Has anyone ever finished the wrong way and had penalties given by judges rather than stewards, or worse still been given 20 penalties by the steward and marked down by the judge as well? Some people have argued that judges are not there to award penalties so as we seldom see stewards at local matches can we finish either way in these cases ?
Penalty points and rules anomalies
- Thread starter arcobob
- Start date
The judge marks the finish regardless of which way it is done. Usually in these circumstances the ploughman realises his error part way through the process and cocks the finish up anyway.
As regards steward / no steward, in terms of finish wrong way, when judging I always mark the scoresheet with a 20 point dock and its up to the organisers whether or not to impose the penalty. After all it is one of the greatest transgressions possible.
It is grossly unfair on the other ploughmen if it is not imposed.
Not being unkind but even where stewards are present very few of them know the finer points of the rules other than handling.
As regards steward / no steward, in terms of finish wrong way, when judging I always mark the scoresheet with a 20 point dock and its up to the organisers whether or not to impose the penalty. After all it is one of the greatest transgressions possible.
It is grossly unfair on the other ploughmen if it is not imposed.
Not being unkind but even where stewards are present very few of them know the finer points of the rules other than handling.
The only time I have finished the wrong way was in the
Nationals at Crockey Hill . John Plowright was next to me and he could see what was going to happen . He was shouting and waving his arms but you are right, the damage was already done because I had set it up the wrong way round. The steward docked me 20 points, one judge gave me two points and the other one twelve. The one who gave me twelve was perhaps a point or two too generous and I felt the other judge had hit me for the wrong way finish.
As for the quality of stewards, they are usually amenable characters who don't award points, just dish out penalties. Most have never ploughed nor have they judged or trained to be judges and they are the ones who stand to make themselves unpopular if they get it wrong. A thankless task given to vulnerable people.
That is why I strongly feel that judges should be given more powers and should be on site throughout the match.
Fergie Ploughman
Member
- Location
- Cheshire, UK
Mmmm - at the York national I did my split well in the 20mins time limit, poured a brew, half ate a sandwich and walked up the plots as I do, 2 people were still finishing well over 20 mins, yet I saw no deductions on the scoresheet! At Hereford national I got 2 points docked for gardening, yet I had no warning beforehand off anyone! (I was actually doing some so fair play!!). The start time is a bugger, because4 to go up and back in 20mins means you need to get a pace on, so its unfair to be allowed more time than rules allow. When I first started ploughing I finished the wrong way, I was scored zero, which I thought was harsh, but consequently I've never done it again!
Selectamatic
Member
- Location
- North Wales
Just for the sake of my own interest...
Why is there a wrong and right way to finish, is the way the final furrows are cast important only to the look of the ploughing, or has it some deeper reason?
Why is there a wrong and right way to finish, is the way the final furrows are cast important only to the look of the ploughing, or has it some deeper reason?
Finishing toward your own work ensures that there's only you to blame!
Seriously though - most organisers number plots from the bottom of the hill upwards. Finishing toward your own ensures that the final run is always turned down hill.
It also goes some way toward a level playing field.
Seriously though - most organisers number plots from the bottom of the hill upwards. Finishing toward your own ensures that the final run is always turned down hill.
It also goes some way toward a level playing field.
Wot hills ? This is Norfolk don`t forget . This is the most plausible reason so far.
If only! So far, its three out of three on turning the finish up hill! It was up hill at the national, Forest of Arden, and Litchfield!
It's best to have them all the same way for judging. When you are judging seeing one finish the wrong way can be disorientating.
The most important reason as far as I am concerned is the difference in look when sun shines across it from the side. There is a significant difference in the look of a finish when the furrow wall is in shadow as opposed to when the sun shines over the sole furrow and into the furrow bottom.
This applies to openings as well
The most important reason as far as I am concerned is the difference in look when sun shines across it from the side. There is a significant difference in the look of a finish when the furrow wall is in shadow as opposed to when the sun shines over the sole furrow and into the furrow bottom.
This applies to openings as well
Fergie Ploughman
Member
- Location
- Cheshire, UK
Has nobody ploughed conventional commercially back in day? I suspect you didn't bother which way you finished as I can't see why it would matter.
I think you will find that this has been in the rules for match ploughing since before you were a twinkle in dads eye, even before reversibles came into common usage. Commercial ploughing does not even come into it.
I personally think it is a rule worth keeping as it actually defines your piece of work and gives continuity of middle work from your crown right to the furrow wall of the finish.
Last edited:
Whilst we are on about the rule book.......
The greatest travesty on the scoresheet by far is the aspect 'General Appearance'. Correct me if I am wrong but this is one aspect that the scoresheet in an honest mans world of ploughing can well do without.
How can a judge award 12's & 15's throughout the plot and then go on to award a 7 for general appearance, or even worse a 4. Believe you me it happens. It also happens that the same judge may award an abysmal plot 3 or 4 plots away as many as 13 or 14. I see no good reason for this anomaly apart from the powers that be manipulating results in order to pick winners.
Surely all the aspects have been judged already?
If you think about it then an average of the points cannot be altogether correct either. Surely best to ban it altogether. After all it is a fairly recent addition to the rule book.
Your thoughts please gentlemen.
The greatest travesty on the scoresheet by far is the aspect 'General Appearance'. Correct me if I am wrong but this is one aspect that the scoresheet in an honest mans world of ploughing can well do without.
How can a judge award 12's & 15's throughout the plot and then go on to award a 7 for general appearance, or even worse a 4. Believe you me it happens. It also happens that the same judge may award an abysmal plot 3 or 4 plots away as many as 13 or 14. I see no good reason for this anomaly apart from the powers that be manipulating results in order to pick winners.
Surely all the aspects have been judged already?
If you think about it then an average of the points cannot be altogether correct either. Surely best to ban it altogether. After all it is a fairly recent addition to the rule book.
Your thoughts please gentlemen.
I absolutely agree. Some match organisers leave this off the score sheet, some judges award an average of previous scores but bear in mind that firmness and the split are not visible in the final assessment. Straightness throughout the plot has largely been assessed already and features prominently in overall appearance.
I have yet to bear first hand witness to blatant manipulation of results but I am reliably lead to believe that there have been some high profile instances.
Tinkering with the rules is all very well if it achieves some legitimate purpose but I have serious doubts about recent changes. There are plenty of unpalatable issues to address without producing more.
Well said Bob
There are many issues which need to be laid bare and discussed by the guys who the rules actually apply to / are imposed on. General Appearance definitely deserves scrutiny.
Like it or not the guys ploughing have very little or no say in the rule making process within the current regime, as they did not actually elect the people making the rules. The executive of the SOP makes the rules and they are a self propagating body co-opting candidates into place as required. The members have no say whatever.
The general appearance section was brought in when the realised that having made points too valuable, there were going to be many tied results.Its no accident that its the first port of call in the count back system.The reduction in point numbers was to bring us into line with the world, would it not have been better to have brought the world in line with us? Which ever way you look at it, count back, sending judges out again, is really fixing the result! Once arrived at, the judges decision should be final, if the scoring system is prone to having tied results, change it!
At least the countback system if applied without General Appearance, would deal with finite values and not a needless contrived extra category
Indeed so.