New England

Does anybody know of a website to get absolute results???

5 Responses to New England

  1. comoshun says:

    It is updated daily for the previous days results. has them as well but there is a fee to subscribe.

  2. underdog88 says:

    Does anyone know if the results with all 3 judges’ decisions will be available? If so, where?

  3. RaeOfLight says:

    I haven’t heard much about the judging there this year. How does everyone feel about the transition to the 3 judge panel?

  4. AlexaB says:

    I found it interesting…not sure how I feel about it yet, which I’m surprised to be saying since I was someone who felt very strongly that this show needed the 3 judge system. More than any other show I know of, New England has had the most complaints about the judging in the past. There were certain barns that stopped coming because of the judging, or skipped it certain years because of the judges, etc etc. So I think for pretty much everyone, this was not only a welcome change, but something that people were really happy and excited about, myseld included.
    Now, I have never shown at OKC, so I had never experienced this system first hand. It was not what I expected, and I was not as thrilled with it as I thought I would be…
    There are certain things about it that just seem odd. I know it’s a mathematical equation that leads to the actual results, but it just doesn’t seem right that somone can win a class when NONE of the judges pinned them first…so not a single judge found them deserving of the win, yet they can still pin first. I know the idea behind it but it is flawed.
    One of the things that I thought would be great about the three-judge panel would be that almost no mistake would go unnoticed. I know many people thought that having 3 sets of eyes keeping watch in the ring would cut down on judges missing wrong leads, breaks, and other errors. This was not the case, though, from what I saw. Instead, it seemed that judges felt more complacent to just watch their designated rail or corner and not even stay conscience of any other part of the ring. There were actually A LOT of unnoticed errors which I was really surprised about. I could literally see a horse making a mistake, and I would look at each judge to see if they saw…and time and again they would be fixated on their one spot and not notice the horse screwing up. My guess is that each judge is thinking that if there is an error made and it is not directly in front of them, then one of the other judges will see, so they don’t need to worry about it. I’m not a judge of course, and some these classes were quite large…but this seemed to happen a lot.
    It was frustrating at times to look at the judges’ cards outside the office and see how the top 5 or 6 horses pinned with all three judges. Sometimes you would see a horse that pinned 2nd or 3rd, but they wouldn’t have any 2nd or 3rd place ties from any of the judges…it would be all over the place like a 4th, a 6th and a 9th or something…and you’d think, well I know it’s the math, but really?? the best any judge thought of that entry was 4th and they pin 2nd?!! I also heard people say that one judge would pin them 1st or 2nd, but the other judges didn’t give them anything or one other just gave them 10th, so they don’t get a ribbon at all!! That must be frustrating if you’ve actually had a good ride but only one judge recognizes it!

    I guess I wouldn’t go back to the way it was. I guess it’s just the name of the game, but I really thought there would be some noticably great difference once they went to this system. I’d love to hear what other people thought of it.

  5. StacyGRS says:

    I don’t know what system they used at NE, but one of the most popular systems for tabulating is the MOS system (and I’d guess that this is what they used, if I had to guess). MOS stands for (I’m pretty sure:) Majority Opinion System. In other words, you are correct…a person CAN win without a first place vote, if they are, overall, the highest person/horse on all cards…in other words, the majority came together and this was the one they agreed on first…it may have been someone’s second place, someone else’s third, and another’s fifth…but it was the highest entry placed by the majority. I hope that makes sense. It’s more than math…it’s about making sure that one judge can’t sway the system. One judge can’t make you win or lose, theoretically, on their own…the majority has to come to some sort of agreement for a placing to happen. There is certainly math involved, but the system was developed to attempt to eliminate 1 judge’s ability to guarantee anything. There was an article in one of the magazines a while back explaining it and it was worth reading…it doesn’t make it any more perfect, but it’s nice to understand:) Recently we had a Jr rider at OKC that had the exact same placings as the RWC (our girl got third) but the call judge then breaks the tie and the other girl had the higher placing on the call judge’s card…details, details!! So close! Some years it seems like there will be a dozen little calls like that that will all go our way…and another year, they’ll all go against us. I suppose it’s what makes the wins so sweet!:)
    I’m curious as to how people felt about not knowing what judges they’d show under before hand. At OKC it’s all laid out and by 1/2 way thru the week we make some plans on what champs to show back in by who is judging what and who seems to prefer (or not) what horses. NE didn’t give that option…did people like or not like that way better?

Leave a Reply