Northam 26/10

octavius · October 2014

Didn't require a response Carey, may have been tongue in cheek, perhaps...

PieMan · October 2014

My mates own Son of Something. I was with them at Ascot on Saturday. They had a nice multi on Saturday. They had a fair bet on Barakey into Son of Something. Ouch!!!!!

Like I tell them, I have two rules, I don't back horses with a female jockey on top and I don't back odds on.

thefalcon · October 2014

the rules of not betting odds on, and, never run up stairs, never raise on 2 pair and never play poker with a mate.
they have stood the test of time...and money...and friendships. :-B

theduke · October 2014

Thank you very much carey for the information/analysis on Furious Dame.

Rodent · November 2014

The Northam Cup photo:

darkshines · November 2014

FFS. If a 2 second brightness adjustment cant find a clear winner like that, what hope does anyone have 8-}

Tivers · November 2014

We woz robbed !!!!!!

BobbyDavis · November 2014

Can a legal challenge be made after the fact?

darkshines · November 2014

Bump

Can't believe this hasn't got more attention (in conjunction with the mirror alignment thread). Pages and pages discussing an admittedly waning racecaller, which doesn't effect results - yet only a few comments on incompetence that clearly does.

You'd think after all the stuff ups over the years, a rigid, written-in-stone protocol/procedure would be documented AND made publicly available by now. Judges should have to follow it the same way a pilot does pre-flight checklists.

That way absolute balls ups like this are a) less likely, and b) if they do happen, you can pinpoint the exact step in the procedure that failed, and take remedial action so future likelihood or repeating error is miminised.

It appears as though in this case it is failure (forgetting) to use an available technology (hopefully!, instead of the technology not being available for use - which would be disgraceful).

Or is that asking for too much professionalism from an organisation like RWWA ....

GaryH · November 2014

Tivers said:
We woz robbed !!!!!!

Correct weight was delayed slightly due to Jockey Peter Hall (SON OF SOMETHING) viewing the patrol vision in the straight and Jockey William Pike (REBELSON) viewing the official photo finish

I'd rather rely on the jock having a better image in front of him then the one on CRIS. But yes. I did ring the stable people on track to check 'someone' took a look at it.... :((

TheDiva · November 2014

case closed i'd say if the connections and jock agreed?

GaryH · November 2014

The Diva said:
case closed i'd say if the connections and jock agreed?

Can only vouch for the jock. Don't know if the connections also asked to see the film. But after correct weight is called.......

In saying that, there does look a margin here? And the punters also need to be considered.

So even if the connections are happy to call a dead heat, shouldn't the stewards 'double check' to confirm accuracy and confidence in racing? (I think that's what Rodent was getting at?), and also 'review' contentious calls AND GIVE FEEDBACK....

TheDiva · November 2014

pretty sure we've been over this before, the judge has a much better quality print than this. Im not saying there is no mistake, but its hard to make judgement with such poor quality photo to look at.

SHOVHOG · November 2014

You have to believe that Pike had a good look over it and would have been trying to find anything to get the nod.

carey · November 2014

The Diva said:
pretty sure we've been over this before, the judge has a much better quality print than this. Im not saying there is no mistake, but its hard to make judgement with such poor quality photo to look at.

how can it be different?
those on cris are from the photo finish, so why ever would they post inferior prints on there, it makes no sense to do that.

carey · November 2014

and i should say that zucal, a long time ago, told me their equipment was crap, when i was pointing out a previous wrong decision.
not in those exact words, but there was no doubt what he was inferring

probably still crap now.
certainly if that mount barker quality is the norm, then they need to do a lot of fixing up!

Rodent · November 2014

I always hear that "the judge has a better quality photo". I'm quite sceptical because of proven mistakes in the past that have been admitted to. I can show 3 examples where the judge got it hopelessly wrong, 2 of which had results overturned when the authorities admitted there was a mistake (after I sent an email) and the 3rd one was the biggest clanger of all where the margin was a half head and it was as clear as day from the video and with some brightening of the image was as clear as day. The excuse to let the result stand (from Zucal) was that the image quality wasn't good enough and a dh was the fairest result!

Orange colours won, with a dead heat for 2nd declared between horse with white bridle/white cap and the horse in brown on extreme outside. Why wouldn't the stewards change this result to the correct one? This photo was 8 years ago so surely images now would be infinitely better? The image quality for the Northam Cup was woeful.

p.s here's a link to the actual photo with no enhancement. The white bridle being visible clearly shows there must have been a clear margin. Seriously indefensible.

http://www.rwwa.com.au/cris/viewattachment.aspx?meeting=13018&race=7&code=PHOTOFIN

So, what has changed to make judges better? The equipment is obviously still no good with image quality a problem and mirrors not aligned properly. Can anyone have faith in the integrity of the result in a close finish?

G'day Punter!

In this Discussion

Who's Online

Northam 26/10

Comments