827 Hors de Concours Entering a class Hors de Concours (without being judged) is prohibited except as provided for below. Competition Management may, in its sole discretion, permit an exhibitor to compete Hors de Concours. If a horse competes Hors de Concours, the horse cannot compete in a subsequent class for prize money in the same ring on the same day. However, the rider of an Hors de Concours horse may compete in subsequent classes.

For exceptions, see below:

a. For Dressage Competitions (out of competition); see DR119.5 and DR119.7

b. For Eventing Competitions: see EV106.6

b.c. For Driving Competitions, see DC915

c.d. For Jumpers - See JP135.14.

e. Competing Hors de Concours is prohibited in the following divisions: Hackney, Roadster, Saddlebred, National Show Horse, and Western Dressage.



[email protected]

Rule Change Intent

Intent:To allow competition management discretion to permit an exhibitor to show hors de concours in divisions not listed currently in this rule based on special circumstances that may arise at the competition.

Would like to see this rule change effective 4/1/18 so that there is more flexibility and competitions and in the best interest of the sport.

Linked Rules CommentsWeb: Hors de Concours

Committee Actions

Draft 1: No CommentsDraft 2: If this rule is approved this Committee would like the American Saddlebred to be exempt for use of this rule.Draft 3: No Comments

Draft 1: No Action Draft 2: Recommends Disapproval 11/27/2017Draft 3: Recommends Approval 12/21/2017

American Saddlebred



Andalusian/Lusitano



Arabian



Draft 1: No Action Draft 2: No Action Draft 3: Recommends Approval

Breeders



Breeds/Disciplines









Connemara





Draft 1: No Action Draft 2: No Action Draft 3: Recommends Approval 12/21/2017






Dressage


Draft 1: No Action Draft 2: No Action Draft 3: No Action 12/20/2017

Driving



Endurance



English Pleasure

Draft 1: No CommentsDraft 2: The Eventing Sport Committee recommend taking no action as the Eventing rule re: Hors de Concours supersedes the GR.Draft 3: No Comments


Eventing



Friesian



Hackney


Jumper



Morgan





Draft 1: No CommentsDraft 2: Is a distraction to judges and puts a hardship on show management. Draft 3: No Comments


National Show Horse



Paso Fino



Reining

Draft 1: No CommentsDraft 2: Committee felt this rule would not be beneficial to this discipline. It would difficult to explain to spectators and could possible reflect negatively on this discipline.Draft 3: No Comments


Roadster



Saddle Seat Eq



Shetland



USHJA



Vaulting

Draft 1: No CommentsDraft 2: This rule does not really impact the WelshDraft 3: No Comments


Welsh



Western Committee

Draft 1: No CommentsDraft 2: The committee would like Western Dressage to be an exception to this rule change, making a separate procedure for Hors de Concours classes in the Western Dressage division. Draft 3: No Comments


Western Dressage




Standard 4/1/2018 1/5/2018

Proposed Change

GR833 Time-Out [CHAPTER SUBCHAPTER 8-D SCHEDULING DURING COMPETITION]

A suspension of judging which may be requested by a competitor or directed by the judge(s).

1. A competitor is entitled to request a time-out for a period not to exceed five minutes in aggregate in order to make obvious adjustments or to repair broken equipment or to rectify a similar condition, or to replace a shoe (See GR804). (Exception: Arabian Hunter, AR108 and HU132.6; Arabian Jumper, AR108 and JP135.6; Dressage, GR833.9 and DR122.7j; Jumper, JP133.6; Hunter Seat Equitation, EQ107.4; Reining, RN103.5g; Vaulting, VA111). Time-outs are not allowed in Western Dressage.

a. In classes in which competitors compete individually, if a horse casts a shoe outside of the ring and the class has a posted Order of Go, if the next exhibitor in the Order of Go is ready, Competition Management may permit the horse with the cast shoe to be moved down in the Order of Go. The horse will be charged with a time-out. All rules apply for a cast shoe.b. In classes in which competitors compete collectively, after the previous class has exited the ring, the show ring has been cleared, and the officials are ready to continue with the competition, Competition Management may allow 5 minutes to replace a shoe or repair equipment outside of show ring, and a time-out will be charged to the competitor. The time-out will be officially timed by a steward, management, or paddock master.

2. If division rules allow a competitor to call for a time-out, the competitor may call only one time-out per class (Exception: Paso Fino and Welsh where a competitor may request a time-out no more than two times.) The penalty for exceeding the allowed time out(s) is for the entry to be excused eliminated.

3. To request a time-out for any such emergency, the competitor must go to the center of the ring (if possible) and or be acknowledged by the judge. The announcer will declare that a request for time-out has been made and permission granted; time will be taken from the moment such announcement is made.

4. If a horse casts a shoe in a class, time starts (after weighing, measuring and/or gauging has concluded, if applicable) when the farrier or his assistant touches the shoe or the horse. No more than three minutes will be allotted to find a shoe; if the shoe is not found, the exhibitor may elect to continue or withdraw be eliminated. If a horse is removed from the ring for the purposes of shoeing, the steward or judge shall accompany and remain with the horse until it is returned to the ring or excused eliminated from the class.

5. Two attendants are permitted in the ring to assist a competitor during his/her time-out. If at the expiration of five minutes the repair has not been made, the competitor may proceed as is or be eliminated.

(renumber accordingly)



[email protected]

Rule Change Intent

Intent:1. To add that if a shoe is cast outside the ring and horses are delayed from entering, that five minutes be allotted for the shoeing outside of the ring and time out charged.2. Make it more clear for the different situations; repairing equipment, shoeing what can happen as it currently states a competitor can be excused, eliminated or may withdraw.3. Remove reference to GR804 because it is not relevant

Would like for this to be effective 4/1/18 due to be in line with the other rules coming forward and to provide guidance to exhibitors and managers about how to proceed in these situations as the rule is not clear right now.

