Eventing in the Digital Age Updating of the FEI Eventing ... III - Rob Ramsden.pdf · e. FEI Vet...

Eventing in the Digital Age Updating of the FEI Eventing Fence Data

Requirement The sport of eventing is under a considerable spotlight given the number of serious incidents that have occurred over the last few years. The information that is available to date is too granular and vague to be able to describe clear or specific problem areas.

The tightening up of the data capturing system will clearly assist in pinpointing areas of danger, which in turn can be used to educate officials in avoiding these problems before they are able to occur. In addition, through review of the captured data, steps can be taken to adjust the dimensions and specifications at each level to ensure a safer sport, AND at the same time RETAIN the thrill and excitement that makes up a large part of the sport of eventing.

Current System of Reporting Currently data is obtained from the following system.

1. Prior to a competition: a. OC’s submit a schedule in a specific format that is accepted by the FEI, and this data

is captured into the FEI database. b. CD’s record data describing fences, and TD’s check that data vs what is actually

presented. Resulting in:

• Total number of efforts • Description of each effort (Including multiple obstacle fences).

2. During the competition: a. Fall data is recorded through the use of a specialised Fall Report Form.

Resulting in: • Number & Element of effort • Fence details – as understood by Jump Judge / Sector Steward / Other ? • Information regarding accident

b. The Course Analysis data is reported, but not captured or linked to the Fence Description data.

c. Scorers capture Jump Judge and Time data. d. Chief Medical Officer keeps a list of medical incidents. e. FEI Vet Delegate keeps a list of veterinary incidents.

3. After the competition: (either immediately, or shortly afterwards) a. Scorers give final data to the OC.

• Competitions Final Results as per notice board. • Cross Country Analysis – this is the actual refusal/fall data from the cross

country. b. Scorers or OC gives Final Results sheet and Cross Country Analysis data to TD by

email (pdf, jpeg) or a printed out sheet by hand delivery. c. TD gets the following:

• Medical incident from Medical Officer. (which TD checks against rider fall reports)

• Vet incident list from Vet Delegate. (which TD checks against horse fall reports)

• Rider Rep Report from Rider Rep. • Ground Jury report from chairman of the ground jury. • Chief Steward report from Chief Steward.

d. TD, GJ Chairman and OC Chairman have a discussion about the event which then makes up the bulk of the TD report on the event.

e. TD further writes a report detailing amongst other things: • Fences causing a rotational fall, horse falls, serious accidents to Athlete

and/or Horse, as well as information regarding frangible fences. • Competition Level & Type • Numbers of Starters Dressage Test • Number of Starters Cross Country Test • Number of Horses having completed the event

f. The TD submits all collected reports and data to the FEI. • This is not in any specific format, and often merely scanned images.

g. The Vet Delegate submits a separate Vet Delegate report directly to the FEI. h. The OC submits the final results in a specific FEI required format.

4. On submission to FEI a. Some of the data is captured, some of the data is filed to eFiling.

Note: eFiling does not imply ‘data’, merely that paper has been translated to electronic paper form (Scanned image, PDF, or Doc), and is not searchable, nor in any format that is database structured.

Current FEI Eventing Data Flow Diagram

Course Designer

Technical Delegate(Document Collection

& Scan to eDocs)

Chief Steward

Vet Incident Form

Vet Report

CS Report

Vet Delegate

Ground Jury GJ Report

Medical Doctor

Rider Rep RR Report

Jump Judges Jump ScoreSheets

ScoringData Capture

(Document Printing)

Time Keepers

Final Scores

Organising Committee(Data Capture)

All eDocs(Emailed or

Uploaded to FEI)

XC Analysis

Fence Description Form

Medical Incident Form

Fall Report Form

Time Sheets

Scan to eDoc

Scan to eDoc

TD Report

Hand Deliver

Hand Deliver

Hand Deliver

Hand Deliver

Hand Deliver

Hand Deliver

Hand Deliver

Hand Deliveror Email

Discuss andHand Over

Score SummarySpecial Format(Emailed to FEI)

Vet Report(Emailed to FEI)

CS Report(Emailed to FEI)

CS Report

Vet Report

Vet Incident Form

Fence Description Data

GJ Report


RR Report

Final Scores

XC Analysis

TD Report

FEI Database

?

eFiling

Organising Committee(Data Capture) Event Schedule Event Schedule

(Emailed to FEI)Scan to eDoc, orComplete eDoc

Before Event

During Event

After Event?

InternalData Analysis

FEI EventingData Capture

FEI Eventing& eFiling

FEI Website

Summary ScoreData

Fall ReportData

APIExternal

Data Analysis

Internet Users

Event ScheduleData

Statistical Publications &

Reports

The above diagram is a representation of the flow of information, including the manner of how the information flows within an Event.

Current Data Relating to Fences The following data is recorded (not necessarily captured) by officials at events, and submitted to the FEI for either data capture, or eFiling.

Current Fence Description Form This is recorded by CD/TD before the event, and is comprised of the following:

• Fence No. & element • Combination / related? (Yes/ No) • Type of fence (coded) (as per fence

description diagrams) • Route ( direct / option ) • Frangible * • Portable

• Take off out of water • Landing into water • Associated with water • Approach (up/level/down) • Landing (up/level/down) • Ground Line? • Off a bend? Left/Right

Also included:

• Course Designer Name • Competitions Format (CIC, CCI) • If CIC was SJ before XC (Yes, No) • Course Level (1*, 2*, 3*, 4*) • Length of Course

• Speed • Optimum Time • Number of XC starters on the Course • Number of Jumping Effort

These are the current diagrams used to categorise fences (Type of Fence).

