Scoring of Written
Reasons Cards
March, 2008
Written Reasons cards are scored on a 100 point scale. The total points are added up and the result is divided by two in order to present the final score with a maximum value of 50 points. Many sections tie back to one another, so proper use of the card in one area generally translates into more points on another area of the card.
Section 1: Presentation (15%)
Legible (5 points) – maximum points are given to cards that are neat,
readable and use space in an appropriate manner. Points are deducted for sloppy writing and
not using all the space provided. About
40 - 42 words (+/-) for each set of reasons seem to “fill up the space” and
allow all the proper terminology to be used.
Don’t worry – no one counts your words, nor will they start, but looking
back at completed cards with proper terminology, this seems to be the average
number of words used. There isn’t a lot
of room, and if reasons are written properly, you need all the space to provide
the reason, grant and fault. On the
flip side, if you try to write too much, thus using margins and squishing too
many words together, the card becomes unreadable and you will be penalized a
point.
Coherent (10 points) – maximum points are given to cards that use complete sentences with recognizable words Points are deducted for misspelled words and use of phrases instead of sentences. Some may argue that phrases should be given full credit, but if you are writing your reasons properly – using descriptive adjectives, describing a major strength or flaw, and pointing out an important difference, then you pretty much are “forced” into using a sentence. Lack of the above elements generally means that you aren’t going to score as many points on the rest of the card. Additionally, excellent cards use proper words – as an example, many cards are presented with a phrase using the wrong version of gait “breaks his gate”. Unless this is a trail class and the horse is breaking the gate, then the word is GAIT. Another misused word is rains vs. REINS. You can’t hold rains incorrectly. I see brake vs. BREAK. A horse may stop suddenly of course, but generally he “breaks his gait”. Hawk is a bird, HOCK is part of the hind leg. Again, some may argue that this is too picky, but maximum scores are considered excellent and it would be hard to score excellent with a misused word.
Section 2: Organization (15%)
Logical Order (8 points) – everyone should get 100% of the points in this section, but the average score is usually six. There are three areas that need to be completed for maximum points:
(1)
Put the name of the class on the card on the line that says CLASS.
(2) Directly under the class name, on
the left, in the section that says Placing (example: 4-3-2-1), write
your class placing. This is probably
forgotten at least 80% of the time!
Don’t put it on the right hand side in the box next to the words
“placing score”.
(3) Finally, order the placing correctly on the rest of the card. If you placed the horses 4-2-3-1, then the first section of your reasons shouldn’t say “I place 3 over 2”. The order you write your reasons need to match your placing on the top of the card.
Written Comments Match Placing Pairs (7 points) – at this point in the scoring, you aren’t judged on the quality of your statements. This is still showing your organization. Writing, “I place 3 over 2” and then describing horse 4 and 2 shows lack of organization. Not discussing the “pair”, gets points deducted and leads to even greater point deductions below. Presenting a structure within each set of reasons that show you are discussing a pair is what is looked for in this section.
Section 3: Knowledge of Subject (45%)
Major Strengths (15 points), Flaws (15 points) and Important Differences (15 points) – this section is where you judged on the quality of the reasons appropriate to the class and how you present the differences within each pair that you judge. You don’t need to match the judge in your ordering, but you do need to be able to show that you understand the common themes of the strengths, flaws and differences presented by the judge. For instance, a judge might cite that he/she liked the horses’ soft, quiet jog and used that as a reason for placing one horse over another. You might point out that the same horse had a nicer jog but maybe not place that horse as high – you might have another reason to place a horse higher, and that is okay, you both saw the smooth jog just valued it differently in your reasons.
You need to remember, that when presenting your reasons, you compare each pair of horses. You list the strength(s) of the first horse in the pair. You may state the flaw(s) for you second horse in the pair. You then recognize (grant) a positive characteristic(s) of your second horse in the pair. Finally, you state the flaw(s) (fault) for you first horse in the pair. This shows that you understand the strength and weaknesses of each horse in the pair and you are able to identify the important differences. You show that you recognize that no horse/rider/handler is perfect, but cumulative strengths, even though they have a flaw or two, can place one horse over another in the pair you are comparing.
The most common errors that are seen in this area are:
(1)
Only strengths of the first horse in each pair
are listed. This is the number one
error that is seen. The card may state
the correct strength, and it may be beautifully worded, but if that is all that
is listed, you can only get a maximum of 15 of the 45 points as you didn’t
include flaws nor did you compare the two horses.