Linked Rules CommentsWeb: time-out


Committee Actions

Draft 1: Would like the following amended language. 6. If stated in prize list: For safety, after previous class has exited, cleared the show ring and officials are ready to continue with competition. Management may grant 5 minutes to replace a shoe or repair equipment outside of show ring, and a time-out will be charged to this competitor. This time out will be officially timed by a steward, management or paddock master. Draft 2: No CommentsDraft 3: No Comments

Draft 1: Recommends Approval 11/27/2017Draft 2: Recommends Approval 12/21/2017Draft 3: No Action

American Saddlebred



Andalusian/Lusitano


Draft 1: Tabled 11/15/2017Draft 2: Recommends Approval 12/19/2017Draft 3: No Action

Arabian



Breeds/Disciplines

Draft 1: Concern that this rule change is contradictory to GR109 concerning the commencement of class. Does not feel a time out should be charged prior to entering the ring - not exhibitor friendly. Feels GR809.3 should be referenced in number 4.Draft 2: Committee is concerned about who would call the time out and who would be responsible for timing. Committee felt it might be safer to have the horses enter the ring before replacing the shoe or repairing equipment.Draft 3: No Comments

Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 11/09/2017Draft 2: Recommends Disapproval 12/18/2017Draft 3: No Action







Connemara







Draft 2: This rule is approved pending the amendment discussed in meetingDraft 3: No Comments

Draft 2: Recommends Approval 01/04/2018Draft 3: Recommends Approval 01/04/2018




Dressage



Driving



Endurance



English Pleasure


Draft 1: The Eventing Sport Committee recommend taking no action as the proposed change does not impact Eventing.Draft 2: The sport of Eventing is exempt from the provisions of this rule and therefore have voted to take No Action.Draft 3: No Comments

Draft 1: No Action 11/07/2017Draft 2: No Action 12/09/2017Draft 3: No Action

Eventing



Friesian

Draft 1: Committee would rather have the horse or pony come in the ring and call a time out. Too difficult to monitor concerning when the timing was to start for the 5 minute shoeing rule if done out side the ring before the class was called to the ring.Draft 2: If this rule passes the Hackney Committee would like to be an exception because of the Committee disapproval.Draft 3: No Comments


Hackney

Draft 1: Feels this rule change is contradictory to GR109 regarding the commencement of classes and that a timeout should not be issued prior to the start of the class. Draft 2: No CommentsDraft 3: No Comments

Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 11/21/2017Draft 2: No Action Draft 3: No Action

Morgan

Draft 1: The Committee feels this rule change is not exhibitor friendly and should be left up to competition management.Draft 2: No CommentsDraft 3: No Comments


National Show Horse



Paso Fino



Reining

Draft 1: Committee would like a clarification of when a class is commenced.Draft 2: The committee felt that the current system worked and that this new rule would allow too many chances for problems to arise.Draft 3: No Comments


Roadster

Draft 1: Concern that this rule change is contradictory to GR109 concerning the commencement of class.Draft 2: No CommentsDraft 3: No Comments


Saddle Seat Eq



Shetland



Vaulting

Draft 1: This rule does not really impact the WelshDraft 2: No CommentsDraft 3: No Comments


Welsh



Western Committee

Draft 1: Time-outs are not allowed in Western Dressage. Draft 2: No CommentsDraft 3: No Comments


Western Dressage




Standard 12/1/2018 8/31/2017

Proposed Change

GR839 Cruelty to and Abuse of a Horse [CHAPTER 8-F Welfare of the Horse]

GR839 Cruelty to and Abuse of a Horse

6. Willfully Tolerating Cruelty to and Abuse of a Horse - It is a violation of this rule and Chapter 7 to know of cruelty to or abuse of a horse at a Licensed Competition but fail to report such misconduct. Reports must be made to the competition licensed officials or directly to the Federation.


Sonja KeatingUSEF Officers

[email protected]

Rule Change Intent

The protection and welfare of the horse is of the utmost importance to the Federation. Consistent and regular reporting of cruelty and abuse at Federation Licensed Competitions is vital to the continued protection of equine athletes.

Linked Rules CommentsWeb: cruelty to and abuse of a horse

Committee Actions

Draft 1: Too subjective to agree on what constitutes abuse and difficult to enforce. Committee felt this was an overreach by USE.


American Saddlebred

Draft 1: The intent of the rule is good; however, the committee feels this would be difficult to prove and enforce.


Andalusian/Lusitano

Draft 1: The committee feels it would be difficult to prove and enforce and may lead to false complaints.


Arabian


Breeds/Disciplines

Draft 1: The committee likes the concept of protecting the horse, but feels this rule change is unenforceable.



Draft 1: The committee agrees with the concept but does not believe it is enforceableDraft 1: Recommends Disapproval 12/04/2017


Draft 1: We like the concept of the rule and the intent to protect the horse, but would like to see it not be at the cost of punishment for those not reporting. It seems to difficult to prove willfully tolerating, and each individual has differing ideas on what cruelty encompasses. With this rule is someone obligated to report someone they feel is willfully not reporting abuse by another individual?


Connemara



Draft 1: Too subjective.Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 12/21/2017



Draft 1: The council had concerns about USEF's purview to deal with these matters. Suggestion to have a standard contract made for sales and only those such matters would be heard; rule needs to be reworked to include parameters.




Dressage

Draft 1: While a good thought in theory, the DSC does NOT agree with adding a penalty for those ‘willfully tolerating cruelty’ and not reporting. While reporting should definitely be encouraged, adding a penalty becomes complicated: who is responsible for penalizing, what criteria defines ‘willfully tolerating cruelty’ (observing cruelty? Participating? Obeying their boss?) There are many layers which are not addressed within this rule. DSC suggests wording such as “it is expected” that members will report, without the penalty.


Driving


Endurance


English Pleasure

Draft 1: The Eventing Sport Committee agrees in principle with the proposed change but are concerned with the practicality of using punishment at a means of enforcement. The Committee feels the reporting of abuse should be simplified.


Eventing

Draft 1: We like the concept but feel this is unenforceable and could affect judges. How would this effect judges officiating if someone complains of a horse being “over shown” and the judge did not report it?


Friesian


Governance

Draft 1: Agrees with the concept but feels this would be difficult to monitor and enforceDraft 1: Recommends Disapproval 11/20/2017

Hackney

Draft 1: The Committee agreed with the concept but felt the wording makes it hard to enforce. The Committee had concerns that it would be difficult to determine whether someone failing to report an abuse did so with intent. It would also be an easy rule to abuse with false accusations. The Committee found the current language to be too broad and had concerns whether legally we can place an obligation on such a broad group of people. The Committee also had concerns with the practicality of how often it could be found that someone knowingly failed to report an issue. The Committee recommends that the intent of this rule be changed to reflect a violation when a Licensed Official fails to properly report welfare issues, as an additional incentive for stewards/TDs to report abuse.


Hearing Committee

Draft 1: JSC agrees with the intent but who is at fault for not reporting? Reporting should be done by the Licensed Officials officiating at that competition.


Jumper

Draft 1: Agrees with the concept but feels this would be difficult to prove. How does someone know if an individual witnessed abuse or was just in the area where it happened? Would like a definition of “willfully”.


Morgan

Draft 1: The committee feels this rule will be difficult to enforce and has concerns about the interpretation of the word "willfully."



Draft 1: We like the concept of the rule, but it would difficult to enforce.Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 11/13/2017

National Show Horse


Paso Fino


Reining

Draft 1: Too difficult to monitor and enforce.Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 11/21/2017

Roadster

Draft 1: Approve of the concept of this rule but would like a definition of "Willfully". This rule would be difficult to enforce.


Saddle Seat Eq


Draft 1: The committee approves this rule but notes that the enforceability of this rule is problematic. How will the Federation know that an individual knew of cruelty or abuse and failed to report?