A: Post and Rail B: Palisade

C: Square Spread D: Ascending Spread

E: Brush F: Round

G: Corner H: Trakhener

J: Step K: Water

L: Ditch

Current Fall Report Form – Pertinent Fence Information The current Fall Report Form covers the following information pertinent to fences:

• Fence Number • Element (a, b, c etc.) • Route (If applicable “D” direct, “O” option) • Did frangible/deformable structure break? (if applicable “Y”, “N”) • Fence associated with water? (No, Yes – Fence before water, Yes – Fence after water) • Ground Conditions (Deep, Heavy, Slippery, Good to Soft, Good, Good to Firm, Hard, Rough /

Rutted) • Bend (Yes, No) • Slope (Up, Down, Level Ground)

Pertinent Parts of the TD report relating to the Course and Fences. The TD Report covers the following areas that at significant with regards to the cross country course and the fences:

Suitability of the course for the participants:

• The course(s) was/were up to FEI standard (Yes, No) • If different levels of competition are held on the same venue, please confirm that all courses

were significantly different (Yes, No) • Did the Ground Jury inspect the cross country course in due time prior to the start of the

competition? (Art. 516.2.2) (Yes, No) • Was the cross country course finished at time of inspection? (Yes, No)

Cross-Country course details:

• X-C Length of course • X-C Speed (m/min.) • X-C Optimum time • Total number of Jumping efforts

Statistics:

• Numbers of Starters Dressage Test • Number of Starters Cross Country Test • Number of Horses having completed the event

Frangible/Deformable structures - details & additional comments:

• Course Fence n° • Horse n° • Horse name • Athlete fall (Y/N) • Horse fall (Y/N) • Athlete continued (Y/N) • 11 penalties (Y/N)

Final Results Submitted by Organising Committee The following is required to be submitted by the organising committee at the end of the event in the specified FEI document format.

• Judges Names • Technical Delegate • Course Designer • Results

o Rider’s name o Rider’s FEI ID Number o NF o Horse’s name o Horse’s FEI Passport number o Dressage Penalties o Cross-Country Penalties o Cross-Country Time o Jumping Penalties o Jumping Time o Total Penalties

Data Collected by Technical Delegate and Submitted The following is submitted, but not in any specific format.

• Final results – as per scoreboard. • Cross Country Analysis

This refers to the stops / refusals at each fence on the cross country course.

Current Available Analysis The following reports are made available by the FEI each year.

Yearly FEI Eventing Risk Management Programme Statistics Report Fall data is analysed and yearly reports are made available therefrom.

FEI_StatisticsReport_2005-2015_26.02.2016.pdf

The following analysis is made public:

• Competitions per Competition Level • Competitions per Competition Format • Starters per Competition Level • Average Starters per Competition Level • Starters per Competition Format • Average Starters per Competition Format • Total falls per competition level and percentage of total falls on starters • Falls per competition format and percentage of falls on starters • Falls at fences and on the flat and percentage of total falls • Falls per type and percentage of falls on starters • Horse falls per type and percentage of type of falls on starters • Falls per type of injury and percentage of injuries on starters • Distribution of riders seriously/fatally injured per type of fall and percentage on falls

The above draws data primarily from the Fall Report and TD Report data sets. There is no further information available regarding fences, rider capabilities, etc.

This is very basic reporting that with minor safety advancements each year will indicate improvement.

Assumptions with regards to data that is recorded into a STRUCTURED database format. Given the above available analysis made available each year, it’s estimated that only the following data is captured into a database system from which meaningful statistics can be drawn:

• Final Results Submitted by Organising Committee • Parts of the TD report (maybe, as can also be obtained from OC Final Results)

o Numbers of Starters Dressage Test o Number of Starters Cross Country Test o Number of Horses having completed the event

• Fall report forms

Caveat to the above The ‘Eventing Audit - Charles Barnett - Final Report 26.07.16.pdf’ report produced by Charles Barnett includes fence description data, rebuilt from fence description data and fall report data.

Limitations of the current FEI Eventing Data system Overall the system is not linked sufficiently, and therefore is not able to create the data relationships in order to extract detailed information. This is most apparent with regards to the Cross-Country analysis data not being linked to the Fence Description data. This would give SIGNIFICANT insight into how individual fences are negotiated.

The fence description form that is currently being used is not descriptive enough nor flexible enough to sufficiently encompass the variety of fences that are currently being produced. The images are either too specific, or too generalised, or don’t closely represent the fence at hand. In addition, there is insufficient information captured regarding factors that contribute to approach velocity and the ability for a horse to successfully clear a fence.

The current Fall Report form data feeds into the system, however it’s merely inputting ‘negative data’ of the serious type and linking that to the Fence Description report. There is no data that indicates that some fences jump better than others, or how some fence types might have a higher number of problems (refusals or run-outs).

Eventing scoring does not separate individual fences from combinations, therefore course analysis of any single fence in a combination is not possible.

Additional data like trot up results/feedback, suspect unsoundness, etc are also not captured, and often lost in the stress of the competition day. This could provide insight into horses that are suspect and their performance on courses.

There is a significant amount of additional data available given today’s technology that could be captured; ie. real-time weather, GPS XC course data, etc.

There is no real-time data analysis available, nor any type of real-time data analysis alerts that can be fed to officials in order to make better decisions within tight time limits.

Summary points to take away from the above Data Analysis 1. The Fence Description Form needs to be upgraded as soon as possible. 2. Data needs to be better captured and data relationships need to be correctly structured.

a. Most important is the Fence Description Data and Cross Country Analysis Data. 3. Scoring should take into account individual fences.

a. This is not a change to scoring, merely a change to recording of data. 4. A significant upgrade of the Eventing Data System is required.

Fence Description Form Upgrade The first and possibly the easiest area to review is fence description data. It’s also the most time sensitive, as the sooner it’s implemented, the sooner better data will become available in which more detailed analysis can be done.

Goal To design a fence description form that is simple to implement, simple to input and use, unambiguous, database friendly, covers all possible fence types, and can grow / evolve with future requirements.

Basis of upgrade – Fence Profile At the heart of the fence, is its side profile, as this is the part the horse MUST jump over. Arguably there are a myriad of other factors that influence that profile, but ultimately this is the basis for the jump, and therefore the basis of the description system.

FEI Fence Dimensions Fence dimension are currently defined as:

1* 2* 3* 4* Fixed Height 1.1 1.15 1.2 1.2 Brush 1.3 1.35 1.4 1.45 Top Spread 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 Base Spread 2.1 2.4 2.7 3 Without Height 2.8 3.2 3.6 4 Drop 1.6 1.8 2 2

Giving the following shapes: (3* example)

What are not sufficiently defined in the dimensions are following 2 points:

1. The relationship between ‘Base Spread’ and ‘Top Spread’.

or The above indicates 2 ways in which this could be interpreted.

