Paso Fino. Rule Tracking Draft Effective Date 1 12/1/ /1/ /1/ /1/2018. Council - Natl Breed & Discipline 1 4/1/2018

Transcription

1 Paso Fino (16) Paso Fino Rule Tracking Draft Effective Date Proponent GR /1/2018 Draft 1: Recommends Approval 10/30/2017 Draft 2: Needs Action AHA AR 110 (305-17) GR Draft 1: Recommends Approval 10/30/ /1/2018 Governance GR Draft 1: Recommends Approval 10/30/ /1/2018 AHA GR Draft 1: Recommends Approval 10/30/ /1/2018 USEF Officers GR Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 10/30/ /1/2018 Matty O'Rourke GR Draft 1: Recommends Approval 10/30/ /1/2018 Council - Natl Breed & Discipline GR /1/ /30/2017 Draft 2: Needs Action Draft 3: Needs Action Council - Natl Breed & Discipline GR /1/2018 Draft 1: Needs Action Draft 2: Recommends Approval 10/30/2017 Draft 3: Needs Action Council - Natl Breed & Discipline GR /1/2018 Draft 1: Recommends Approval 10/30/2017 Draft 2: Needs Action Draft 3: Needs Action Council - Natl Breed & Discipline GR Draft 1: Recommends Approval 10/30/ /1/2018 USEF Officers GR /1/2018 Veterinary Tuesday, January 09, :11 AM Page 1 of 46

2 Paso Fino (16) Paso Fino Rule Tracking Draft Effective Date Proponent Draft 1: Recommends Approval 10/30/2017 Draft 2: Needs Action GR /1/2018 Draft 1: Recommends Approval 11/21/2017 Draft 2: Needs Action Licensed Officials Task Force GR /1/2018 Draft 1: Needs Action Draft 2: Recommends Approval 10/30/2017 Bill Moroney GR /1/2018 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 10/30/2017 Draft 2: Needs Action Steve Sarafin GR /1/2018 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 10/30/2017 Draft 2: Needs Action USHJA GR Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 10/30/ /1/2018 Matty O'Rourke Tuesday, January 09, :11 AM Page 2 of 46

3 GR141.3 Tracking # Draft #2 Amended Rule Change Type Effective Date Draft Received Board Action Standard 12/1/ /21/2017 GR141 Owner s Classes [CHAPTER SUBCHAPTER 1-A DEFINITIONS] Proposed Change 1. Every competitor must be an amateur and the owner, or an amateur member of the owner s family, unless the prize list states otherwise. Exception: Paso Fino Division. 2. Owners classes may be restricted to riders, drivers or handlers who are no longer eligible to compete as a junior exhibitor. 3. Combined ownership is not permitted in Owner s or Amateur Owner s classes unless all owners are members of the same family. Exception: Paso Fino. 4. In the Arabian Division, combined ownership is permitted in Owner s or Amateur Owner s classes, per AR Leased horses are not eligible. Exception: Paso Fino Division. Proponent Details AHA Contact Information Sarah Beth Hollowed sbhollowed@usef.org Rule Change Intent The Arabian Horse Show world is changing and as an industry we need to look for new and innovative ways for our Arabian Horses to be enjoyed by more individuals. In the opinion of the proponent, the Arabian Horse industry needs to be encouraging, not discouraging membership. With the cost of showing horses increasing, the opportunity to share the training/board/showing/etc. expenses with an unrelated owner may increase participation at competitions by allowing another class entry without ownership restrictions. The lack of opportunity to partner and exhibit these co-owned horses in amateur owner classes effectively reduces any incentive to co-own or partner on the purchase or showing of horses. The expanded definition of "ownership" will allow for participation at lower costs. The ownership must be an "AND" ownership which may limit the ability for individuals to change ownership multiple times and demonstrates the level of commitment required on behalf of both parties. The intent is to add "Arabian" to the exception in number 3. AR 110 (305-17) Linked Rules Web: arabian Comments Committee Actions Draft 2: Recommends Approval 11/15/2017 Draft 2: Recommends Approval 12/05/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Approval 10/30/2017 Arabian Council - Natl Breed & Discipline Paso Fino Tuesday, January 09, :11 AM GR Tracking # Page 3 of 46

