THE RULINGS OF STEWARDS.

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume XII, Issue 717, 3 December 1903, Page 6

THE RULINGS OF STEWARDS.

It is somewhat curious to notice the different rulings stewards give at times when called on to decide cases of an almost identical description. A good instance of this has occurred recently. It is quite fresh in the minds of all sportsmen that the leading incident of the New Zealand Cup was the ill luck which befel Achilles through the foul riding of McOombe, who had the mount on the winner Canteen. It was not denied that the case was a very flagrant one, and the stewards marked their displeasure by dealing out a two-years disqualification sentence to the offending horseman. They, however, came to the conclusion that the judge’s placings should not be interfered with, and allowed the race to go to Canteen. Mark the different action of the stewards of the Takapuna Jockey Club when dealing with the running of Inchcape in the Handicap Hurdle Race on Saturday. Here the horse was a certain winner, having gained a length from Up-to-date from the last hurdle. With some thirty yards to go Inchcape, either by accident or design, crossed Up-to-date, who was thrown out of his stride, but the actual result of the race was unaffected, for the faster finishing horse was a length ahead at the time. The stewards met, and after considerable discussion decided to disqualify the rider Stewart for three months, while the race was awarded to the second horse, Up-to-date. Now here are two cases of an exactly similar character, except that it would appear the case of Canteen was much the more serious one. The question naturally arises, which was the correct ruling ? Rule 92 leaves the matter in the hands of the stewards to disqualify or not as they think fit. It reads as follows:—“If in running for any race, one horse shall jostle or cross another, such horse and every horse belonging to the same owner, or in which he shall have a share, running in the same race, may be disqualified from winning the race, whether such jostle or cross happened by the swerving of the horse, or by foul or careless riding of the jockey or otherwise; and when one horse crosses the track of another it may be disqualified, unless it be two clear lengths or more before the horse whose track it crosses; and if such cross or jostle shall be proved to have happened through the foul riding of the jockey, he shall be subject to such punishment as the stewards may think fit to inflict.” Nothing could welljbe clearer than this, and the punishment the stewards thought fit to award was two years for McCombe, and three months for Stewart. Should the race have been taken away from Inchcape? According to the C.J.C. stewards’ line of reasoning it should not, but the Takapuna people say otherwise In the opinion of most level-minded people, the decision of the Takapuna stewards is the one which will meet with the most general endorsement. The intention of the rule bearing on the subject is so obvious that it is hard to see how any other decision could be come to. In an attempt to justify the Southern stewards the “ Weekly Press ” admits that “it was by the merest luck Achilles was not thrown down. Had he fallen, the chance of Jenkins and the riders of other horses following in the wake of Achilles escaping death or serious injury would have been remote. Achilles was struck severely on the knee, and the swelling thereby necessitated his scratching for the Electric Plate.” Judged by their latest finding, the Takapuna stewards would have promptly disqualified Canteen if the matter had come under their jurisdiction, and most people will agree that their ruling would hare been the correct one.