3*

1.20

m

1.80m

2.70m

3.70m

1.80m

No height

0.30

m

Base Spread Top Spread

Fixe

d H

eigh

t

3*

1.20

m

1.80m

2.70m

3.70m

1.80m

No height

0.30

m


Fixe

d H

eigh

t

3*

1.20

m

1.80m

2.70m

3.70m

1.80m

No height

0.30

m


Fixe

d H

eigh

t

2. The definition of ‘Top Spread’, and at what point it becomes applicable.

or

The above examples indicate a 30cm ‘flat’ section on top rear of the fence, where it ‘can be argued’ that there is only a 30cm top spread. Note the pink section that is neither technically in or out of the current definitions.

This has been bandied around by many proponents of the Trapezoid or Trapezium method of measurement, where the fence would have to remain within the shape to be acceptable. As yet, this has not been defined, and we are therefore still presented with fences on cross country courses where the rules/dimensions are blurred.

Basic horse jumping profile To better understand the fence profile, we take a look at the basis of how horses jump profiles in order to better understand the data, and what can be considered significant.

To standardise terminology, we’re going to use the ‘Models for biomechanical analysis of jumping Horses’ put forward by Dr Pippa N R Powers and Prof Andrew J Harrison (Journal of Equine Veterinary Science · December 1999), which follows the following Deterministic Model for the phases of the horse’s jump:

The 5 phases can be defined in time as:

1. The Approach: The lead up to the fence prior to the trailing front foot touching the ground in the last stride before leaving the ground to jump the fence.

2. The Take-Off: Defined as the phase between where the trailing front foot touches the ground in the last stride before leaving the ground to jump the fence, and up until that trailing back foot leaves the ground in the jump.

3* 1.20

m

1.80m

2.70m

0.30mTop Spread

3* 1.20

m

1.80m

2.70m

0.30mTop Spread

Jump

Take-Off Suspension LandingApproach Departure

3. The Suspension: The suspension phase covers the horse’s jump where the horse has no contact with the ground.

4. The Landing: This phase includes the point where the horse touches the ground with its leading front foot, and through to the point where the trailing rear foot leaves the ground for the first stride after the fence.

5. The Departure: This phase includes everything after the trailing rear foot leaves the ground after landing.

We’re primarily interested in the Approach, Take-Off and Suspension phase of the jump.

Centre of Gravity / Mass Before delving into the BioKinematics of the main phases of the jump, the horse’s Centre of Gravity must be defined and understood.

The centre of gravity is a geometric property of any object, and is the average location of the weight of an object. We can completely describe the motion of any object through space in terms of the translation of the centre of gravity of the object from one place to another, and the rotation of the object about its centre of gravity if it is free to rotate.

The location of a horse's centre of gravity (CG) usually falls just a few inches behind the horse's front shoulder/elbow and about a third of the way up from the bottom of the stomach. This often falls just under the saddle's girth, and just under the bottom of the saddle flap.

It’s important to realise that this is a 3 Dimensional concept, as any force acted on the horse will act ‘on’ and ‘about’ the Centre of Gravity.

Center of Mass / Gravity

Trajectory of the Horse’s Centre of Gravity and its legs/hooves. The following illustration shows the path that the Centre of Gravity of the Horse, as well as the general path of its front and back hooves take during the 5 phases of the jump.

Interestingly the Apex of the Horse’s front and back hooves occurs forward of the Apex of the Centre of Gravity, as noted by the Red and Blue crosses in the above illustration.

Further inspection of the suspension phase indicates a ‘parabola’ that the horse follows during flight. This is exactly the same as a ball being thrown (or any object in flight), with the rate of vertical deceleration after take-off being equal to the rate of vertical acceleration before landing, presuming both are the same altitude. I.e. What goes up, must come down.

As this describes a parabola, we can extend that through to the ground (red dashed line above).

This can better be seen below with the applicable forces (black), and the resulting force (blue).

Note: horizontal velocity remains constant throughout the entire suspension phase.

T L

CG Path

Front Foot Path Rear Foot Path

Approach Take-Off Landing DepartureSuspension

T L

CG Path



CG Parabola

Suspension

CG Parabolax1

x1y1

y2

x1

Given the horizontal and vertical velocity at the start of the suspension phase, it’s very simple to calculate the parabola that the CG of the Horse will travel during the suspension phase to the estimated point when the front hooves touch down on the ground.

In addition, the distance from the CG to the legs/hooves during the tuck can also be determined, and therefore a very simplistic model can be created to loosely predict the location of the legs/hooves during the suspension stage.

As we’re primarily interested in the impact on the fence, we can loosely combine these to follow a path within the arcs of both front and back legs/hooves. (see blue line above).

The above illustration combines both CG and leg/hoof arcs to create a simplified model for horses jumping fences.

T L

CG Path



T L

CG Path



Key factors regarding the Biokinematics of the Trajectory of a Horse’s Jump There are a few key factors that need to be taken into account:

• There is little to no Horizontal velocity imparted during the take-off phase, therefore; all horizontal velocity MUST be provided on approach to the fence.

• Given the above, all of the vertical velocity is derived during the take-off phase. • Horses have a maximum horizontal velocity. • There is a limit to the change of the jump angle (ɣ Gamma) that a horse can make during the

take-off phase. The faster the approach, the lower the possible Delta Angle (or Delta Gamma δɣ).

• There is a maximum height a horse can jump given speed, angle of take-off, and available take-off force.

• Fatigue is a factor over time.

x

y ɣ

Key variables in the Biokinematics of the Horse’s Jump. • Height of CG at approach • Location of CG Apex (Shape of Fence)

Different types of fence profiles have a big effect on the location of the Apex of the CG of the horse.

Upright

Ascending Spread

Square Spread

Triple Bar

Ditch Brush

• Distance from CG to outside of tucked legs • Approach velocity • Angle of jump ( ɣ Gamma) • Duration of take-off • Duration of landing • Dimensions of fence

T L

T L

T L

T L

Simple BioKinematic Model of a Horse’s Jump The following is a simplistic output from a Biokinematic model of a horse’s jump, given basic input variables discussed previously.

The model was built in Microsoft Excel, using basic math & physics.