4 GR151.1 Tracking # 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 purview 8. 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 Governance Contact Information Sonja Keating skeating@usef.org Rule Change Intent Tuesday, January 09, :11 AM GR Tracking # Page 4 of 46

5 This proposed rule change is being submitted to ensure proposed rule changes come from those individual members of the Federation who are involved in 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 Comments Web: Rule Change Process - Individual Members Committee Actions Draft 1: Recommends Approval 11/27/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Approval 11/02/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Approval 11/15/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Approval 11/09/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Approval 12/04/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Approval 10/25/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Approval 12/21/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Approval 01/04/2018 Draft 1: Recommends Approval 12/04/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Approval 12/20/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Approval 11/07/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Approval 11/14/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Approval 11/20/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Approval 11/28/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Approval 11/27/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Approval 11/21/2017 American Saddlebred Andalusian/Lusitano Arabian 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 Tuesday, January 09, :11 AM GR Tracking # Page 5 of 46

6 Draft 1: Recommends Approval 11/06/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Approval 11/13/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Approval 10/30/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Approval 11/21/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Approval 11/20/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Approval 11/01/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Approval 12/14/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Approval 10/25/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Approval 11/21/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Approval 11/07/2017 National Hunter Committee National Show Horse Paso Fino Reining Roadster Saddle Seat Eq Shetland USHJA 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. Vaulting Welsh Western Committee Western Dressage Tuesday, January 09, :11 AM GR Tracking # Page 6 of 46

7 GR603.1 Tracking # Draft #1 Active Rule Change Type Effective Date Draft Received Board Action 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. Proponent Details AHA Contact Information Sarah Beth Hollowed sbhollowed@usef.org 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 Draft 1: Recommends Approval 11/27/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Approval 11/02/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Approval 11/15/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Approval 11/09/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Approval 12/04/2017 Web: protests Committee Actions American Saddlebred Andalusian/Lusitano Arabian Breeds/Disciplines Carriage Pleasure Driving Competition Management Comments Tuesday, January 09, :11 AM GR Tracking # Page 7 of 46

8 Draft 1: Recommends Approval 10/25/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Approval 12/21/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Approval 01/04/2018 Draft 1: Recommends Approval 12/04/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Approval 12/20/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Approval 11/07/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Approval 11/14/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Approval 11/20/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 12/22/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Approval 11/28/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Approval 11/21/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Approval 11/06/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Approval 11/13/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Approval 10/30/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Approval 11/21/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Approval 11/20/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Approval 11/01/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Approval 10/25/2017 Connemara Council - Admin & Finance Council - Intl Discipline Council - Natl Breed & Discipline Dressage Driving Endurance English Pleasure Eventing Friesian Governance Hackney Hearing Committee 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. Jumper Morgan National Hunter Committee National Show Horse Paso Fino Reining Roadster Saddle Seat Eq Shetland Vaulting Welsh Tuesday, January 09, :11 AM GR Tracking # Page 8 of 46

9 Draft 1: Recommends Approval 11/21/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Approval 11/07/2017 Western Committee Western Dressage Tuesday, January 09, :11 AM GR Tracking # Page 9 of 46

10 GR702 Tracking # Draft #1 Active Rule Change Type Effective Date Draft Received Board Action Standard 12/1/2018 8/31/2017 GR702 Violations [CHAPTER 7-A Individuals] Proposed Change 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. Proponent Details USEF Officers Contact Information Sonja Keating skeating@usef.org 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 Comments Web: Violations - Horse Sales/Leases Committee Actions Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 11/27/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Approval 11/02/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 11/15/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 01/02/2018 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 11/09/2017 American Saddlebred Draft 1: Too subjective and would be difficult to enforce. Because of liability issues USE should not be involved. Andalusian/Lusitano Arabian Draft 1: The committee feels this is a civil matter. If needed, USEF could add a penalty after legal action has been taken. Breeders 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. Breeds/Disciplines Budget&Finance Carriage Pleasure Driving Draft 1: The concept is good but would be difficult to enforce. Tuesday, January 09, :11 AM GR Tracking # Page 10 of 46

