Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-16T07:28:01.709Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dressage scoring patterns at selected British Eventing novice events

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

TC Whitaker  and
J Hill
TC Whitaker*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Applied Science, Writtle College, Chelmsford, Essex CM1 3RR, UK
J Hill
Affiliation:
Institute of Land and Food Resources, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria 3010, Australia
*
*[email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Subjective bias by judges within the dressage phase of eventing competition is problematic if correct evaluation of horse and rider performance is to be undertaken. The present study examines dressage penalty scoring (penalty scores are awarded for completion of a pre-set series of dressage movements) within a population of novice event horses (n = 2471). Between May and June 2003, 22 novice events within the UK were analysed, and at each event up to six competitions or sections (at the same competitive level) were run. The whole population data structure was normal in distribution, Pearson's skewness 0.314 (Kolmogorov–Smirnov Z = 1.855, P>0.05 from zero) and kurtosis at 0.425. The mean score recorded for the whole population was 37.82 penalty points (standard deviation = 5.65 and standard error = 0.11). A number of effects were observed within the population. Between-events effects were observed in three of the 22 events studied (P<0.01). Of those events running three or more sections (n = 16), within-event effects were observed for 10 events as differences (P<0.01) in mean scoring patterns between sections. All events running two sections (n = 4) were observed to exhibit differences (P<0.02) in mean scores. Differences (P>0.01) between the dressage test used at events were determined using post hoc Bonferroni tests. However, these differences were not found to have a confounding effect on the between-event observations. The study indicates that additional methodologies need to be implemented to ensure that accurate and impartial evaluation of event horses is conducted.

Keywords

eventingdressagescoring patternsbias
Type
Research Article
Information
Equine and Comparative Exercise Physiology , Volume 2 , Issue 2 , May 2005 , pp. 97 - 104
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2005

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1British Eventing (2003). 2003 British Eventing Rules. Stoneleigh, UK: British Eventing.Google Scholar
2Federation Equestre Internationale (2004). Discover: sport, eventing [online]. Available at http://www.horsesport.org/ (accessed 1 July 2004).Google Scholar
3Whitaker, TC, Hill, J and Shearman, JP (2004) Scoring analysis of completing pre-novice event horse at six selected events. Equine and Comparative Exercise Physiology 1: 185–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4Deuel, NR, Russek-Cohen, E (1995) Scoring analysis of three world championship three-day events. Journal of Equine Veterinary Science 15: 11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5Davidson, R (1997). Helping our judges to keep the peace. Horse and Hound, 26 June. London: IPC Media, p. 52.Google Scholar
6Carr, J (2003). Judging dressage: the jury's out. Eventing, June. London: IPC Media, pp. 22–24.Google Scholar
7Whitaker, TC and Hill, J (2004). An investigation into patterns associated with dressage scores at selected novice events. Paper presented at 53rd European Association of Animal Production Conference, Bled, Slovenia, 3–8 September 2004.Google Scholar
8Loland, S (2000). Justice and game advantage in sporting games. In: Tännsjö, T & Tamburrini, C (eds), Values in Sport. London: E & FN Spon, pp. 157–171.Google Scholar
9Ricard, A, Bruns, E and Cunningham, EP (2000). Genetics of performance traits. In: Bowling, AT & Ruvinsky, A (eds), The Genetics of the Horse. Oxford: CAB International, pp. 411–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10Arnason, T (1984) Genetic studies on conformation and performance of Icelandic Toelter horses. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica 34: 409–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11Arnason, T (1987) Contribution of various factors to genetic evaluations of stallions. Livestock Production Science 19: 407–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12Huizinga, HA, Boukamp, M and Smolders, G (1990) Estimated parameters of field performance testing of mares from the Dutch Warmblood riding horse population. Livestock Production Science 26: 291–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13Huizinga, HA, van der Werf, JHJ, Korver, S, van der Meij, GJW (1991) Stationary performance testing of stallions from the Dutch Warmblood riding horse population 1. Estimated genetic parameter of scored traits and genetic relation with dressage and jumping competition from offspring of breeding stallions. Livestock Production Science 27: 231–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14Findlay, LC, Ste-Marie, DM (2004) A reputation bias in figure skating judging. Journal of Sport & Exercise Physiology 26: 154–166.Google Scholar
15Federation Equestre Internationale (2004). Discover: presentation, fair play [online]. Available at http://www.horsesport.org/ (accessed 1 July 2004).Google Scholar
16Little, RJA and Rubin, DB (1987). Statistical Analysis with Missing Data. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
17Zar, JH (1999). Biostatistical Analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc.Google Scholar
18Winer, BJ, Brown, DR and Michaels, KM (1991). Statistical Principles in Experimental Design. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
19SPSS Inc. (2002). SPSS version 12. Chicago, IL: SPSS Inc.Google Scholar