G'day Punter!

Sign In Register

In this Discussion

Who's Online

  • matt   33 seconds ago
1 Members & 181 Non Members

BARKER - mungrup day

West Australian Racing
TheDivaTheDiva    13,248 posts
West Australian Racing
I’m calling a whip rule protest in the third… let’s see if anything comes of it
+1 -1

Comments

  • TheDivaTheDiva    13,248 posts
    Got beaten :D
    +1 -1
  • VoodooVoodoo    1,369 posts
    edited January 2023
    TheDiva said:

    I’m calling a whip rule protest in the third… let’s see if anything comes of it

    14 strikes in the last 150mtr....Protest would be dismissed. 4 prior to the 100mtr.....
    +1 -1
  • TheDivaTheDiva    13,248 posts
    The arm looked extremely high to me, above the shoulder? Anyhow, how was the protest in the mungrup? Unbelievable

    JimmyPop likes this post.

    +1 -1
  • LooksLikeTroubleLooksLikeTrouble    150 posts
    Thought the same Diva
    +1 -1
  • spinkingspinking    4,001 posts
    Without as yet seeing a replay something certainly happened on the corner. Are you both inferring there should not have been a protest. Or protest should have been dismissed?
    +1 -1
  • TheDivaTheDiva    13,248 posts
    Not questioning the interference but not sure how you could be certain the result was affected. The winner went across the line under its own steam.
    I’ll add, I had a very confident bet on cheval de vaga… so I was stunned to see the result

    JimmyPop, Voodoo likes this post.

    +1 -1
  • H-BOMBERH-BOMBER    10,567 posts
    #perthstewards might start trending again
    +1 -1
  • meatpiemeatpie    606 posts
    "Horrible look, especially within weeks of the Perth Cup
    +1 -1
  • loose_gooseloose_goose    2,135 posts
    To be able to assess the impact to River Rubicon & on face value and it was substantial, the last 600m sectionals for Kohli & RR would be interesting to see, but alas nothing to see on the whole meeting. How in this day & age can you not have that equipment up & running at every track, or was it not packed like the camera's to Geraldton one time  ;) (purely pontificating there)  ;;)

    The act of interference was careless, (another3/4 horses were affected, though none really had a winning chance) and a penalty will come up for later today, The interference to others should not be taken into account with the protest unless it impacted RR (and maybe it wasn't), but still not 100% sure it should have been upheld on RR alone, but for me after watching the replay was a toss of the coin, but the last 600m split for both horses may heve been the decider for me, taking into account RR was almost stopprd in his tracks

    JimmyPop likes this post.

    +1 -1
  • jumjum    3,581 posts
    I think she will get a very big suspension. Extremely lucky there was not a fall RR lost all momentum and lost a few lengths. it's easy to sit up on Kohli and make it look good when you're racing away and a few lengths clear. i think RR did a huge job to get that close in the end.

    +1 -1
  • meatpiemeatpie    606 posts
    jum said:

    I think she will get a very big suspension. Extremely lucky there was not a fall RR lost all momentum and lost a few lengths. it's easy to sit up on Kohli and make it look good when you're racing away and a few lengths clear. i think RR did a huge job to get that close in the end.


    got 21 days suspension on the day.
    +1 -1
  • ChrisChris    5,734 posts
    RR owners must be mates with Cheval's because they scored them an extra $35K, whilst RR only pocketed an extra $10K.
    +1 -1
  • loose_gooseloose_goose    2,135 posts
    edited January 2023
    TheDiva said:

    Not questioning the interference but not sure how you could be certain the result was affected. The winner went across the line under its own steam.
    I’ll add, I had a very confident bet on cheval de vaga… so I was stunned to see the result

    So did Great Cat many years ago but hey that protest was upheld. One of the greates rorts in WA racing. https://fb.watch/idXHow1Tse/

    Manchild, JimmyPop, Clintoff likes this post.

    +1 -1
  • jumjum    3,581 posts
    Chris said:

    RR owners must be mates with Cheval's because they scored them an extra $35K, whilst RR only pocketed an extra $10K.

    I heard it was a LOT more than $35K after the punt.
    I heard at a funeral today that a bloke on course put a lost ticket claim in for $15K 
    :-&
    +1 -1
  • Vincent_vegaVincent_vega    674 posts
    jum said:

    Chris said:

    RR owners must be mates with Cheval's because they scored them an extra $35K, whilst RR only pocketed an extra $10K.

    I heard it was a LOT more than $35K after the punt.
    I heard at a funeral today that a bloke on course put a lost ticket claim in for $15K 
    :-&



    Could you imagine his stress levels? And how many bins he must have looked thru??? =))

    jum likes this post.

    +1 -1
  • shothrushothru    326 posts
    Spoke to both jockeys today, there opinions were unsurprisingly different. The stewards report said they believe RR lost 3 lengths and the margin was 2 lenghs. No way was the interference worth 3 lengths . i did note from the stewards report there were no senior stewards at the meeting. No way Brad Lewis would've  upheld that protest
    +1 -1
  • meatpiemeatpie    606 posts
    shothru said:

    Spoke to both jockeys today, there opinions were unsurprisingly different. The stewards report said they believe RR lost 3 lengths and the margin was 2 lenghs. No way was the interference worth 3 lengths . i did note from the stewards report there were no senior stewards at the meeting. No way Brad Lewis would've  upheld that protest

    How senior do you have to be? Chris Brown, Ric Mance and Chris Courtland all there and all senior stewards
    +1 -1
  • ClintoffClintoff    4 posts
    shothru said:

    Spoke to both jockeys today, there opinions were unsurprisingly different. The stewards report said they believe RR lost 3 lengths and the margin was 2 lenghs. No way was the interference worth 3 lengths . i did note from the stewards report there were no senior stewards at the meeting. No way Brad Lewis would've  upheld that protest