11 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 10/25/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 01/08/2018 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 12/21/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 01/04/2018 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 12/04/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 12/20/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 11/07/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 11/14/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 11/20/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 12/22/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 11/28/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 11/21/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 12/18/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 11/13/2017 Connemara 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? Council - Admin & Finance Draft 1: Too broad and too difficult to enforce. Would be in favor if the scope was reduced to written contractual agreements only. Council - Intl Discipline Draft 1: Too subjective and difficult to enforce. Opens up liability concerns for the USEF. Council - Natl Breed & Discipline Draft 1: The Council felt this would be unenforceable and the language is too subjective. Dressage 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. Driving 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. Endurance English Pleasure Ethics Eventing 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. Friesian 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? Governance Hackney 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 Hearing Committee 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. Jumper Draft 1: The JCS feels this could get messy with the liability for the Federation and that this is really a civil matter. Morgan Draft 1: The committee feels this belongs in civil court and is unenforceable. National Hunter Committee 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. National Show Horse 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. Tuesday, January 09, :11 AM GR Tracking # Page 11 of 46

12 Draft 1: Recommends Approval 10/30/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 11/21/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 11/20/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Approval 11/01/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 12/14/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 12/18/2017 Draft 1: Tabled 10/25/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 11/21/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 11/07/2017 Owners Paso Fino Reining Roadster Draft 1: Difficult to monitor and enforce. This would assign unnecessary liability to USEF. Saddle Seat Eq Draft 1: This would be difficult to enforce and USEF does not need to be responsible for liability concerning this rule. Shetland USHJA 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. Vaulting Veterinary Draft 1: The Veterinary Committee supports the concept, but is unsure of the implementation. Welsh 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. Western Committee 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 Dressage Draft 1: Feels these matters should not be taken on by USEF. Tuesday, January 09, :11 AM GR Tracking # Page 12 of 46

13 GR801 Tracking # Draft #1 Active Rule Change Type Effective Date Draft Received Board Action Standard 12/1/2018 8/31/2017 GR801 Dress [CHAPTER 8-A ATTIRE AND EQUIPMENT] Proposed Change 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. Proponent Details Matty O'Rourke Contact Information Matty O'Rourke p.1@mac.com 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 Web: Helmet Fit Comments Tuesday, January 09, :11 AM GR Tracking # Page 13 of 46

14 Committee Actions Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 11/27/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 11/02/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 11/15/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 11/09/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 10/25/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 01/08/2018 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 12/21/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 01/04/2018 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 12/04/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 12/20/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 11/07/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 11/14/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 11/20/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 11/28/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 11/27/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 11/21/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 11/06/2017 American Saddlebred Draft 1: Difficult to enforce Andalusian/Lusitano 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. Arabian 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? Breeds/Disciplines Carriage Pleasure Driving Draft 1: Committee feels this rule change is unenforceable. Connemara 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. Council - Admin & Finance Draft 1: Goes against current standards for replacing helmets. Would be difficult to enforce. Council - Intl Discipline Draft 1: Too difficult to enforce. It is not the purpose of the USEF to dictate and police the correct fit of helmets. Council - Natl Breed & Discipline Dressage Draft 1: Would be difficult to enforce. Many helmets can be used over four years per manufacturer based on amount of uses, etc. Driving 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. Endurance English Pleasure Eventing Draft 1: The Eventing Sport Commtitee does not recommend approval as there are concerns about the administration of the rule. Friesian 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. Governance Hackney Draft 1: This would be too difficult to monitor and enforce Jumper Draft 1: JSC feels we should focus on better education regarding concussions and helmet safety. Licensed Officials Draft 1: This rule is unenforceable by competition management and would be extremely difficult to monitor. Morgan 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 National Hunter Committee Draft 1: This rule is unenforceable. Tuesday, January 09, :11 AM GR Tracking # Page 14 of 46