Primary variables:

• Horse & Rider Weight • CG Height at Approach • Horizontal Jump Velocity • Take Off Angle • CG Apex Horizontal Offset • CG Parabola to Feet QBC Min • Take-Off Duration • Landing Duration

Primary Outputs:

• Horse CG Height at Max Take-Off • Vertical Jump Velocity • Time to Max Height • Total Trajectory Time • CG Max Delta Height • CG Max Height • CG Parabola Width • Take-Off Distance from Groundline • Take-Off Distance from Top Face • Landing Distance (back of fence) • Take-Off Force • Total Delta CG Energy • Clearance Front • Clearance Back

1.1 1.1

0

CG at Take-Off

CG at Approach

Approach

Take-Off: 3.20m, 9004 N

Suspension: 3.82m

Landing: 2.72m

Departure

CG Max at Apex

0

1

2

3

4

5

-7 -6.5 -6 -5.5 -5 -4.5 -4 -3.5 -3 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7

Real World Recorded Video Data In order to test the theoretical Biokinetic Jump Model, we filmed 8 different riders jumping a reference fence in front of a screen that masked the background.

Horses and riders were at the 1* level, and we did not have opportunity to film larger fences, or more proficient riders.

The camera system was capable of filming at 1080p resolution at 50 frames per second, and was setup over 80m away with a high optical zoom in order to reduce perspective distortion. Unfortunately the video was filmed using the cameras auto film speed, and therefore motion was not captured crisply, although it was sufficient for test purposes.

The following is a frame from the Filmed Video of a horse jumping a fence (1.1m High, 1.4 Top Spread, 1.9m Base Spread ) in front of a screen, including the traced; Centre of Gravity, Leading and Trailing Front Hooves, as well as the Rear Hooves.

The background screen enabled us to more accurately plot the points of the trajectory of the hooves on front and rear legs. A higher shutter speed would have given a sharper picture.

Point Data was then captured using Adobe Photoshop and Adobe Illustrator, exported to SVG data, where the point data was accessible. The point data was then transferred to Excel where a scalar value was used with reference video data points to correct for distance measurements.

80m

Met

er M

arke

rsM

eter

Mar

kers

The following shows the Video Data with the Biokinetic Data Model overlaid.

Same again; with just with the Biokinetic Data Model overlaid.

The above shows how closely the Video Data aligns with the Biokinetic Data Model, with minor variable adjustment.

Simple BioKinematic Model of a Horses Jump with Video Data

The model is closely able to replicate the video data by changing the 3 key variables.

• Approach Velocity • Take Off Angle • Centre of Gravity Apex Horizontal Offset

Examples

Observations from Data Model It was remarkable to notice how efficient horses are in jumping fences, with mere cm’s clearance over front and back.

Approach Velocity, ability to generate sufficient change of Take-Off Angle (Delta Gamma δɣ) and Shap of Fence are CRITICAL to horses jumping over fences As can clearly be seen in the simple Biokinematic model, the key variables that influence the trajectory of the jump are:

• Approach Velocity • Fence Shape • Angle of Take-Off

Factors that have an influence on these variables need to be closely managed for each fence.

There is a reduced Angle of Take-Off ( Delta Gamma δɣ ) as speed increases With an increase in speed, there is a decrease in the ability for a horse to generate the angular change needed to jump higher fences. This is a physical limitation with regards to the amount of time that the horses rear legs have during the Take-Off phase in order to generate sufficient vertical thrust.

1.1 1.1

0

CG at Take-Off

CG at Approach

Approach

Take-Off: 3.20m, 9004 N

Suspension: 3.82m

Landing: 2.72m

Departure

CG Max at Apex

0

1

2

3

4

5

-7 -6.5 -6 -5.5 -5 -4.5 -4 -3.5 -3 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7

Take-Off Zone & Ideal Take-Off The concept of the take-off zone was to indicate a take-off area that a horse had potential to physically take-off from and still be able to clear a fence.

Initial expectations were that there would be some give either side of the fence in terms of take-off distance, however; given the efficiency of how close horses are to the fence as they clear it, there really is very little horizontal distance available to add to a ‘zone’.

This is especially the case as the front high point tends towards maximum height.

What was more the case, is that the horse changes its angle of Take-Off given its Approach Velocity in order to clear a fence.

Therefore, the Take-Off zone represents a zone where-in a horse is able to clear a fence from its highest Approach Velocity at lowest Take-Off Angle right through to slowest Approach Velocity at highest Take-Off Angle

This Take-Off Zone represents a very big area, where the sweet spot should theoretically be around the middle of the zone.

1 Standard Deviation

2 Standard Deviations


68%

95%

99.7%




68%

95%

99.7%

Reduction of Take-Off Zone Any forced change to the Approach Velocity will have a reduction effect on the width of the Take-Off zone.

Note that the centre of which might no longer be the ‘sweet spot’, and that the distribution of Take-Off points may no longer be a ‘normal distribution’.

Forced change can be anything that has an effect on the Approach Velocity such as:

• Slope • Bend • Footing • Combinations

o From fence before o Required velocity for following fence

• Technicality • Water • Crowds / Busy Picture / Unclear landing • Fence shape – The higher the front element of the fence, as well as the wider the fence, the

more it reduces the available take off zone.

Note: This works both ways, where Velocity can be taken away, or can be required.

66%

95%

99%

1 SD

2 SD

3 SD




Increased height of fences given spread As fences tend towards maximum front and back dimensions, a horse is required to clear both elements in order to navigate the fence successfully. Given the parabolic shape of the trajectory of the horse, this requires that they have to jump higher over square spreads vs jumping over uprights, ascending spreads and triple bars.

Most noticeable is the height increase over maximum height square spreads.

At 4* level this can be seen by the increase in CG when jumping at 540 mpm:

• Upright: 1.82m CG • Ascending Spread: 1.83m CG • Triple Bar: 1.75m CG • Square Spread: 2.00m CG

Notice that there is an increase of 18cm between the height of CG when jumping an upright versus jumping a square spread.

This effectively takes the height at 4* from 1.2m to 1.38m over maximum dimension fences.

Measurement of Take-Off & Groundlines Approach Speed and available change in Take-Off angle dictate the ‘average’ Take-Off point. This average Take-Off point is dependent on fence shape, and distance to the expected Apex point given Approach Speed and Take-Off angle.