Safety


Shetland

Draft 1: The Committee feels that although this proposal has good intentions, the term "willfully" could be interpreted in a variety of ways which could cause disagreement. Additionally, they feel that the rule is unenforceable.




USHJA


Vaulting


Veterinary

Draft 1: This rule is great in concept, and we approve of the intent. This rule as written does not seem enforceable. How will one determine "willfully", and how can an accuser provide enough proof the alleged abuse if the steward did not see it?


Welsh

Draft 1: Difficult to monitor and enforce.Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 11/21/2017

Western Committee

Draft 1: We feel the intent is good, but it would be difficult to enforce. How will someone prove that another individual knew of cruelty or abuse and failed to report?


Western Dressage




Standard 12/1/2018 12/20/2017

Proposed Change

GR843 - Mandatory Reporting and Cooperation of Horse/Pony Collapse [CHAPTER 8-F Welfare of the Horse]

GR843 Mandatory Reporting and Cooperation of Horse/Pony Collapse

This rule applies to collapses of horses/ponies. For purposes of this rule, a “collapse” is defined as a fall to the ground with no apparent cause at any time from when entries arrive at the venue until departure from the venue. Other falls are not considered to be a collapse and are defined in GR122 and specified division rules. Refer to GR1034.6 for reporting requirements for all other falls and accidents.

1. The trainer as defined in GR 404, or the owner if the trainer is unavailable, or the rider if the trainer and owner are both unavailable, shall notify the Steward/Technical Delegate as soon as possible but no later than three hours after such occurrence of any collapse of a horse or pony. When a collapse occurs outside of competition hours or before the competition begins, notification must occur as soon as possible but no later than three hours after the Steward/TD reports to the show or returns to duty.

2. The Steward/TD shall report to Competition Management and the Federation within one hour of notification of a collapse.

3. In addition to the duties set forth in GR 1034.3, the Steward/TD shall file an Accident/Injury/Equine Collapse Report Form or Equine Fatality Report Form with the Federation within 24 hours of notification, except in exceptional circumstances such as no internet access at the venue.

4. The Federation, at its expense, may appoint a veterinarian to inspect the horse or pony that has collapsed and provide a full report to the Federation. Refusal to submit an animal for examination by an authorized veterinarian after due notification shall constitute a violation of this rule.

5. Any horse or pony that collapses at a licensed or endorsed competition is subject to drug and medication testing in accordance with Chapter 4 of these rules. In the absence of a Federation testing veterinarian, a veterinarian appointed under paragraph 4 (above) or the official competition veterinarian is authorized to collect and submit fluid samples in accordance with these rules.

6. The rider, owner, and trainer as defined in GR 404 shall cooperate with the Federation as to any investigation it undertakes with respect to a collapse or death of a horse/pony. This includes providing information requested by the Federation within 10 days of the request.

7. Any horse/pony that collapses is prohibited from competing for 72 hours after said collapse. Exception: Upon examination by a veterinarian and submission of a statement by the veterinarian certifying the horse/pony’s fitness to compete, a horse/pony that collapses is permitted to return to competition 24 hours after said collapse.


Stephen SchumacherVeterinary

[email protected]

Rule Change Intent

Currently, there are no rules governing the return to competition of a horse or pony that collapses. It is in the best interest of horses/ponies to not return to competition for the 24 hour period following the collapse.

Linked Rules CommentsWeb: Horse/Pony Collapse

Committee Actions

Draft 1: No CommentsDraft 2: No Comments


American Saddlebred


Draft 1: Recommends Approval 11/02/2017Draft 2: No Action

Andalusian/Lusitano


Draft 1: The committee approves of the rule and intent, but would like to see an additional vet exam prior to returning to play.Draft 2: No Comments

Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 11/15/2017Draft 2: No Action

Arabian


Draft 1: No Action Draft 2: No Action

Breeds/Disciplines

Draft 1: We approve of this rule and concept, but would like an additional vet check prior to returning to competition. Like language to include “minimum 24 hours”Draft 2: No Comments



Draft 1: The committee feels the language needs some further clarification and additional language requiring a vet check.Draft 2: No Comments



Draft 1: We approve this rule and concept, but would also like to see language that includes a veterinary exam and approval for the horse/pony to return to play. Draft 2: No Comments


Connemara





Draft 1: No Action Draft 2: Recommends Approval 12/21/2017





Draft 1: Recommend language for a vet exam versus the 24 hours. Also recommend that proponents of tracking #272 and #271 work together for one rule change proposal. Draft 2: No Comments


Dressage



Driving



Endurance



English Pleasure

Draft 1: The Eventing Sport Committee recommend that a request be made to combine tracking #'s 271-17 & 272-17.Draft 2: No Comments


Eventing

Draft 1: Would like to see an additional vet check prior to returning to competition.Draft 2: No Comments


Friesian



Governance



Hackney

Draft 1: JSC approves but thinks stronger language could be included to require the official competition vet to exam the horse prior to returning to play and this only after a minimum of 24 hrs. Draft 2: No Comments


Jumper

Draft 1: We approve this rule and concept, but would like to see language that includes an additional vet check prior to returning to competition. Also feels the horses trainer and owner should be involved.Draft 2: No Comments


Morgan


Draft 1: The committee is in favor with the intent of this rule change but we feel the language needs some further clarification: 1. Who is responsible for reporting the collapse and ensuring the horse or pony does not compete for 24 hours? 2. What happens if a horse arrives on the competition grounds prior to the start of the competitions (i.e. schooling day) and collapses when there is no steward available? 3. Is the withdrawal period based on the start time of the class that the horse/pony is entering? Would it not be easier to withdraw for the entire competition day rather than a 24 hour period. We are concerned that somebody competing a horse/pony at the very end of the 24 hour period could just move down in the order and get around the rule.Draft 2: No Comments

Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 11/06/2017Draft 2: Recommends Approval 01/03/2018


Draft 1: Would like to see an additional vet check prior to returning to play.Draft 2: No Comments


National Show Horse



Paso Fino



Reining


Draft 1: No Action 11/21/2017Draft 2: No Action

Roadster

Draft 1: Committee approved the concept however, it was felt this should be approved on a case by case basis with the decision from the Official Veterinarian at the competition.Draft 2: No Comments


Saddle Seat Eq

Draft 1: No CommentsDraft 2: The Safety Committee had a similar rule in the system and has withdrawn it in favor of the Vet Committee's rule. Additionally, the Safety Committee is in favor of the edits made in Draft 2.


Safety



Shetland




Draft 1: USHJA is voting to approve this proposal, but also wanted to provide comment to indicate it suggests the Federation consider amending the language to lengthen the amount of time a horse/pony is prohibited from competing after a collapse from 24 hours to "the remainder of the competition." Although the proposal as presented strengthens the current rule with respect to horse/pony welfare, lengthening the time frame of restriction from competition would better protect the horse/pony involved. Draft 2: No Comments


USHJA



Vaulting

Draft 1: No CommentsDraft 2: Based upon comments from other Committees, a second draft was proposed which incorporated additional considerations.