    Aren’t you the foreperson for Dion Luciani?
    +1 -1
  • LetsgetstartedLetsgetstarted    22 posts
    shothru said:

    Spoke to both jockeys today, there opinions were unsurprisingly different. The stewards report said they believe RR lost 3 lengths and the margin was 2 lenghs. No way was the interference worth 3 lengths . i did note from the stewards report there were no senior stewards at the meeting. No way Brad Lewis would've  upheld that protest



    You absolute idiot
    +1 -1
  • loose_gooseloose_goose    2,135 posts
    Letsgetstarted said:

    shothru said:

    Spoke to both jockeys today, there opinions were unsurprisingly different. The stewards report said they believe RR lost 3 lengths and the margin was 2 lenghs. No way was the interference worth 3 lengths . i did note from the stewards report there were no senior stewards at the meeting. No way Brad Lewis would've  upheld that protest



    You absolute idiot
    If you are going to come on and attack someone's opinion, at least add some substance why to your comment.

    jum likes this post.

    +1 -1
  • RodentRodent    7,470 posts
    edited January 2023
    The interference happened just prior to the 400m mark. When the times become available, you will find Kohli may have run a slightly faster last 400m but there won't be much in it. Would River Rubicon have won if the interference had not occurred? Maybe, maybe not. I'd like to know what evidence satisfied the stewards that River Rubicon would have won if not for the interference.
     Kohli was 3/4L in front of RR when the interference occurred and Kohli finished the race off every bit as strongly as River Rubicon. We all know benefit of the doubt goes to 1st past the post as 2nd v 1st have a low success rate. There was plenty of doubt here. Kohli beat RR by 1.7L. 
     RR was 0.75L behind when it suffered interference. After the interference he is 2.25L behind at most. It must come down to momentum. This is very subjective. Kohli speared wider to make its run and RR got a clear run through covering less ground.
     When was RR ever going better than Kohli? The answer is, never going better and certainly not enough to overcome the 0.75L advantage Kohli had before the interference.
     To say otherwise is speculative and not based on evidence.

    Manchild likes this post.

    +1 -1
  • RodentRodent    7,470 posts
    imageimageimage
    JPG
    JPG
    500.JPG
    54K
    JPG
    JPG
    450.JPG
    74K
    JPG
    JPG
    400.JPG
    90K
    +1 -1
  • TheDivaTheDiva    13,248 posts
    Have to agree

    Tucool likes this post.

    +1 -1
  • RodentRodent    7,470 posts
    For the record I was on Kohli and the eventual winner. Upheld was better for me but the decision was not consistent with what I've seen over the last 20+years in W.A. It was a dud decision.
    +1 -1
  • jumjum    3,581 posts
    There's more in this to overturn it than when Luckygrays got upheld.  :-j  :D.
    +1 -1
  • RodentRodent    7,470 posts
    edited January 2023
    jum said:

    There's more in this to overturn it than when Luckygrays got upheld.  :-j  :D.

    There is the odd outlier. Dawn Raider is still the worst in my time watching. 3rd v 1st upheld. Apparently the stewards' crystal ball told them that Goldrings was going to fight back and finish the better after racing outside the leader.



    +1 -1
  • meatpiemeatpie    606 posts
    Rodent said:

    The interference happened just prior to the 400m mark. When the times become available, you will find Kohli may have run a slightly faster last 400m but there won't be much in it. Would River Rubicon have won if the interference had not occurred? Maybe, maybe not. I'd like to know what evidence satisfied the stewards that River Rubicon would have won if not for the interference.

     Kohli was 3/4L in front of RR when the interference occurred and Kohli finished the race off every bit as strongly as River Rubicon. We all know benefit of the doubt goes to 1st past the post as 2nd v 1st have a low success rate. There was plenty of doubt here. Kohli beat RR by 1.7L. 
     RR was 0.75L behind when it suffered interference. After the interference he is 2.25L behind at most. It must come down to momentum. This is very subjective. Kohli speared wider to make its run and RR got a clear run through covering less ground.
     When was RR ever going better than Kohli? The answer is, never going better and certainly not enough to overcome the 0.75L advantage Kohli had before the interference.
     To say otherwise is speculative and not based on evidence.
    But yours is a subjective opinion too.

    how do your put a time affect on momentum?

    If the horse hadnt come out so suddenly and in the stewards opinion recklessly would Kohli actually got out and not been blocked for a run as in its previous start.

    Dont like protests being upheld but i agree with this one.
    +1 -1
  • RodentRodent    7,470 posts
    There should be no consideration given to whether or not a horse would have got out of a pocket, for obvious reasons.
     It is simply a matter of who would have beaten who had the interference not occurred. Basically was the interference suffered greater than the margin between them?
     Most good judges would agree it should have been dismissed. It is subjective of course but some people are better judges than others.
    +1 -1
  • meatpiemeatpie    606 posts
    Rodent said:

    There should be no consideration given to whether or not a horse would have got out of a pocket, for obvious reasons.

     It is simply a matter of who would have beaten who had the interference not occurred. Basically was the interference suffered greater than the margin between them?
     Most good judges would agree it should have been dismissed. It is subjective of course but some people are better judges than others.
    Most good judges? that is seriously subjective too. Most people i have spoken too dont disagree with the decision but maybe they not 'good' judges. It has hardly caused a ripple or talked about in WA racing circles but again they might not be 'good' judges.
    +1 -1
  • spinkingspinking    4,001 posts
    i reckon if i was the owner of Kohli i would be talking about it a bit
    +1 -1
Sign In or Register to comment.