F1, F2 and F3 Judging System

caliber · F1, F2 and F3 Judging System

http://pasovoice.com/sutra1239.php#1239

This will be discuss in Venezuela........ at the IV Equine World Convention........ That will be held October 17th and 18th in Caracas, Venezuela. EVERYONE IS INVITED! This event is sponsord by Fedepaso and Confepaso.
http://www.fedepaso.com/noticias/...ma_de_Juzgamiento_F1_F2_F3[1].pdf

FEDEPASO
Invita al pròximo IV Congreso Mundial Equino 2008

Los dias 17 y 18 de Octubre 2008, Caracas - Venezuela se viste de gala al convertirse en la sede del IV Congreso Equino. Un evento auspiciado por FEDEPASO y CONFEPASO

caliber

Rough Translation by "ME" ( this translation is not a official translation and by far NOT PERFECT, but will give you an IDEA of this system) Original Document copied from FEDEPASO official site, see link above.

JUDGING SYSTEM F1-F2-F3

1 - CONCEPT AND OBJECTIVES OF THE NEW JUDGING SYSTEM:

A judging system based on consensus, capable of allowing the active participation of judges in the development of skills. Its application provides the tools necessary to minimize errors of omission and / or diversion of most criteria which take precedence over the individual assessments, but at the same time preserving the individual criteria and the independence of each judge. It is composed of the traditional formats F1 and F2, incorporating a third format F3, whose implementation will be conditional and / or designed to address situations of lack of consensus, through a practice of selective incorporation.

Basically the goals that emerge from this system are:

A. Establish a parameter for judging practical, fair and responsible, and ratify that preserves the independence of the court. This mechanism allows, analyze and step through logical thinking the criteria for each and every one of the judges, achieving instant remedy any omissions or deviations that may be detrimental to the fair result.
B. Applying modern techniques of solution in place, detailed and reasoned converge in unity of approach, strengthened by the consensus, for the benefit of the optimal decision.
C. Implement a clear methodology to obtain benefits and guarantees for the bodies involved: judges, exhibitors, associations and federations and the general public.
D. Retake the main advantages of the previous methodologies.

2 - FOUNDATIONS OF THE SYSTEM:

A. The prosecution must make it three (3) Judges whom should be assigned and / or endorsed by FEDEPASO, as well as being in good standing.
B. The parameter for the decision is the table of scores which sets the rules CONFEPASO and FEDEPASO.
C. Judges should judge separately and individually except in the implementation of the format F3 reasoned.
D. To qualify for Major Championships and Reserved Championships, the judges should act separately and individually, to select the horse that his approach deserves the title above, using the format F2.
E. In the absence of consensus, the control desk of computations will show the judges what the horses and posts must be subject to discussion, and based on this information, the judges must apply the format F3 according to their choice.

3 - TECHNICAL SYSTEM:

A. Judges will be able to interact among themselves only after he has given the format F2.
B. This prohibited the judges, La Mesa Technical Announcers, Directors of Competition, Technical Directors disclose commentary on development of competition obtained indicating positions.

4 - PROCEDURE TO FOLLOW IN THE WORK OF THE PISTA:

4.1 .- STAGE OF WARMING: It is a preliminary working to bring the horses to a good level of warming. This phase may last no more fifteen (15) minutes. It seeks to determine which individuals should be removed because of any inconvenience that prevents him from participating in the competition, according to the provisions of existing regulation.

4.2 .- STAGE OF CLASSIFICATION:

A. Horses begin their journey individual (According to current regulation), and each copy in the competition implement mandatory tests that are:
I. Figure 8
II. The reverse or reverse gear
III. Serpentine
IV. The table of resonance in both directions on an individual basis.

(Each test should be developed according to the conditions stipulated in the existing Regulation)

B. Judges will select each a maximum of six (6) horses it that heads of the group (seven (7) to the competence of individuals in the process of training and castrated horses). This will, by writing the number of copies in the format F1, which handed the Director of Competition, or the control desk.

C. The format F1 in its filling and submission, does not imply any order of ranking, your goal is simply to establish a selection.

D. Horses that are not selected, they would appreciate your participation and will be removed from the PISTA (arena).

4.3 .- STAGE OF COMPARISON

A. If necessary the judges conducting the comparisons they deem prudent, guided by the evidence regulations. Once selected specimens, the Director of Competition will ask the judges if you can give a result. If all Judges already have a bug, then fill the form F2.

* Note: In the category of Process Issues in Training 28 to 36 months of age and category of castrated horses in F1 are chosen 7, and in the F2 is rewarded 6 (better, 1st, 2nd, 3rd , 4th, 5th). In the rest of the following categories (from 37 months onwards) are chosen 6 copies in F1 and was rewarded 5 copies in the F2.

B. If at least one judge does not have the bug, horses selected will be called to perform the following tests:

 streamers (serpentinas)
 Sounding board (Tabla)
 Circles
 Comparison in parallel and in the end be able to mount the judges copies.

C. To avoid false expectations about the final outcome, the result of tests that comparison a judge on an individual decides to carry out between two (2) or more horses, they concluded in a general way, before handing the f2, is due to move to full group horses for the completion of the test by giving one (1) single-round oval of the judgement.

D. Once you've made these tests, the judges fill out the form F2 and handed to the control desk.

5 - WITHDRAWAL OF COMPETITORS FROM COMPETITION
Following are the conditions that must be met for a horse to be removed from competition.

A. Depending on the missing, a horse may be withdrawn from the competition with the report of one or two judges. See Appendix "Descalificantes Misdemeanors."

B. When a horse has committed a lack descalificante at any time of competition, the judge is obliged to report it immediately to the Director of Competition or who in failing to perform its functions, and in turn, must pass written to the table computations to generate support for the reason that has led to the withdrawal of copy of the competition.