Veterinary



Welsh



Western Committee

Draft 1: We approve of this rule; but would like to see an additional vet check prior to returning to competition.Draft 2: No Comments


Western Dressage




Standard 4/1/2018 12/21/2017

Proposed Change

GR1040 through GR1078 [CHAPTER Sub-Chapter 10-I, License Applications, Enrollment, Promotion, and Maintenance]

Please see attached pdf of the Policies and Procedures.

Draft 2 - is a change to Ch. 1 section 5.16 in the attached pdf.


Matt FineLicensed Officials Task Force

[email protected]

Rule Change Intent

The Licensed Officials Task Force is proposing to strike GR1040 (as appears in the 2017 Rule Book) through GR1078 and move that language into a new US Equestrian Licensed Officials Policies and Procedures document. The intent of moving the language is to limit the language in Chapter 10 to rules versus how USEF licenses. The Task Force believes that leaving GR1001 through GR1039 in the Rule Book would keep 'what' USEF licenses in the rules, and the 'how' USEF licenses would transition to the Policies and Procedures Document. Transitioning the 'how' USEF licenses to the Policies and Procedures document will not only clean-up Chapter 10, but also permit a more efficient, industry-responsive mechanism for maintaining the licensing system.

As part of the proposed rule change striking the language, the Task Force will also ask the Board to adopt the attached Policies and Procedures document. Various protections exist in the Policies and Procedures to ensure sufficient feedback and oversight by USEF and Recognized Affiliates.

Additionally, the stricken language from GR1040 to GR1078 is copied identically in the Policies and Procedures, except for the language regarding reference evaluations. Reference evaluations, commonly called 'friends and family' evaluations, are the evaluations (typically 15 evaluations) an applicant requests certain people to receive as part of the licensing process. Distributing and processing the evaluations is laborious for the applicant, staff, and the LOC. The Task Force believes that these evaluations no longer serve a purpose in assisting to evaluate an applicant's strength and should be removed from the process.

The Task Force requests a 4/1/18 effective date. The basis for the request is to facilitate the continued work of the Task Force in addressing the licensing system. By permitting a 4/1/18 effective date, the Task Force would be able to continue with its mission to address the concerns of members and Affiliates without having to wait another year to do so.

Applicable rules: strike GR1040 to GR1078 (based on the 2017 Rule Book), GR1005, and the chart in GR1004.

Linked Rules CommentsWeb: Moves Licensing Procedures out of Rule Book

Committee Actions



American Saddlebred



Andalusian/Lusitano



Arabian



Breeds/Disciplines










Connemara







Draft 1: No CommentsDraft 2: The council would like to re-read the document attached to this rule.

Draft 1: No Action Draft 2: Tabled 01/04/2018




Dressage



Driving



Endurance



English Pleasure



Eventing

Draft 1: Would like to see other breeds included on the LO Task Force and any changes to the Friesian section would need support from the Affiliate and Committee.Draft 2: No Comments


Friesian

Draft 1: Committee would like to have input from the affiliate AHHS before recommending approval. 12-14-17 The committee approved the rule change with guidance from the AHHSDraft 2: No Comments


Hackney



Jumper

Draft 1: Would like Section 2 number 3.a to stated “relevant USEF Committees”Draft 2: No Comments


Morgan






National Show Horse



Paso Fino



Reining



Roadster



Saddle Seat Eq



Shetland


Draft 1: Not comfortable with this proposal due to the fact that it is not simply moving existing language out of the rule book, but changing it as well. The policies and procedures document needs to be better clarified and peer evaluations for licensed officials should not be removed. Draft 2: No Comments


USHJA



Vaulting



Welsh



Western Committee

Draft 1: Approving with extreme desire to amend the Western Dressage judges section (section 25) in the new policies & procedures document. Memo with comments/concerns sent to staff – Matt Fine & Sarah Beth Hollowed. Draft 2: No Comments


Western Dressage




Standard 4/1/2018 12/1/2017

Proposed Change

GR1102 Horse Recordings [CHAPTER Subchapter 11-A Horse Identification and Recordings ]

5. Horse recording applications are available from the Federation office or online at www.usef.org. A recording may also be activated on an annual or lifetime basis, using each horse’s Unique Horse ID number. The recording fee is discounted for the life of a horse if applied for from birth to December 31st of year foaled. Exception: Horses must be recorded for life annual or life recorded to be eligible to receive FEI or National Passports. To qualify for the age discount, registration papers and/or other proof of age must be provided. The fees can be found on the horse recording application at www.usef.org.


Bill MoroneyBill Moroney

[email protected]

Rule Change Intent

To change the recording requirement for eligibility to receive an FEI or National passport to allow for either life or annual recording.

Linked Rules CommentsWeb: Horse Recordings

Committee Actions


American Saddlebred


Arabian


Breeds/Disciplines

Draft 1: There is no argument with the passport language change. We feel, however, that it is important to keep the discount for younger horses in this language, as breeders do not always record foals. This provides an incentive for member that may have horses between the ages of 1-3 to go ahead and get their horse recorded.


Connemara




Draft 1: No CommentsDraft 2: Unfavorable to have a FEI horse passport but not a USEF horse recording.

Draft 1: No Action Draft 2: Recommends Disapproval 12/21/2017




Draft 1: No CommentsDraft 2: It will cause confusion to have a horse with a valid horse passport but not a valid horse recording. Would also recommend expanding discounts past the birth to Dec 31st parameter.


Dressage


http://www.usef.org/

http://www.usef.org/

Draft 1: No CommentsDraft 2: DSC supports this change. It is common in driving to temporarily lease/borrow horses from foreign owners (that already have a passport through their NF) for a World Championship or WEG on the US team. Allowing for annual recordings rather than requiring life recordings is a better option in these temporary cases, especially when multiple horses are involved.


Driving



Endurance


English Pleasure

Draft 1: The Eventing Sport Committee recommends disapproval with the reasoning that it is unfavorable to have to have a horse which has a valid passport but not a valid horse recording.Draft 2: The Eventing Sport Committee recommends disapproval with the reasoning that it is unfavorable to have to have a horse which has a valid passport but not a valid horse recording.

Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 11/07/2017Draft 2: Recommends Disapproval 12/09/2017

Eventing


Hackney

Draft 1: Horses competing in FEI competitions must be recorded (members) of their NF. Also, this proposal includes language that is already removed from the Rulebook regarding discounted Life recordings. Draft 2: Horses competing in FEI competitions must be recorded (members) of their NF and annual recordings will inevitably leave a gap in their recording/membership.


Jumper



Reining


Roadster


Saddle Seat Eq



USHJA



Vaulting

Draft 1: We do not oppose of the changes to the FEI requirements, but as breeders would like to be sure the discounts for recording young horses still stand to encourage people to have their ponies recorded.