15 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 11/13/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 10/30/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 11/21/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 11/20/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 11/21/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 11/01/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 11/29/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 12/14/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 10/25/ /21/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 11/07/2017 National Show Horse Draft 1: This rule would be difficult to enforce and too many factors come into play regarding proper fit and age of helmets. Paso Fino Draft 1: It would be difficult to verify helmet age and would burden competition management to enforce this rule. Reining Roadster Draft 1: Too difficult to monitor and enforce. Saddle Seat Eq 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. Safety 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. Shetland 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. Steward-Technical Delegate Committee Draft 1: This rule is unenforceable by competition management and would be extremely difficult to monitor. USHJA 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. Vaulting Welsh 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. Western Committee Western Dressage 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? Tuesday, January 09, :11 AM GR Tracking # Page 15 of 46

16 GR804 Tracking # Draft #1 Active Rule Change Type Effective Date Draft Received Board Action Standard 4/1/2018 8/31/2017 Proposed Change GR804 Shoeing Regulations [CHAPTER SUBCHAPTER 8-A ATTIRE AND EQUIPMENT] SUBCHAPTER 8-A ATTIRE AND EQUIPMENT GR804 Shoeing Regulations 1. In some parts of the country, it is common practice to show unshod horses in certain classes. A horse cannot be barred from the ring because of being unshod but, in classes in which it is common practice for all horses to be shod, a barefoot horse may be penalized at the judge s discretion. 2. Competitions offering classes in a division that designates a maximum weight for shoes (Paso Fino, Welsh) must provide accurate scales for weighing. If any horse casts a shoe in any of these classes, the shoe, including pad if used, but not including nails must be immediately weighed by the judge. In these classes, a competitor may not be excused from the ring until the judge is satisfied that the horse has not cast a shoe. Refer to GR If the weight of a shoe and pad is protested, the owner may either withdraw the entry and forfeit all entry fees and winnings of the protested entry for the entire competition, in which event the protest must be withdrawn and the fee refunded or, have the shoe and pad removed in the presence of the competition veterinarian and steward so it can be weighed immediately. 4. Whether cast or removed, if the shoe including pad exceeds the weight limit, the entry must be disqualified for the balance of the competition and all entry fees and winnings of the entry for the entire competition will be forfeited. Removal and replacement of any protested shoe and pad is the sole responsibility of the owner of the entry; however, if the protest is not upheld, the protestor must shall pay up to $100 $15 to defray the cost of removal and replacement of the shoe. 5. See AR106 for Arabian shoeing regulations. Proponent Details Council - Natl Breed & Discipline Contact Information Lori Nelson lnelson@usef.org Rule Change Intent Intent: 1. Remove reference to GR109.2 because it is not relevant 2. Change the fee to defray the cost to something more general like, what the owner is billed by the farrier since $15 may not cover it. Would like for this to be effective 4/1/18 to accompany other rule changes being submitted in this regard. Linked Rules Draft 1: Recommends Approval 11/27/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Approval 11/02/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Approval 11/15/2017 Committee Actions American Saddlebred Andalusian/Lusitano Arabian Breeds Web: shoeing regulations Comments Tuesday, January 09, :11 AM GR Tracking # Page 16 of 46

17 Draft 1: Recommends Approval 01/04/ /20/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Approval 10/30/ /21/ /20/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Approval 11/01/ /21/2017 Council - Natl Breed & Discipline Hackney Paso Fino Roadster Saddle Seat Eq Shetland Western Committee Tuesday, January 09, :11 AM GR Tracking # Page 17 of 46

18 GR809.3 Tracking # Draft #3 Amended Rule Change Type Effective Date Draft Received Board Action Standard 4/1/ /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. Proponent Details Council - Natl Breed & Discipline Contact Information Lori Nelson lnelson@usef.org 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 proceed in circumstances that arise at the competitions. Linked Rules Draft 2: Recommends Approval 11/27/2017 Draft 3: Recommends Approval 12/21/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Approval 11/02/2017 Draft 2: Recommends Approval 11/15/2017 Committee Actions American Saddlebred Andalusian/Lusitano Arabian Web: Championship class Comments Tuesday, January 09, :11 AM GR Tracking # Page 18 of 46