C. Descalificantes misconduct will be announced exclusively by the Voice Technician; who will be limited to voice into the microphone as ruled by the Judges.

6 - METHOD FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE CALCULATION OF CONSENSUS

To make a calculation for consideration of consensus on the format F2 or F3 implementation of the format, as the case may be, the system will take the following considerations in the following order of priority:

1. Judges must perform traditional practices in order to obtain the results respectively of the formats F1 and F2.

2. The format F2, recorded in front of each copy of the post occupied by him, if the judge has ignored a horse, it was left blank.

3. He/She then will proceed to the consideration of the awards each position by consensus or by the application of the format F3, as the case may be.

4. The primary consideration is the consensus for winning first place, namely that an example has been considered for this position in two or three cards F2.

5. Only if the consensus was the first since all (in the three cards F2), will be implementing the same approach in the post next. The copy to get this consensus will be established as the winner of this post.

6. If the consensus is just two matches in the format F2, the copy to get this consensus will be established as a winner of the post analyzed. But unlike the previous point, do not directly apply the rule of consensus of the format F2 for the post next, but must join the selection of the post below, the copy that would be out of consensus. That is, for the post next fall under discussion all selected for the post in the F2 more cards that would be outside the consensus at the previous post.

7. The remaining horses, then, the determination of the post under discussion, either by consensus or by the application of the format F3 reasoned, should be incorporated into the selection of the post following coupled with the horses in certain formats F2 for this post.

8. If there is a consensus even with the horse obtained joined the list of the cards F2, then according to previous sections as appropriate case.

9. If there is no consensus in either case, there will be the implementation of the format F3 rationale for determining the winner horse of the post under discussion. The remaining horses should be incorporated into the selection of the post following giving them treatment described in paragraph 4.

Notes: This should take into account the following notes:

I. When a horse has held the top spot on two judges cards, it will eventually first place regardless of the concept of another judge. (See example below):

Judge No. 1
Judge No. 2
Judge No. 3
1st is #10

II. When the first post has been declared abandoned by two judges, it eventually will be declared void.

III. For a copy will be rewarded, had to be taken into account a minimum of two judges. (See example below):

7 - STAGE OF REASONING AND COMPARISON FINAL FORM F3

A. If there was absolute consensus between the three judges, that is, everyone has placed in the same format F2 sheet for the 1st place, the deal finally copy the 1st place, resulted in the F3 would not apply for this position.

B. But when one (1) horse has occupied the 1st place in two cards of the judges in the format F2, it will eventually by consensus the 1st place. Unlike the absolute consensus in this case the copy out of consensus would contest the next post (2nd place) with the rest of the horses that have been selected by the judges in the F2 format for this post.

C. If there is no consensus on any of the F2 cards of the judges for 1st place, entering into discussion and comparison (F3) horses for the 1st place chosen by each of the judges for a total of three (3) horses. Of the implementation of the format F3 will be a winner, two (2) remaining horses would contest the next post (2nd place) with the rest of the horses that have been selected by the judges in the F2 format for this post.

D. For the determination of the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th position will apply the previous standard, with the exception that must be taken into account in the assessment of each post, not just individuals selected by each judge in the format but F2 also must consider the remaining horses of the previous post.

E. If you look at the computation of the corresponding F2, determines that there is absolute consensus within five (5) seats of the marker, the format F3 Raisonné will be the same result of the F2.

8 - NOTICE OF RESULTS

In all cases the fault will lie with the judge having more and better alignment with the end result, if several have agreed will be chosen among the judges indiscriminately, without repeating the judge's previous shift. Using this system, the judge will not have to be declared disabled for judging copies bred by him, may be judged on the PISTA.

9 - THE CONFIDENTIALITY AND AVAILABILITY OF CALCULATION AND RESULTS FORMAT.

The information contained in the formats F1, F2, F3, Sheets Computing and / or result, it is strictly confidential and can not be delivered nor shown to breeders or exhibitors during the exhibition. Any infidencia in this regard will be severely punished by the appropriate authorities at the head of the Technical Director of the exhibition.

The cards will be available to compute the owner of the horse(s) only after he has requested in writing to the Board of Directors of the Association and / or the Federation, who will be obliged to respond within the next thirty (30) following the date of receipt of the request.

APPENDIX I
FAULTS DESCALIFICANTES

REPORTS
LACK DESCALIFICANTE
1 Judge
2 Judges
Those who jump the rider, alone or with the saddle, when you start or during the competition.
*
Those who bleed from the mouth or an open wound, unless verification of the Chief Veterinarian to confirm that this is the fall of a premolar tooth or milk.
*
Those who are "retaquen," meaning that the horse refuses to continue or to turn to one side or the other.
*
Those who are punished by the assembler on the saddle , or stimulated with electrical components.
*
Spurs, tacks, or any other sharp implement or punishment prohibited by these regulations.
*
Driven by the assemblers in a state of drunkenness or intoxication or wearing a uniform other than that set by these regulations.
*
Turn over one of the poles during the execution of the Test 8.
*
Turn over or off the tabla ofresonance or do not complete the journey in line with the provisions of these Regulations.

Those who prove not to be in the best position to compete.
*
Those whoses gait does not correspond to the one judged.
*
Those who did not retreat after the 8, or the lifting of hands to demonstrate indocile.
*
Those who submit hiperflxión train later (cramps) in any magnitude. For horses of the case they are withdrawn and by introducing this defect is detected on the arena of their gait, the judge observed that this irregularity should call the other Judges at the Veterinary Technical Director and Head of Planned, to be reported this CONFEPASO irregularity.
*
Those with obvious lameness.
*
Those who have coleado (tail switching) six (6) or more times.
*
Those with no tail tone or apparently killed queue.