As part of the grading process, the grading officer should (after using the grading assessment tool to determine an initial grade) have regard for a players physical strength, endurance and tenacity and consider making a small adjustment in accordance with the following.

Note that the following does not allow for a player to be graded below a minimum grading rule)

Low: Player has a lower level of physicality than others and while being able to perform the same skills as an opponent they will not compete with the same level of vigour (hunger for the ball), tempo and strength. (consider reducing rating by 1/2 point)

Medium: Player is generally quite competitive in their grade but would not be described as having a must win attitude. They may be respected but they would not be considered a formidable opponent at that grade (leave rating as assessed using grading assessment tool)

High: Player is highly competitive and strong, they will not give up and give the game “everything they’ve got”(consider increasing rating by 1/2 a point)

Skill Statements where competitiveness is “irrelevant”

Note the some feed back has been received regarding the skill statements at 4 to 5 and 5 to 6 where competitiveness has been described as irrelevant. The concerns raised have been generally in the order of “how can competitiveness not be relevant to someone’s grading?!!” The answer is that the two skills in question are designed to test 2 things:

1. a players ability to control their horse
2. a players ability to move safely in a game environment. The aspect of “in a game environment” is critical as it reflects a players ability to apply game rules and knowledge. Put another way, if you didn’t know the rules and didn’t have a knowledge of the game how safe would you be in a game at that level?