Welsh


Western Committee




Standard 12/1/2018 8/31/2017

Proposed Change

GR1211 - Appointment of Officials and Employees [CHAPTER 12-C Duties of Competition Management in General]

GR1211 Appointment of Officials and Employees

5. Qualified Medical Personnel.

a. Qualified medical personnel with no other duties and with appropriate medical equipment, as required by their certifying State or EMS Region, must be present during all scheduled performances at all competitions and during all paid scheduled schooling sessions over fences, including one (1) day prior to the start of the competition if applicable, and during all scheduled performances.

1. Qualified medical personnel is a currently certified or licensed EMT, or Paramedic, Certified First Responder, or a Physician or Nurse trained in pre-hospital trauma care and currently certified or licensed in their profession under applicable law where the competition is held. (Exception: Eventing - see EV113.5).

2. A Physician or Nurse trained in pre-hospital trauma care is a Physician or Nurse who is currently certified in Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS), Advanced Life Support (ALS), Basic Trauma Life Support (BTLS), Pre-hospital Trauma Life Support (PHTLS), or who has First Responder or comparable certification. Comparable certification requires review and written approval in advance by the Safety Committee. (Exception: Eventing - see EV113.5)


Sonja KeatingSafety

[email protected]

Rule Change Intent

As currently written, GR1211 designates the Safety Committee as the appropriate body to review certification of those medical professionals that fail to meet the qualifications to serve as Qualified Medical Personnel. The Safety Committee is not populated with medical professionals, therefore it is not equipped to determine whether medical certifications are comparable to those enumerated in the rule and necessary to serve as Qualified Medical Personnel at Licensed Competitions. Additionally, those trained in Advanced Life Support have the requisite skills to serve as Qualified Medical Personnel. Therefore, those certified in Advanced Life Support should be added to the list of individuals eligible to serve as Qualified Medical Personnel. As a result of this rule change, those individuals seeking an exception to the list of qualifications, will submit a request for a Presidential Modification to the rule in accordance with GR152.

Linked Rules CommentsWeb: Medical Personnel at Competitions

Committee Actions


American Saddlebred










Eventing



Licensed Officials


Roadster




USHJA




Standard 12/1/2018 12/14/2017

Proposed Change

GR1302 Duties [CHAPTER 13-A Responsibilities]

GR1302 Duties

1. Every exhibitor, rider, driver, handler and trainer or his/her agent(s) must sign an entry blank (see GR404 and GR908.2). In the case of a rider, driver or handler under 18, his/her parent or guardian, or if not available, the trainer, must sign an entry blank on the minor’s behalf.

2. In order to participate in any Federation Licensed Competition, any person who is a Professional or acts as a Trainer or Coach as defined by the Federation rules, shall comply with the Federation Safe Sport Policy, including successfully completing a criminal background check and Federation-approved Safe Sport training, in accordance with such Policy. Parents or legal guardians who are not Professionals under the Federation rules but act as Trainer or Coach on behalf of their Junior, as well as Amateurs who act as Trainer or Coach for themselves, are exempt from this rule.


Steve SarafinSteve Sarafin

[email protected]

Rule Change Intent

In an effort to further educate the Federation's coaches and trainers, this rule is being proposed to require professionals, acting as coaches and trainers, to successfully complete several important Federation components. This rule proposal will require that all professionals complete a criminal background check and Safe Sport training.

Linked Rules CommentsWeb: Entry Requirements - Safe Sport

Committee Actions

Draft 1: Difficult to enforce and would require certification or licensing. Would be difficult for show staff to check and would discourage shows from becoming licensed with USEF.Draft 2: The committee still believes it will be difficult to enforce and would require certification or licensing.


American Saddlebred

Draft 1: This rule change would discourage competitors from competing at licensed competitions and would severely limit participation of amateurs. Draft 2: No Comments


Andalusian/Lusitano

Draft 1: The committee feels this idea is good, but would be difficult to enforce and more time is need to determine how it would be enforceable. This rule change would also limit participation from amateurs. Draft 2: No Comments


Arabian



Athletes Advisory



Breeds/Disciplines


Draft 1: Agrees with the concept but feels this is an opportunity work with the affiliate to develop these programs. Committee is okay with professionals completing these requirements but the current language would severely affect amateurs. Draft 2: Committee Agrees with the concept but feels this would be difficult to monitor and enforce.



Draft 1: The committee feels this is an opportunity to have the affiliates develop these programs.Draft 2: No Comments



Draft 1: The Connemara group does not have as many "professional" trainers as many of the larger groups, and this rule could prove to be a burden on smaller trainers. There needs to be clearer language for an amateur signing the entry blank for him/herself.Draft 2: No Comments


Connemara

Draft 1: No CommentsDraft 2: Council feels that this is unenforceable in the current competition environment.



Draft 1: No CommentsDraft 2: Too difficult to enforce and creates complications for competition management.



Draft 1: No CommentsDraft 2: This rule would be difficult to enforce because there is not a plan in place to penalize or encourage those non-compliant



Draft 1: We support the philosophy behind this rule change proposal. However, as written, this would be impractical and impossible to comply with at a competition. Additionally, as written, this would apply to foreign competitors who are competing as well. Draft 2: No Comments


Dressage

Draft 1: No CommentsDraft 2: The Driving Sport Committee strongly disagrees with this rule as a REQUIREMENT, but instead suggests that the Safe Sport Policy be offered as a member BENEFIT. i.e. Trainers may opt to take the training & the background check, and upon doing so would earn a “star” or certification for their membership. Therefore, other members could benefit from knowing their Trainer is certified under the Safe Sport Policy. Making this a requirement would be ENTIRELY too difficult to enforce & would also be a hardship on many trainers who don’t operate as a professional business & simply have a few clients. DSC suggests to offer the Safe Sport Policy as a benefit rather than requirement.


Driving



Endurance



English Pleasure

Draft 1: The Eventing Sport Committee agrees with the sentiment of this rule but feels that the rule, as written, presents potential issues with its administration and believes clarification regarding the administration of this rule is required, e.g. if 30 competitors arrive at a show and their entries have not specified a trainer, will the secretary be required to check a database at that time? This could be a major nightmare for the show secretary at a very busy and confusing time. If a trainer signs a form at the show office and is found not to be in compliance will the competitor be permitted to compete? Is this creating a situation where more and more trainers will refuse to sign the entries, leaving the competitors (or their parents) to sign as trainer?Draft 2: No Comments


Eventing

Draft 1: It is a good idea, but complicates paperwork, is difficult to verify and would but a finical burden on shows and competitors. This needs to be required for everyone, including parents, or none. Believes this would led to lots of parents signing vs. trainers. Draft 2: No Comments


Friesian



Governance

Draft 1: Agrees with concept but this rule would be difficult to enforce. Committee believes this would discourage competitors from competing at licensed competitionsDraft 2: No Comments


Hackney


Draft 1: JSC would prefer to work on language from the USHJA proposed rule of GR 1302.2 (tracking 266-17).Draft 2: The JSC agrees in principle but prefers to support the USHJA's version.