19 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 11/09/2017 Draft 2: Recommends Approval 12/18/ /25/2017 Draft 3: Recommends Approval 12/21/ /04/ /20/ /07/ /14/2017 Draft 2: Recommends Approval 11/20/2017 Draft 2: Recommends Disapproval 11/28/2017 Draft 3: Recommends Approval 12/21/2017 Draft 2: Recommends Approval 11/21/2017 Draft 2: Recommends Disapproval 11/13/ /30/2017 Breeds/Disciplines Carriage Pleasure Driving 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. Connemara Council - Intl Discipline Dressage Driving Endurance English Pleasure Eventing Draft 2: The Eventing Sport Committee recommend taking no action as the proposed change does not impact Eventing. Friesian Hackney Jumper Draft 2: Would approve if an exception is added for Jumping (after Dressage) with JP as a reference. Morgan National Show Horse Draft 2: Feels this limits possibilities for exhibitors to show back that have shown in the qualifier. Paso Fino 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. Tuesday, January 09, :11 AM GR Tracking # Page 19 of 46

20 11/21/2017 Draft 2: Recommends Disapproval 11/20/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Approval 11/01/ /25/ /21/ /07/ /07/2017 Reining Roadster Saddle Seat Eq Draft 2: Concern that the shoeing time was being eliminated from this rule. Shetland Vaulting Welsh Draft 1: This rule does not really impact the Welsh Western Committee Western Dressage 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. Tuesday, January 09, :11 AM GR Tracking # Page 20 of 46

21 GR827 Tracking # Draft #3 Amended Rule Change Type Effective Date Draft Received Board Action Standard 4/1/ /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 JP e. Competing Hors de Concours is prohibited in the following divisions: Hackney, Roadster, Saddlebred, National Show Horse, and Western Dressage. Proponent Details Council - Natl Breed & Discipline Contact Information Lori Nelson lnelson@usef.org 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 Committee Actions Web: Hors de Concours Comments Draft 2: Recommends Disapproval 11/27/2017 Draft 3: Recommends Approval 12/21/2017 Draft 2: Recommends Approval 11/02/2017 Draft 2: Recommends Approval 11/15/2017 American Saddlebred Draft 2: If this rule is approved this Committee would like the American Saddlebred to be exempt for use of this rule. Andalusian/Lusitano Arabian Tuesday, January 09, :11 AM GR Tracking # Page 21 of 46

22 Draft 3: Recommends Approval Draft 2: Recommends Approval 11/09/2017 Draft 2: Recommends Approval 12/04/2017 Draft 2: Recommends Approval 10/25/2017 Draft 3: Recommends Approval 12/21/2017 Draft 3: Recommends Approval 01/04/2018 Draft 2: Recommends Approval 12/04/ /20/ /07/2017 Draft 2: Recommends Approval 11/14/ /20/2017 Draft 2: Recommends Approval 11/21/2017 Breeders Breeds/Disciplines Carriage Pleasure Driving Competition Management Connemara Council - Admin & Finance Council - Intl Discipline Council - Natl Breed & Discipline Dressage Driving Endurance English Pleasure Eventing Draft 2: The Eventing Sport Committee recommend taking no action as the Eventing rule re: Hors de Concours supersedes the GR. Friesian Hackney Jumper Morgan Tuesday, January 09, :11 AM GR Tracking # Page 22 of 46

23 Draft 2: Recommends Approval 11/06/2017 Draft 2: Recommends Disapproval 11/13/2017 Draft 2: Recommends Approval 10/30/2017 Draft 2: Recommends Disapproval 11/21/ /20/2017 Draft 2: Recommends Approval 11/01/2017 Draft 2: Recommends Approval 12/14/ /25/ /21/2017 Draft 2: Recommends Disapproval 11/07/2017 National Hunter Committee National Show Horse Draft 2: Is a distraction to judges and puts a hardship on show management. Paso Fino Reining Roadster Draft 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. Saddle Seat Eq Shetland USHJA Vaulting Welsh Draft 2: This rule does not really impact the Welsh Western Committee Western Dressage Draft 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. Tuesday, January 09, :11 AM GR Tracking # Page 23 of 46

24 GR833 Tracking # Draft #3 Amended Rule Change Type Effective Date Draft Received Board Action 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) Proponent Details Council - Natl Breed & Discipline Contact Information Lori Nelson lnelson@usef.org 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 Web: time-out Comments Tuesday, January 09, :11 AM GR Tracking # Page 24 of 46