Types of fault (e.g. pole down, refusal etc) were recorded as well as characteristics of the jump (e.g. jump type, approach angle). Combinations jumped clear at the majority of attempts (93.6 %; n=2857) with faults only occurring at 6.4% of jumps (n=195). The most common faults were: knock-downs (5.5 %); time penalties (0.8 %); faults at water jumps (0.3 %); refusal (0.2 %). Faults were distributed across all fence types, however were more common at upright fences (49 %) and within combination fences (41 %). A linear relationship was found between jumping-effort number and number of fences knocked-down (r = 0.7; P < 0.001). There were 2.8 times more knock-downs for the second half of the course (efforts 9 - 15) compared with jumping-efforts 1 - 7 (P < 0.05). Faults were 4 times more likely at jumping-efforts 3, 4, 5 and 8 in the first half of the course (P < 0.03) which increased to being 9 times more likely in the 2nd 22 half of the courses (jumping-efforts 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14; P
Types of fault (e.g. pole down, refusal etc) were recorded as well as characteristics of the jump (e.g. jump type, approach angle). Combinations jumped clear at the majority of attempts (93.6 %; n=2857) with faults only occurring at 6.4% of jumps (n=195). The most common faults were: knock-downs (5.5 %); time penalties (0.8 %); faults at water jumps (0.3 %); refusal (0.2 %). Faults were distributed across all fence types, however were more common at upright fences (49 %) and within combination fences (41 %). A linear relationship was found between jumping-effort number and number of fences knocked-down (r = 0.7; P < 0.001). There were 2.8 times more knock-downs for the second half of the course (efforts 9 - 15) compared with jumping-efforts 1 - 7 (P < 0.05). Faults were 4 times more likely at jumping-efforts 3, 4, 5 and 8 in the first half of the course (P < 0.03) which increased to being 9 times more likely in the 2nd 22 half of the courses (jumping-efforts 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14; P
正在翻译中..