Jumper

Draft 1: Would be difficult for show staff to verify and limit participation from amateurs. Draft 2: No Comments


Morgan

Draft 1: No CommentsDraft 2: The committee is concerned with the enforcement of this rule as well as the validity of the current Safe Sport training in the horse show industry. We feel the horse show industry is so vastly different from other sports and warrants it's own training module.



Draft 1: Good concept, but it would be hard to enforce and difficult for competitions to verify. Completing the background check places another finical impact on competitors. Who determines if you pass or fail the background check?Draft 2: No Comments


National Show Horse

Draft 1: The idea is good, but would be difficult to enforce at licensed competitions. In the Paso Fino division, this change would require competitors in amateur trained classes and competitors without trainers to meet these requirements not just trainers and coaches. Draft 2: No Comments


Paso Fino



Reining

Draft 1: Too difficult to monitor and enforce. Committee felt that this rule's requirements would negatively affect membership.Draft 2: No Comments


Roadster

Draft 1: Concern about helmet requirement being only 4 years to be eligible to be used and who was responsible to insure the helmet fit properly. The rule as written would be very difficult to monitor.Draft 2: No Comments


Saddle Seat Eq

Draft 1: The Committee recommends approval of this rule but notes that a system of implementation will be needed to educate the membership.Draft 2: No Comments


Safety

Draft 1: The intent is good, but feel it would be difficult to verify and enforce at licensed competitions. Draft 2: No Comments


Shetland

Draft 1: Referred to January USHJA Board MeetingDraft 2: Prefer language in 266-17

Draft 1: Referred 12/14/2017Draft 2: Recommends Disapproval 01/02/2018

USHJA



Vaulting

Draft 1: The intent of this rule is good, but not practical for the Welsh group. We do not have many professional trainers as compared to larger groups, and this may cause a financial hardship on those who sign the entry blank as such.Draft 2: No Comments


Welsh

Draft 1: Difficult to monitor and enforce unless Trainers were licensed or certified.Draft 2: No Comments


Western Committee

Draft 1: Too difficult to enforce.Draft 2: No Comments


Western Dressage




Standard 12/1/2018 1/3/2018

Proposed Change

GR1302 Duties [CHAPTER 13-A Responsibilities]

GR1302 Duties

1. Every exhibitor, rider, driver, handler and trainer or his/her agent(s) must sign an entry blank (see GR404 and GR908.2). In the case of a rider, driver or handler under 18, his/her parent or guardian, or if not available, the trainer, must sign an entry blank on the minor’s behalf.

2. In order to participate in any Federation Licensed Competition, any Professional, as defined by the Federation rules, shall (i) comply with the Federation Safe Sport Policy, including successfully completing a criminal background check and Federation-approved Safe Sport training, in accordance with such Policy and (ii) complete a Federation-approved concussion training.

(Renumber accordingly)


Leslie ManganUSHJA

[email protected]

Rule Change Intent

In an effort to further educate the Federation's coaches and trainers, this rule is being proposed to require professionals, acting as coaches and trainers, to successfully complete several important Federation components. This rule proposal will require that all professionals complete a criminal background check and Safe Sport training. Additionally, all professionals will be required to complete a Federation-approved concussion training and a test on Equine Drugs and Medications basics. Professionals serving as coach or trainer for their minor children will be exempt from the requirements laid out in the rule.

Linked Rules CommentsWeb: Professionals - Participation Requirements

Committee Actions

Draft 1: Without a licensing process or certification it would be very difficult to monitor and enforce. Might encourage more competitions to not be licensed with USE.Draft 2: No Comments


American Saddlebred

Draft 1: This rule change will decrease participation at licensed competitions and severely limit amateur participation.Draft 2: No Comments


Andalusian/Lusitano

Draft 1: The committee feels the idea is good, but would be difficult to enforce and more time is need to determine how it would be enforceable. This rule change would also limit participation from amateurs. The idea of concussion training is good, but what are the legal ramifications? These individuals should have a working knowledge of Drugs and medications. Draft 2: No Comments


Arabian



Athletes Advisory



Breeds/Disciplines


Draft 1: Agrees with the concept but feels this is an opportunity work with the affiliate to develop these programs. Committee is okay with professionals completing these requirements but the current language would severely affect amateurs. Draft 2: No Comments



Draft 1: The committee believes this should go through the affiliate certification programDraft 2: No Comments



Draft 1: The Connemara group does not have as many "professional" trainers as many of the larger groups, and this rule could prove to be a burden on smaller trainers. There needs to be clearer language for an amateur signing the entry blank for him/herself.Draft 2: No Comments


Connemara




Draft 1: Impractical to comply with at a competition.Draft 2: No Comments



Draft 1: No CommentsDraft 2: The wording for this rule is preferred over GR1302 Tracking#041-17. However, it has still not been sold as a benefit to the members and it would be difficult to enforce.



Draft 1: We support the philosophy behind this rule change proposal. However, as written, this would be impractical and impossible to comply with at a competition. Additionally, as written, this would apply to foreign competitors who are competing as well. Draft 2: No Comments


Dressage

Draft 1: The DSC strongly disagrees with this rule as a REQUIREMENT, but instead suggests that the Safe Sport Policy be offered as a member BENEFIT. i.e. Trainers may opt to take the training & the background check, and upon doing so would earn a “star” or certification for their membership. Therefore, other members could benefit from knowing their Trainer is certified under the Safe Sport Policy. Making this a requirement would be ENTIRELY too difficult to enforce & would also be a hardship on many trainers who don’t operate as a professional business & simply have a few clients. DSC suggests to offer the Safe Sport Policy as a benefit rather than requirement.Draft 2: No Comments


Driving



Endurance



English Pleasure

Draft 1: The Eventing Sport Committee is concerned with the implementation and administration of this rule as worded. The ESC is also concerned with the inclusion of “Professionals” in the list of those subject to the provisions of this rule is overreaching. Draft 2: No Comments


Eventing

Draft 1: It is a good idea, but complicates paperwork, is difficult to verify and would but a finical burden on shows and competitors. This needs to be required for everyone, including parents, or none. Draft 2: No Comments


Friesian



Governance

Draft 1: Agrees with concept but this rule would be difficult to enforce. Committee believes this would discourage competitors from competing at licensed competitionsDraft 2: No Comments


Hackney

Draft 1: JSC in principle supports this rule however, has concerns about the implementation. Do we have training modules developed for concussion training and Equine D&M? Draft 2: No Comments


Jumper


Draft 1: Would be difficult for show staff to verify and limit participation from amateurs. Draft 2: No Comments


Morgan

Draft 1: No CommentsDraft 2: The committee is concerned with the enforcement of this rule as well as the validity of the current Safe Sport training in the horse show industry. We feel the horse show industry is so vastly different from other sports and warrants it's own training module.