In order to accurately estimate Take-Off points, Approach-Speed and Fence type need to be carefully understood, as this can be significantly different to the ‘average’ 1.5m from groundline.

This is grade/level dependent, as jumping speeds are a factor of the speed of the grade/level. ie. The same fence can be measured from 4 different places given the grade of competition. Should the same fence increase in just height from grade to grade, the resultant change in Take-Off would be larger.

Example: A 4* horse traveling at 540mpm, jumping a max dimension square spread, with a base spread of 2.5m, giving a 0.5m ground line, will need to take off 2.15m before the groundline at a minimum. Should the same fence be built without any extended groundline, the Take-Off point would be 2.65m from the fence.

More research should be done into the ideal placement of groundlines in respect to CG Apex in order to provide the horse with clear understanding of Take-Off point.

T L

T L

Increase height of fences given inclination and ‘measured’ Take-Off point The following table gives an indication of the change of height per meter of ‘measured’ Take-Off point versus actual Take-Off point per degree of inclination.

0.25m 0.5m 0.75m 1m 1.25m 2° 0.9cm 1.7cm 2.6cm 3.5cm 4.4cm 4° 1.7cm 3.5cm 5.2cm 7.0cm 8.7cm 6° 2.6cm 5.3cm 7.9cm 10.5cm 13.1cm 8° 3.5cm 7.0cm 10.5cm 14.1cm 17.6cm

10° 4.4cm 8.8cm 13.2cm 17.6cm 22.0cm 12° 5.3cm 10.6cm 15.9cm 21.3cm 26.6cm 14° 6.2cm 12.5cm 18.7cm 24.9cm 31.2cm 16° 7.2cm 14.3cm 21.5cm 28.7cm 35.8cm 18° 8.1cm 16.2cm 24.4cm 32.5cm 40.6cm 20° 9.1cm 18.2cm 27.3cm 36.4cm 45.5cm

Couple this with the increase of height on Max Dimension fences on slight inclines (2°), and you can easily top 20cm of additional height to a fence (18cm + 3.5cm = 21.5cm).

The effect becomes more pronounced at steeper angles.

Observations from Data Model that require updates to the Biokinetic Jumping Model Although every effort has been made to create an accurate data model, there are factors that become apparent that require improvement to the model, such as:

• Max Take-Off CG to be linked to Stretch of horse from rear hoof to CG, and Max Landing CG to be linked from front leading front hoof to CG. Ideally horse dimensions could be linked to horse height (average). This will better describe the Take-Off and Landing Phases, it will also give a Take-off time based on approach velocity.

• Angle of ground needs to be factored into the model to sufficiently understand take off relationships to increased angle and potential Take-Off zones.

• Further research is required into maximum potential Force and Energy. • Further research is required into stride length relationship to Take-Off Zone in order that a

metric of ‘accuracy’ could be constructed.

Centre of Gravity Observations and Angled Fences. In researching the Centre of Gravity of horses, it’s difficult not to come across Rotational Falls. However; there is little mention of other falls which are caused by forces acting on the horse whilst in the Suspension Phase of the jump that leave no other option than a horse fall.

Rotational Falls Rotational Falls occur where during free flight, an immovable force acts as a fulcrum for a relatively soft bodied object (the horse) with sufficient inertia/momentum to rotate the body over the fulcrum. This rotates the Centre of Gravity upwards in a head over heels rotation.

b

Torsional Falls The same theory applies where a horse makes contact with a fence that is placed at a non-perpendicular angle to its direction of travel, like a corner fence, or an offset upright or oxer. This creates a torsional component that often rotates the horse past the ability for it to right itself and usually results in a fall of horse and rider.

The Torsional Fall tends to act more ‘about’ the Centre of Gravity, rather creating a Fulcrum in which the momentum has no option but to rotate around. In this case, the front legs are both pushed and rotated perpendicular to the direction of travel, causing a twisting through the direction of travel about the Centre of Gravity (or Torsion).

The speed of approach, and the texture of the top rail of the fence have a significantly large effect on the speed of rotation and displacement.

Other examples, not necessarily at corners:

No data records these types of horse falls, and nor is there any data that can indicate fences that may cause this type of horse fall.

Digital Trajectories to Digital Fences

Who is Rob Ramsden?o 1* / 2* Technical Delegate - GBR

o Lives in Cape Town, South Africa – miles from anywhere

o 43 - Young by TD Standards

o Background in IT, Computer Game Programming, Statistics for Casinos and Casino Game Programming

oWhy here ?

Current Information Data Structure Overview

Course Designer


& Scan to eDocs)

Chief Steward

Vet Incident Form

Vet Report

CS Report

Vet Delegate


Medical Doctor

Rider Rep RR Report


ScoringData Capture

(Document Printing)

Time Keepers

Final Scores



Uploaded to FEI)

XC Analysis



Fall Report Form

Time Sheets

Scan to eDoc

TD Report

Hand Deliver

Hand Deliver

Hand Deliver

Hand Deliver

Hand Deliver

Hand Deliver

Hand Deliver





CS Report

Vet Report

Vet Incident Form


GJ Report


RR Report

Final Scores

XC Analysis

TD Report

FEI Database

? ?

eFiling



Before Event

During Event

After Event?




FEI Website

Summary ScoreData

Fall ReportData

APIExternal

Data Analysis

Internet Users

Event ScheduleData


Reports

Hand Deliver

Before the EventPrior to a competition:◦ OC’s submit a schedule in a specific format that is accepted by the FEI, and

this data is captured into the FEI database.◦ CD’s record data describing fences, and TD’s check that data vs what is

actually presented.Resulting in:◦ Total number of efforts◦ Description of each effort (Including multiple obstacle fences).

