NHPA Sanctioned Shoes
There is a chart on the Horseshoe Canada website that list all models of Canadian made horseshoes and lists some as NHPA sanctioned and some as not sanctioned by the NHPA. These horseshoe models are becoming more widely available and are now sold by multiple horseshoe dealers in the States. All of these shoes look good and legal. I would hate to spend the money on a particular set and find out later that they cannot be legally pitched in an NHPA sanctioned tournament. Anyone know the specifics on this topic? Is it true that some Canadian models are NHPA sanctioned and some are not?
If a horseshoe is sanctioned by the NHPA or by Horseshoe Canada, then it is OK to pitch in all Canadian sanctioned tournaments. If it is only sanctioned in Canada, then it can only be pitched in Canadian sanctioned tournaments. Put another way, an NHPA sanction gets you coverage in both USA and Canada, but a Canadian sanction only gets you coverage in Canada. Basically, Horseshoe Canada recognizes NHPA sanctions, but NHPA does not recognize Horseshoe Canada sanctions... not sure why it's this way, as they use the same criteria for sanctioning... doesn't seem very fair.
So, it sounds like what I was saying could be true. If you purchase a pair of these shoes and pitch them in a NHPA sanctioned tournament, you could be subjected to forfeiting a tournament or even suspended if called out on pitching "unsanctioned" shoes. It seems a real shame to me that some of these styles are sanctioned and some are not. They all appear fine to me. I'd bet that most pitchers and maybe some of the dealers that are selling these shoes are unaware. The NHPA related horseshoe dealers should not stock and sell these unsanctioned shoes unless they inform the buyer that they are not tournament legal...in the US.
This forum is still being setup. I will make sure the counsel knows about this and discuses it.
I do not know why it is setup the way Bobbie just said but he is right.
While the specs used by Horseshoe Canada and the NHPA are the same, the sanctioning process in each association is different. The primary difference is cost. A few years ago the NHPA decided to honor the HCA's process of initially examining and sanctioning a shoe. Prior to this, Canadian shoes were having to be double-sanctioned if you will, once in Canada and then again in the U.S.
In order to maintain an NHPA sanction designation a manufacture ( U.S. or Canada) must submit a small annual fee for each model of shoe to be considered "NHPA sanctioned". A couple of Canadian sellers didn't want to pay for every model they sold thus some models were NHPA sanctioned and some were not. The NHPA actually reduced the annual fee in order to facilitate more Canadian models to use the designation "NHPA Sanctioned".
Any Canadian model of horseshoe can be marketed and sold in the United States. However, by the current rule, only ones designated as NHPA sanctioned are allowed to be used in NHPA sanctioned competition.
"If a horseshoe is sanctioned by the NHPA or by Horseshoe Canada, then it is OK to pitch in all Canadian sanctioned tournaments."
From the HCA website;
All horseshoe designs and prototypes must be approved and sanctioned by the HORSESHOE CANADA
Executive before the shoes they represent can officially be manufactured and used in HORSESHOE
CANADA sanctioned competition.
Any horseshoes sanctioned in other countries ( assume this to be the U.S. ) may be used during HORSESHOE CANADA sanctioned play,
but only by contestants from that country and only if the shoes meet HORSESHOE CANADA horseshoe
specifications. They are not allowable for use by Canadian citizens in HORSESHOE CANADA sanctioned
events unless the horseshoes have also been sanctioned by HORSESHOE CANADA.
So it would seem that HCA is doing the same thing the NHPA is in regard to shoes sanctioned in foreign countries.