Draft 1: This rule change would be hard to enforce and difficult for competitions to verify.Draft 2: No Comments


National Show Horse

Draft 1: The committee feels this would be difficult to implement. The language is unclear as to how this would apply to individuals who sign the entry blank as a trainer, but are not considered a professional. Draft 2: No Comments


Paso Fino



Reining

Draft 1: Difficult to monitor and enforce. Would have a negative affect on membership.Draft 2: No Comments


Roadster

Draft 1: Approved the concept however, this rule would be difficult to enforce. Draft 2: No Comments


Saddle Seat Eq

Draft 1: The Committee recommends approval of this rule but notes that a system of implementation will be needed to educate the membership.Draft 2: No Comments


Safety

Draft 1: A good idea, but this rule change would be difficult to enforce and verify at licensed competitions. Draft 2: No Comments


Shetland

Draft 1: Referred to January USHJA Board MeetingDraft 2: No Comments

Draft 1: Referred 12/14/2017Draft 2: Recommends Approval 01/02/2018

USHJA



Vaulting

Draft 1: The intent of this rule is good, but not practical for the Welsh group. We do not have many professional trainers as compared to larger groups, and this may cause a financial hardship on those who sign the entry blank as such. There is concern that this may turn smaller groups like the Welsh away from licensing with USEF.Draft 2: No Comments


Welsh

Draft 1: Difficult to monitor and enforce unless Trainers were licensed or certified.Draft 2: No Comments


Western Committee

Draft 1: Too difficult to enforce. If USHJA feels this is necessary for their trainers and coaches it should be added to the relevant chapters. Draft 2: No Comments


Western Dressage




Standard 12/1/2018 9/5/2017

Proposed Change

1304 Regulations Governing Showing Under Judges, Stewards and Technical Delegates [CHAPTER 13-A Responsibilities]

22. When you are officiating as a Judge in the Hunter or Hunter Seat Equitation divisions, none of the following may compete as a trainer, coach, competitor, rider, owner, handler, lessor or lessee in either the Hunter or the Hunter Seat Equitation divisions in a class in which you are officiating at that competition, unless the relationship is terminated, or the transaction is completed, at least 30 days prior to the competition:

a. A member of your family.

b. A member of your household or housemate.

c. A cohabitant, companion, or domestic partner.

d. An employee. Catch Riders and Independent Service Providers (defined below) are not employees for purposes of this rule.

1. Catch Rider: An individual who is engaged, for remuneration or not as a volunteer, exclusively to compete, including any warm-up schooling for that immediate competition, on a horse(s) owned by another with whom they have no current business relationship. A catch rider has no influence regarding the ongoing competition schedule, management, schooling, exercising, training, care, custody or control of the horse.

2. Independent Service Provider: An individual who performs a service(s) for another and the payer has the right to control or direct only the result of the work and what will be done and how it will be done. The Independent service provider controls the details as to how the service is performed.

e. A client.

f. Your trainer.

g. A client of your trainer.

h. An entity that employs you or a member of your family, which includes individuals, corporations, partnerships, foundations, trusts, non-profit organizations, and any shareholder owning five or more percent of the stock, if any.

i. A horse trained or shown by you or by a member of your family.

j. A horse sold by you or by your employer.


Emily PrattHearing Committee

[email protected]

Rule Change Intent

As currently written, GR1304.22's definition of Catch Rider leaves open the possibility of an ongoing relationship between riders and owners to compete a horse regularly throughout the season without conflict, as well as riders who take on the role of trainer. The definition of a Catch Rider should be limited to those individuals who ride a horse on occasion or at a single competition. Riders with ongoing relationships with owners likely play a role in the schooling and exercising of the horse in preparation for competition.

Linked Rules CommentsWeb: Definition of Catch Rider

Committee Actions









Dressage


Driving


Endurance


Eventing


Jumper


Licensed Officials

Draft 1: The language of this rule re-write is currently ambiguous. The new terms used to further define a catch rider are words that will need to be further defined themselves, such as "management".




Reining




USHJA


Vaulting




Standard 12/1/2018 8/31/2017

Proposed Change

GR1316 Accidents Involving Competitors [CHAPTER SUBCHAPTER 13-E RETURN TO COMPETITION GR1316 Accidents Involving Competitors]

GR 1316

4. Unconsciousness/Concussion. If qualifed medical personnel determines that a competitor has sustained unconsciousness or a concussion, he/she must be precluded from competing until cleared to compete under paragraph 6 below and the helmet will be retained by the horse show organizers.

6. Return to Competition. In the event that a competitor is determined ineligible to compete under one of the preceding paragraphs, the competitor shall submit to the Federation, a signed release, which includes criteria established by the Federation from time to time, completed by a licensed physician in order to be eligible to once again compete in Federation-Licensed or endorsed competitions and show proof that a new helmet has been purchased.

7. For all competitors evaluated pursuant to this rule, the Steward or Technical Delegate shall submit a properly completed Accident/Injury Form, helmet and any available video and, if applicable, any corresponding signed release to the Federation Director of Competitions by 6:00 p.m. on the day following the last day of the competition.


Matty O'RourkeMatty O'Rourke

[email protected]

Rule Change Intent

If a rider has had a fall and the helmet is visibly damaged, it is no longer safe to wear for any reason, in competition or out of competition and should be confiscated. If a rider has a loss of consciousness, the helmet must be confiscated regardless of appearance because the integrity of the helmet has obviously been compromised.Too many riders continue to ride in helmets they take falls in "because it looks ok" and any fall thereafter is exponentially more dangerous. This practice will continue to happen but can be mitigated by retaining helmets from falls in competitions. Seemingly innocuous falls can become life threatening if a helmet is compromised by previous damage.Not all helmets will be confiscated, if the judge saw no contact with the head, or the rider lands on their feet, etc.Video of rounds can be used to verify if a helmet was kicked by a horse or if riders head came in contact with jumps, equipment, or the ground.

Linked Rules CommentsWeb: Helmets in Rider Fall

Committee Actions

Draft 1: Difficult to enforceDraft 1: Recommends Disapproval 11/27/2017

American Saddlebred

Draft 1: This would be difficult to enforce at competitions and not all competitions have vendors where a new helmet could be purchased.


Andalusian/Lusitano

Draft 1: This rule change would be difficult to enforce. Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 11/15/2017

Arabian


Athletes Advisory


Breeds/Disciplines

Draft 1: Feels this is unenforceable. If there are no vendors at the show can you borrow a helmet?



Draft 1: The committee does not support this, competitions and licensed officials should not be involved in personal property seizure.




Draft 1: This does not seem enforceable. Who will collect the damaged helmets, as this is a violation of private property? These should be more of recommendations not rules.