Before the Event – Fence Description FormA: Post and Rail

C: Square Spread

E: Brush

G: Corner

J: Step

L: Ditch

B: Palisade

D: Ascending Spread

F: Round

H: Trakhener

K: Water

Before the Event – Fence Description FormoFence No. & element

oCombination / related? (Yes/ No)

oType of fence (coded)(as per fence description diagrams)

oRoute ( direct / option )

oFrangible (Yes/No)

oPortable (Yes / No)

oTake off out of water (Yes / No)

oLanding into water (Yes / No)

oAssociated with water (Yes / No)

oApproach (up/level/down)

oLanding (up/level/down)

oGround Line? (Yes / No)

oOff a bend? Left/Right


Course Designer


& Scan to eDocs)

Chief Steward

Vet Incident Form

Vet Report

CS Report

Vet Delegate


Medical Doctor

Rider Rep RR Report


ScoringData Capture

(Document Printing)

Time Keepers

Final Scores



Uploaded to FEI)

XC Analysis



Fall Report Form

Time Sheets

Scan to eDoc

TD Report

Hand Deliver

Hand Deliver

Hand Deliver

Hand Deliver

Hand Deliver

Hand Deliver

Hand Deliver





CS Report

Vet Report

Vet Incident Form


GJ Report


RR Report

Final Scores

XC Analysis

TD Report

FEI Database

? ?

eFiling



Before Event

During Event

After Event?




FEI Website

Summary ScoreData

Fall ReportData

APIExternal

Data Analysis

Internet Users

Event ScheduleData


Reports

Hand Deliver

During the Event◦ Fall data is recorded through the use of a specialised Fall Report Form.

Resulting in:◦ Number & Element of effort◦ Fence details – as understood by Jump Judge / Sector Steward / Other ?◦ Information regarding accident

◦ The Course Analysis data is reported, but not captured or linked to the Fence Description data.

◦ Scorers capture Jump Judge and Time data.◦ Chief Medical Officer keeps a list of medical incidents.◦ FEI Vet Delegate keeps a list of veterinary incidents.

During the EventFall data pertaining to fences◦ Fence Number◦ Element (a, b, c etc.)◦ Route (If applicable “D” direct, “O” option)◦ Did frangible/deformable structure break? (if applicable “Y”, “N”)◦ Fence associated with water? (No, Yes – Fence before water, Yes – Fence after water)◦ Ground Conditions (Deep, Heavy, Slippery, Good to Soft, Good, Good to Firm, Hard,

Rough / Rutted)◦ Bend (Yes, No)◦ Slope (Up, Down, Level Ground)


Course Designer


& Scan to eDocs)

Chief Steward

Vet Incident Form

Vet Report

CS Report

Vet Delegate


Medical Doctor

Rider Rep RR Report


ScoringData Capture

(Document Printing)

Time Keepers

Final Scores



Uploaded to FEI)

XC Analysis



Fall Report Form

Time Sheets

Scan to eDoc

TD Report

Hand Deliver

Hand Deliver

Hand Deliver

Hand Deliver

Hand Deliver

Hand Deliver

Hand Deliver





CS Report

Vet Report

Vet Incident Form


GJ Report


RR Report

Final Scores

XC Analysis

TD Report

FEI Database

? ?

eFiling



Before Event

During Event

After Event?




FEI Website

Summary ScoreData

Fall ReportData

APIExternal

Data Analysis

Internet Users

Event ScheduleData


Reports

Hand Deliver

After the Event◦ Scorers give final data to the OC.

◦ Competitions Final Results as per notice board.◦ Cross Country Analysis – this is the actual refusal/fall data from the cross country.

◦ Scorers or OC gives Final Results sheet and Cross Country Analysis data to TD by email (pdf, jpeg) or a printed out sheet by hand delivery.

◦ TD collects the following:◦ Medical incident from Medical Officer. (which TD checks against rider fall reports)◦ Vet incident list from Vet Delegate. (which TD checks against horse fall reports)◦ Rider Rep Report from Rider Rep.◦ Ground Jury report from chairman of the ground jury.◦ Chief Steward report from Chief Steward.

◦ TD, GJ Chairman and OC Chairman have a discussion about the event which then makes up the bulk of the TD report on the event.

After the Event◦ TD further writes a report detailing amongst other things:

◦ Fences causing a rotational fall, horse falls, serious accidents to Athlete and/or Horse, as well as information regarding frangible fences.

◦ Competition Level & Type◦ Numbers of Starters Dressage Test◦ Number of Starters Cross Country Test◦ Number of Horses having completed the event

◦ The TD submits all collected reports and data to the FEI.◦ This is not in any specific format, and often merely scanned images.

◦ The Vet Delegate submits a separate Vet Delegate report directly to the FEI.

◦ The OC submits the final results in a specific FEI required format.

After the Event◦ Final Data Format from OC

◦ Judges Names◦ Technical Delegate◦ Course Designer

Results◦ Rider’s name◦ Rider’s FEI ID Number◦ NF◦ Horse’s name◦ Horse’s FEI Passport number◦ Dressage Penalties◦ Cross-Country Penalties◦ Cross-Country Time◦ Jumping Penalties◦ Jumping Time◦ Total Penalties


Course Designer


& Scan to eDocs)

Chief Steward

Vet Incident Form

Vet Report

CS Report

Vet Delegate


Medical Doctor

Rider Rep RR Report


ScoringData Capture

(Document Printing)

Time Keepers

Final Scores



Uploaded to FEI)

XC Analysis



Fall Report Form

Time Sheets

Scan to eDoc

TD Report

Hand Deliver

Hand Deliver

Hand Deliver

Hand Deliver

Hand Deliver

Hand Deliver

Hand Deliver





CS Report

Vet Report

Vet Incident Form


GJ Report


RR Report

Final Scores

XC Analysis

TD Report

FEI Database

? ?

eFiling



Before Event

During Event

After Event?




FEI Website

Summary ScoreData

Fall ReportData

APIExternal

Data Analysis

Internet Users

Event ScheduleData


Reports

Hand Deliver

Data Capture After the Event◦ All the data is received at the FEI offices via eMail or FTP

◦ 90% of which is scanned hand written forms – handwriting permitting.◦ Fence Description Forms are data captured◦ Fall Report Forms are data captured◦ OC Final Result data is converted/inserted into the data base◦ Sections of the TD report may be captured ??

◦ All additional data is reviewed and filed to eFiling


Course Designer


& Scan to eDocs)

Chief Steward

Vet Incident Form

Vet Report

CS Report

Vet Delegate


Medical Doctor

Rider Rep RR Report


ScoringData Capture

(Document Printing)

Time Keepers

Final Scores



Uploaded to FEI)

XC Analysis



Fall Report Form

Time Sheets

Scan to eDoc

TD Report

Hand Deliver

Hand Deliver

Hand Deliver

Hand Deliver

Hand Deliver

Hand Deliver

Hand Deliver





CS Report

Vet Report

Vet Incident Form


GJ Report


RR Report

Final Scores

XC Analysis

TD Report

FEI Database

? ?

eFiling



Before Event

During Event

After Event?




