Thank you to Jeff and others here who have helped clear up the questions on retrospectivity. This should certainly help anyone reading these posts.
Apologies in advance for this, but I’d like to stay with this “Entry Eligibility Confusion” theme for a moment as I don’t agree that
“..the rules are quite/very clear” at all. At least not for simple-minded folk like me. The wording in 37 & 38 may be technically correct but I find the way they are composed a little frustrating, i.e.:
Rule 37. Novice Stake is a Stake confined to Gundogs that have not won any Stake other than four (4) Novice Stakes (Beginners' Tests are excluded) or have gained Championship Points and/or been awarded an AARD title…
Rule 38. Restricted Stake is a Stake confined to Gundogs that have not won five (5) Restricted Stakes, or have gained Championship Points and/or been awarded an AARD title…
The references to (4) wins used in Novice then (5) wins used in Restricted make the eligibility cut off points appear different for each level when the rules are read together, and require some scrutiny to double-check the intended meanings. I notice that when people explain the new eligibility criteria they simply say “…dogs can now have up to 5 wins in Novice or Restricted unless …bla bla”.
Possibly a succession of amendments to these and other clauses have affected their clarity over time? If RAFT revisits these rules in the future I would definitely prefer to see simpler more consistent wording used and would suggest at least changing 37 to read similar to 38, eg: “
Novice Stake is a Stake confined to Gundogs that have not won five (5) Novice Stakes or any other Stake (Beginners' Tests are excluded) or have gained Championship Points and/or been awarded an AARD title… “
If I have missed some important point by all means someone let me know. However, if you don’t consider the existing wording to be confusing, I suggest doing what I did.
Download a copy of this Survey, print off a few copies, and hand them to anyone who is not already familiar with theses rules. I think you’ll be surprised at the variety of interpretations you’ll get back.
This is a personal observation and comment only and is definitely not intended as criticism of anybody ...just something to consider. I imagine it’s no easy task managing rule changes.
Regards
Peter Butterfield