Connemara



Draft 1: It is not the responsibility of the USEF to retain a helmet and decide if it is unfit for use.Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 12/21/2017




Draft 1: Would be difficult to enforce and impractical. Many helmets can be used over four years per manufacturer based on amount of uses, etc.; would also be a liability for shows and TDs. TD's cannot steal someone's helmet.


Dressage

Draft 1: The DSC believes this change may be difficult to enforce. 1316.6 is not applicable to all disciplines either (i.e. Driven Dressage phase in Combined Driving does not require a helmet, therefore should proof of a new helmet still be required if an accident occurs in this phase?). The DSC believes photographs and proper paperwork of the incident would be sufficient evidence for the Organizers. If a helmet is retained, who should be responsible for keeping it? What if it is lost? Who is responsible for obtaining proof of a new helmet being purchased? What if another helmet can be borrowed? This rule is not realistically enforceable as written.


Driving


Endurance


English Pleasure

Draft 1: The Eventing Sport Committee recommends disapproval as the administration of the rule is burdensome and it is not within the purview of the Federation to seize personal property.


Eventing

Draft 1: Like the intent but would like to see language regarding the ability to borrow a helmet. What if there are no vendors or if the vendor does not have your size?


Friesian


Governance


Hackney

Draft 1: The rule places too much responsibility on show management or Licensed Officials to send items to the Federation in a short time frame. The Committee had concerns about the legal repercussions for mandating the surrender of personal property. It is also leaves open a wide range of situations that are not easily discernible, such as whether a judge can determine whether a rider’s helmet actually hit the ground. Helmet companies might offer a replacement option that allows riders to receive a new helmet following an accident.


Hearing Committee

Draft 1: JSC feels we should focus on better education regarding concussions and helmet safety. Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 11/28/2017

Jumper



Licensed Officials

Draft 1: Would be difficult to enforce and would cause a burden to show management and stewards/TDs.


Morgan

Draft 1: This rule is unenforceable.Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 11/06/2017


Draft 1: This would be difficult to enforce. What if there are no vendors or tack shops available to purchase another helmet?


National Show Horse

Draft 1: This rule change will be difficult to enforce at licensed competitions. Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 10/30/2017

Paso Fino


Reining



Roadster

Draft 1: Rule would be difficult to enforce and monitor.Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 11/20/2017

Saddle Seat Eq

Draft 1: This rule is not practical. Competitions and Licensed Officials should not seize personal property from individuals. Additionally, some helmet manufacturers offer discounts on new helmets if a helmet is returned after a fall.


Safety


Shetland




Draft 1: This rule change proposal is beyond the scope of the Federation's responsibility, and there are legal ramifications for mandating surrender of personal property.


USHJA


Vaulting

Draft 1: How will this data be tracked from one competition to another? Who will verify that the "new" or different helmet is safe to use? There is also the issue of taking someone's personal property when the competition retains the helmet, and often times a manufacturer will provide a discount towards the purchase of a new helmet when the damaged one is returned.


Welsh


Western Committee

Draft 1: This rule would be difficult to enforce. What if you trade in your helmet vs. purchase a new one?


Western Dressage


EV114.5 Tracking #048-17 Draft #1 Active


Standard 12/1/2018 6/6/2017

Proposed Change

EV114 Dress [SUBCHAPTER EV1 GENERAL RULES FOR ALL EVENTING COMPETITIONS]

5. DRESSAGE TEST. a. Horse Trials (Beginner Novice through Modified)—protective headgear—predominantly black, brown, or dark blue

7. JUMPING TEST. Hunting dress or uniform. Protective headgear, with chin harness, designed expressly for equestrian use in accordance with paragraph 1 above. Hat covers other than solid those that are predominantly brown, black or dark blue are not allowed.


STEPHANIE REIMERSStephanie Reimers

[email protected]

Rule Change Intent

Many riders are now wearing brown as a dark color rather than black or navy and this color is still conservative and dark.

Linked Rules CommentsWeb: protective headgear - brown

Committee Actions




Eventing

Tuesday, January 09, 2018 11:10 AM of 52EV 114.5 | Tracking #048-17

EV115 Tracking #044-17 Draft #1 Active


Standard 12/1/2018 6/1/2017

Proposed Change

EV115 Saddlery [CHAPTER EV1 General Rules for all Eventing Competitions]

EV115.1: Running martingales..., irish martingales, neck strapsEV115.2.e. A breast plate and neck strap may be used.EV115.3.b. (second sentence inserted) A neck strap is allowed.


Mary P HunterMary P Hunter

[email protected]

Rule Change Intent

EVENTING RULESI recently was informed by a steward at an USEF recognized event that neck straps were allowed during the dressage test. If I read the rules EV115 the wording is confusing (especially if I read DR121.7 "Martingales, bit guards, any kind of gadgets (such as bearing, side, running, balancing reins, neck straps, nasal strips, tongue tied down, etc.),..." which seems to provide a further example of a "gadget". I use a neck strap and have observed that riders up through the top levels use neck straps. In Great Britain the rules allow for the neck strap, but I believe that the FEI forbids neck straps during Dressage. So confusing....

EV 115 is not clear with regards to the use of a simple neck strap. If the neck strap is considered a "gadget" then according to the rules riders may not use a neck strap from 3pm the day prior to the start of the competition through to the end of the competition.Can the rule be clarified to indicate specifically that a neck strap is allowed or not and when it is allowed or not (i.e. warm up, dressage, jumping, cross country).

Linked Rules CommentsWeb: neck straps

Committee Actions



Draft 1: The Eventing Sport Committee would be amendable to approving a second draft if the proposed change was limited to EV115.2 only (Dressage phase).


Eventing


EV115 Tracking #156-17 Draft #1 Active


Standard 12/1/2018 8/29/2017

Proposed Change

EV115 Saddlery [CHAPTER EV-1 General Rules For All Eventing Competitions ]

EV115 Saddlery

f. Martingales, bit guards, any kind of gadgets (such as bearing, side, running or balancing reins, etc.), reins with any loops or hand attachments, any kind of boots or leg bandages and any form of blinkers, including earmuffs, earplugs, hoods, nose covers and seat covers are, under penalty of elimination, strictly forbidden. Shoes (with or without cuffs) that are attached with nails or glue, or wraps that do not extend past the hair line of the hoof are permitted. Protective fly hoods made of thin material are permitted. However, these are subject to inspection by the Officials at the end of the test to ensure that nothing prohibited has been added (i.e. special material) or is covered by the fly hoods to protect from sound. The fly hoods should be discreet and should not cover the Horse’s eyes.


Sharon GallagherUS Eventing

[email protected]

Rule Change Intent

To provide equal playing field and protection from terrain for barefoot or plainly-shod horses.

Linked Rules CommentsWeb: shoes

Committee Actions




Eventing


eventing (20) - us equestrianprc.usef.org/documents/eventing.pdfeventing eventing (20) ... those...

Documents