FEI Website

Summary ScoreData

Fall ReportData

APIExternal

Data Analysis

Internet Users

Event ScheduleData


Reports

Hand Deliver

Current Data Relationships & Data Mining◦ Each event is linked via an EventID

◦ The allows analysis of final performance of riders and horses.◦ Each fence is linked via a EventID-FenceID

◦ This allows Fall Reports to be linked back to Fence Description Forms and provides analysis data into fence types causing falls.

◦ Additional data manipulation is required to analyse Fence Performance.

Data Input & Data Relationships◦ Room for a more modern workflow system to:

◦ Reduce the amount of paper and admin.◦ Remove the task of data capture, and put the responsibility onto the person inputting the

data.◦ Build more meaningful data relationships that more data can be retrieved from.

◦ Better Instant more Granular Data Analysis◦ Better decisions

◦ Realtime Data Alerts◦ Drive Participant Education

◦ Officials, Athletes, Instructors

Digital Fence Profiles – Time for an Upgrade◦ Upgrade of Fence Description System

◦ Time critical – sooner better data will be available◦ Goals

◦ Easy to use◦ Granular◦ Descriptive◦ Unambiguous◦ Digital

Fence Profiles – Back to BasicsAt the heart of the fence, is its side profile, as this is the part the horse MUST jump over.Arguably there are a myriad of other factors that influence that profile, but ultimately this is the basis for the jump.

Current Dimensions

1* 2* 3* 4*

Fixed Height 1.1 1.15 1.2 1.2

Brush 1.3 1.35 1.4 1.45

Top Spread 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

Base Spread 2.1 2.4 2.7 3

No Height 2.8 3.2 3.6 4

Drop 1.6 1.8 2 2

3*

1.20

m

1.80m

2.70m

3.70m

1.80m

No height

0.30

m


Fixe

d H

eigh

t

Base to Top Spread RelationshipAt what height does top spread matter ?

3*

1.20

m

1.80m

2.70m

3.70m

1.80m

No height

0.30

m


Fixe

d H

eigh

t3*

1.20

m

1.80m

2.70m

3.70m

1.80m

No height

0.30

m


Fixe

d H

eigh

t

Definition of Top SpreadTop Spread = Flat part on top ?

Open to interpretation ?

3* 1.20

m

1.80m

2.70m

0.30mTop Spread

3* 1.20

m

1.80m

2.70m

0.30mTop Spread

Deterministic Model for the phases of the horse’s jump

Jump

Take-Off Suspension LandingApproach Departure

Centre of Gravity

The centre of gravity is a geometric property of any object, and is the average location of the weight of an object. We can completely describe the motion of any object through space in terms of the translation of the centre of gravity of the object from one place to another, and the rotation of the object about its centre of gravity if it is free to rotate.

Center of Mass / Gravity

Centre of Gravity

It’s important to realise that this is a 3 Dimensional concept, as any force acted on the horse will act ‘on’ and ‘about’ the Centre of Gravity.

Horse’s Path of Centre of Gravity

T L

CG Path



Centre of Gravity – CG Parabola

T L

CG Path



CG Parabola

Centre of Gravity – CG Parabola ↔ Hooves

T L

CG Path



Centre of Gravity – Base Biokinematic Model

T L

CG Path



Biokinematic Model – Key FactorsoThere is little to no Horizontal velocity imparted during the take-off phase.

oAll of the vertical velocity is derived during the take-off phase.

oHorses have a maximum horizontal velocity.

oThere is a limit to the change of the jump angle (ɣ Gamma) that a horse can make during the take-off phase. The faster the approach, the lower the possible Delta Angle.(or Delta Gamma δɣ).

oThere is a maximum height a horse can jump given speed, angle of take-off, and available take-off force.

oFatigue is a factor over time on Take-Off force.

Biokinematic Model – Key VariablesoHeight of CG at approach

oDistance from CG to outside of tucked legs

oApproach velocity

oAngle of jump ( ɣ Gamma)

oDuration of take-off

oDuration of landing

oDimensions of fence

Upright

Ascending Spread

Biokinematic Model – Key Variables (cont)oLocation of CG Apex (Shape of Fence) Different types of fence profiles have a big effect on the location of the Apex of the CG of the horse.

T L

Triple Bar

Ditch Brush

T L

Square Spread

T L T L

Simple Biokinematic Horse Jump Model

1.1 1.1

0

CG at Take-Off

CG at Approach

Approach

Take-Off: 3.20m, 9047 N

Suspension: 3.86m

Landing: 2.72m

Departure

CG Max at Apex

0

1

2

3

4

5

-7 -6.5 -6 -5.5 -5 -4.5 -4 -3.5 -3 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7

Biokinematic Model – Output VariablesoHorse CG Height at Max Take-Off

oVertical Jump Velocity

oTime to Max Height

oTotal Trajectory Time

oCG Max Delta Height

oCG Max Height

oCG Parabola Width

oTake-Off Distance from Groundline

oTake-Off Distance from Top Face

oLanding Distance (back of fence)

oTake-Off Force

oTotal Delta CG Energy

oClearance Front

oClearance Back

Biokinematic Model – Real World Video Data

1x 10mx3m sight screen, 1x Hi-Res Camera, 1x Frangible Fence, 1x Instructor, 8x 1* riders, 20x Tennis Balls

80m

Met

er M

arke

rsM

eter

Mar

kers

Biokinematic Model – Real World Video Data

Biokinematic Model – ExamplesoIngrid Klimke’s – Ride in Luhmuehlen videoo First Fence

oFence Shapeso Ascending Spreado Uprighto Triple Baro Square Spread


1.1 1.1

0

CG at Take-Off

CG at Approach

Approach

Take-Off: 3.20m, 9047 N

Suspension: 3.86m

Landing: 2.72m

Departure

CG Max at Apex

0

1

2

3

4

5

-7 -6.5 -6 -5.5 -5 -4.5 -4 -3.5 -3 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7

Observations – Primary Variableso3 Primary Variables are CRITICAL to horses jumping over fences.o Approach Velocity – right speed for the right fence.o Shape of Fence – ability for horse to recognise.o Ability to generate sufficient change of Take-Off Angle (Delta Gamma δɣ).