(2)
Comparisons are not made between the horses in
the pairs. Sometimes strengths are
listed for the first horse in the pair and a flaw for the second horse in the
pair but it isn’t tied together. This is
where using correct terms come into play (see below). You can pick up a few more points, but not 100%
in this section without tying it all together.
(3)
Repeating the same reason throughout the
card. Often seen is a card that focuses
on one area only, for example, the gaits.
The first horse in the first pair is praised for its outstanding gaits
and how they are better than the second horse in the pair. Moving down the card, then the first horse in
the second pair (which was the second horse in the first pair) is praised for
having gaits much better than the next horse and so on. So the entire card is comparing gaits between
horses. That becomes the only item that
is mentioned. This actually occurs
quite often. You need to remember there
are a lot of items to look at when judging a horse/rider/handler – study up
ahead of time. Don’t get “tunnel vision”
and only focus on a particular area.
One final word on gaits – this is a pretty generic term, and it is used
a lot. Think about what gaits you want
to highlight – walk, jog, trot, lope, or canter. You can get more descriptive when you talk
about a specific gait --- quiet jog, collected lope, forward moving trot. Those describe a particular gait and
movement. Just saying the horse had
“nice gaits” doesn’t really tell very much about the class.
Tying this back to the organization section, again, if you failed to have the “written comments matching the placing pairs”, you haven’t pointed out the important differences (worth 15 points in this section) nor most likely gotten full credit in the organization section (worth 7 points above).
Appropriate Terms (25%)
Descriptive Adjectives (10 points) – once you have gotten good at recognizing the major strengths and weaknesses between the pairs, you can add more points by being more descriptive in your writing. Instead of saying, “the horse had a nice jog”, you could say, “the horse has a smoother, more collected jog”. Try to avoid “weak” adjectives like nice and good. Add the word “more” or add an -er, -ing to make the adjectives more active. Also, by making the adjectives active, you are most likely comparing the two horses. Back to the example above – “I place 1 over 2 because it had a good jog”. If that was changed to “I place 1 over 2 because horse number 1 had a smoother, more collected jog than horse number 2” you have now presented a major strength and made a comparison.
Correct Terms (15 points) – this is where you scored for using the concept of grant and fault correctly. You don’t have to use the actual terms grant and fault. There are many other words that can be used to illustrate this concept. Some examples or words that can be used: I acknowledge, I understand, I recognize, I admit, I concede, I am aware. Make sure you are “granting” that the lower placing of the pair had something better than the higher placing and always fault the higher placing of the pair. Common mistakes are only using grants or not granting /faulting for every pair of reasons. You don’t need to grant/fault your last place horse in the last section when you state “I place horse # ’x’ last because………”
Examples
from recent cards:
“I place 2 over 4 because: 2 had a more controlled lope and jog. I fault horse # 4 for having a not as smooth lope. I grant horse 2 for having a relaxed jog.”
· This is a good effort. The person writing the reasons used a descriptive adjective by writing “more controlled”. They could have expanded on the second sentence to say a smoother lope than horse # 2. Same for the third sentence. The major error in the above reason is mixing up the use of the grant and fault. They need to fault something for horse #2 (first horse in pair) and grant something for horse # 4 (second horse in pair). Also, they are being repetitive in their reasons – just focusing on the lope and jog.
“I place 2 over 4 because: 2 had a much more consistent gait. This horse/rider team made it look easy. However I grant that 4 had a fairly consistent headset.”
· Another good effort. The person writing this used some good adjectives – but saying “gait” – which one? Highlight what the horse is doing well and get descriptive! The second sentence isn’t really telling us anything about the class. They used the grant correctly, by granting something positive about the second horse in the pair. But they didn’t fault the first horse.
“I place 2 over 4 because: #2 horse was well balanced in all gaits and had very nice, smooth transitions between each gait. I fault # 2 horse because there were times when the horse broke into four beating at the lope and seemed to fight the rider at times.
· See if you can spot the major error in this one. They used good descriptive terminology focusing on strengths and weakness. Again, used the generic word “gait” but by the time they wrote the last sentence, focused on the lope which tells us something a little more detailed about the class. However, they didn’t grant anything positive about horse 4, the second horse in the pair.
“I place 2 over 3 because: 2 was very consistent. The horse was very steady and well balanced, as well as a good listener. Her back was quick and smooth. I did fault him for four-beating periodically. I grant that 3 had a very consistent three-beat lope.”
· This is a very good set of reasons. Pointing out major strengths, using grant/fault correctly and showing the comparison between the horses in the pair. One picky point -- “her back”, most likely is talking about the rider; “fault him”, most likely talking about the horse. This would not be a point deduction it isn’t totally clear what is being discussed.