Observations – Take-Off Zone




Observations – Reduced Take-Off ZoneoAny forced change to the Approach Velocity will have a reduction effect on the width of the Take-Off zone.

Forced change can be anything that has an effect on the Approach Velocity such as:◦ Slope◦ Bend◦ Footing◦ Combinations (From fence before or Required velocity for following fence)◦ Technicality◦ Water◦ Crowds / Busy Picture / Unclear landing◦ Fence shape – The higher the front element of the fence, as well as the wider the fence, the more it

reduces the available take off zone.

Observations – Reduced Take-Off Zone

66%

95%

99%

1 SD

2 SD

3 SD


1.1 1.1

0

CG at Take-Off

CG at Approach

Approach

Take-Off: 3.20m, 9047 N

Suspension: 3.86m

Landing: 2.72m

Departure

CG Max at Apex

0

1

2

3

4

5

-7 -6.5 -6 -5.5 -5 -4.5 -4 -3.5 -3 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7

Observations – Increased height of fence given spreadAs fences tend towards maximum front and back dimensions, a horse is required to clear both elements in order to navigate the fence successfully. Given the parabolic shape of the trajectory of the horse, this requires that they have to jump higher over square spreads vs jumping over uprights, ascending spreads and triple bars.

T L

T L

At 4* level this can be seen by the increase in CG:

Upright: 1.82m CGAscending Spread: 1.83m CGTriple Bar: 1.75m CGSquare Spread: 2.00m CG

Notice that there is an increase of 18cm between the height of CG when jumping an upright versus jumping a square spread.

This effectively takes the height at 4* from 1.2m to 1.38m over maximum dimension fences.

Observations – Measurement of Take-Off & GroundlinesApproach Speed and available change in Take-Off angle dictate the ‘average’ Take-Off point. This average Take-Off point is dependent on fence shape, and distance to the expected Apex pointgiven Approach Speed and Take-Off angle.

Example:A 4* horse traveling at 540mpm, jumping a max dimension square spread, with a base spread of 2.5m, giving a 0.5m ground line, will need to take off 2.15m before the groundline at a minimum in order to clear the fence.

Should the same fence be built without any extended groundline, the Take-Off point would be 2.65m from the fence.

Increase height of fences given inclination and ‘measured’ Take-Off point

The following table gives an indication of the change of height per meter of ‘measured’ Take-Off point versus actual Take-Off point per degree of inclination.

0.25m 0.5m 0.75m 1m 1.25m2° 0.9cm 1.7cm 2.6cm 3.5cm 4.4cm4° 1.7cm 3.5cm 5.2cm 7.0cm 8.7cm6° 2.6cm 5.3cm 7.9cm 10.5cm 13.1cm8° 3.5cm 7.0cm 10.5cm 14.1cm 17.6cm

10° 4.4cm 8.8cm 13.2cm 17.6cm 22.0cm12° 5.3cm 10.6cm 15.9cm 21.3cm 26.6cm14° 6.2cm 12.5cm 18.7cm 24.9cm 31.2cm16° 7.2cm 14.3cm 21.5cm 28.7cm 35.8cm18° 8.1cm 16.2cm 24.4cm 32.5cm 40.6cm20° 9.1cm 18.2cm 27.3cm 36.4cm 45.5cm

Couple this with the increase of height on Max Dimension fences on slight inclines (2°), and you can easily top 20cm of additional height to a fence (18cm + 3.5cm = 21.5cm).

The effect becomes more pronounced at steeper angles.

Updates required to Biokinematic ModeloMax Take-Off CG to be linked to Stretch of horse from rear hoof to CG, and Max Landing CG to be linked from front leading front hoof to CG. Ideally horse dimensions could be linked to horse height (average).

o Angle of ground needs to be factored into the model to sufficiently understand take off relationships to increased angle and potential Take-Off zones.

oFurther research is required into maximum potential Force and Energy.

oFurther research is required into stride length relationship to Take-Off Zone in order that a metric of ‘accuracy’ could be constructed.

Centre of Gravity Observations and Angled FencesIn researching the Centre of Gravity of horses, it’s difficult not to come across Rotational Falls.

However; there is little mention of other falls which are caused by forces acting on the horse whilst in the Suspension Phase of the jump that leave no other option than a horse fall.

Rotational FallsRotational Falls occur where during free flight, an immovable force acts as a fulcrum for a relatively soft bodied object (the horse) with sufficient inertia/momentum to rotate the body over the fulcrum. This rotates the Centre of Gravity upwards in a head over heels rotation.

Torsional FallsThe same theory applies where a horse makes contact with a fence that is placed at a non-perpendicular angle to its direction of travel, like a corner fence, or an offset upright or oxer. This creates a torsional component that often rotates the horse past the ability for it to right itself and usually results in a fall of horse and rider.

Torsional FallsThe Torsional Fall tends to act more ‘about’ the Centre of Gravity, rather creating a Fulcrum in which the momentum has no option but to rotate around. In this case, the front legs are both pushed and rotated perpendicular to the direction of travel, causing a twisting through the direction of travel about the Centre of Gravity (or Torsion).

Torsional Falls – Other Examples

Where to from here – Jump AppoDescribe fences in datao Describe Courses in data

oTechnicality rating system for fenceso Technicality of Courses

oJump Ability of Fenceo CG Apexo Required Speedo Take-Offo Right Fence for the Right Place

Where to from here – Granular Global DataoPictures are good

oWell Designed Data is Bettero Can closely describe fences

oCan offer trainingo Rider specific fence problemsoWhat could EquiRatings do with this data ?

Where to from here – Real Time AppoWorkflow solutions

oInstant DataoMore data available at the right time to make the right descision

oLess data lost

Questions ?

Eventing in the Digital Age Updating of the FEI Eventing ... III - Rob Ramsden.pdf · e. FEI Vet...

Documents

Transcript of Eventing in the Digital Age Updating of the FEI Eventing ... III - Rob Ramsden.pdf · e. FEI Vet...