Why Where You Check Noseband Tightness Matters More Than You Think
- Human(e) Equine Project
- Jan 28
- 7 min read
A 2026 commentary published in Animals by eight researchers from institutions across Australia, Ireland, Denmark, and the UK raises significant concerns about a recent study proposing to change where noseband tightness is measured on the horse's face. The commentary argues that the proposed alternative measurement location — the lateral maxilla, or the side of the horse's cheek — contains substantially more soft tissue than the currently accepted site, meaning a noseband could be considerably tighter than any measurement at that location would indicate. If adopted in competition settings, the authors warn, the change could represent a meaningful step backward for horse welfare at exactly the moment when equestrian sport needs to demonstrate progress.
Why noseband tightness matters
Nosebands are among the most common pieces of equipment used on horses in equestrian sport, and in some disciplines such as dressage they are mandatory. They are frequently used to prevent horses from opening their mouths — a behavior that can reduce bit pressure on sensitive oral tissues. The problem is that tight nosebands also prevent horses from performing normal comfort behaviors including yawning, coughing, and chewing. Research has documented a dose-response relationship: the tighter the noseband, the greater the welfare risk.
Studies have linked tight nosebands to oral lesions, long-term pathological changes to anatomical structures of the face, and behavioral indicators of pain and negative affect. The Federation of Veterinarians of Europe has explicitly stated that equipment designed to cause pain or discomfort to modify behavior — including tight nosebands — should not be used.
To address these concerns, the International Society for Equitation Science (ISES) developed the ISES taper gauge — a standardized device used to check how much space exists under the noseband at the dorsal midline of the nasal planum, the middle of the bridge of the nose. The dorsal midline was chosen because it has minimal soft tissue between the skin and the underlying bone, making measurements consistent and repeatable. The standard it established — a minimum of two fingers' space — gave horses enough room to perform some comfort behaviors while wearing a noseband.
In 2024, the FEI introduced a new measuring device that reduced the minimum space from the two-finger equivalent to 1.5 fingers — a 24% reduction in the cross-sectional area available under the noseband. The commentary authors have previously raised concerns about the research that was used to justify this change. The paper they are critiquing here goes one step further, proposing to move the measurement location from the dorsal midline to the side of the face.
Overview: What the commentary is responding to
The paper under critique — MacKechnie-Guire et al., published in Animals in 2025 and funded by the FEI — tested three alternative locations for measuring noseband tightness: the lateral nasal bone, the lateral maxilla, and the lateral mandible. The researchers used digital calipers to measure the distance between the noseband and the skin at each location across five tightness levels on three noseband designs. Based on their findings and operator preferences, they concluded that the lateral maxilla — the side of the cheek, rostral to the facial crest — was a suitable substitute for the dorsal midline.
Eight researchers from five institutions responded with this commentary, raising concerns across the study's rationale, methodology, anatomical assumptions, and welfare implications.
Key concerns: What the commentary argues
The proposed site has significantly more soft tissue than the current site.
The fundamental premise of the MacKechnie-Guire study was that the three alternative locations were chosen because they had minimal soft tissue between the skin and the underlying bone — the same property that makes the dorsal midline reliable. The commentary authors argue this premise is anatomically incorrect, at least for the lateral maxilla.
A cross-sectional dissection of the equine head at that location reveals a complex arrangement of muscles — including the buccinator, the caninus, the levator nasolabialis, and the zygomaticus — underlying the skin. The lateral maxilla is, of the three candidate locations, the site with the most underlying soft tissue. When a measuring device is pressed against this location, the compliant soft tissue underneath compresses, making the gap appear larger than it actually is. A noseband that would fail a check at the dorsal midline could pass a check at the lateral maxilla — not because it is less tight, but because the measurement method is less accurate.
The measuring locations are not precisely defined.
Reliable noseband checking requires that anyone performing the check — whether a competition steward or a rider — can locate the exact same point on the horse's face every time. The dorsal midline has a clear anatomical landmark that is consistent across horses. The commentary authors argue that the alternative sites described in the study are insufficiently precise. The lateral maxilla site is described only as "rostral to the upper edge of the facial crest" — a description that leaves considerable room for variation in exactly where the measurement is taken. Without precise, repeatable landmark definition, any measurement tool used at this location will produce inconsistent results in field conditions.
The study did not use the dorsal midline as a control.
If the purpose of the study was to demonstrate that an alternative site is as reliable as the current site, the current site should have been tested using the same method — the digital calipers — under the same conditions. It was not. The dorsal midline was used only to establish tightness levels, not to assess whether calipers at that location would perform comparably to calipers at the alternative sites. This omission means there is no direct comparison between the old and proposed methods, which is the most basic requirement for a study designed to justify replacing one with the other.
The behavioral data were insufficient.
The study reported that horses showed fewer behavioral responses to caliper use at the lateral maxilla than at other sites. The commentary authors note this finding is not supported by the data as reported — no ethogram of the behaviors was provided, no sampling methodology was described, and the specific behaviors classified as "aversive" were not defined. The fact that over 10% of horses were withdrawn from the study as noseband tightness increased — due to unacceptable behavioral responses — is treated as incidental rather than as a meaningful welfare signal. The commentary authors argue this withdrawal pattern is itself evidence of the aversive nature of tight nosebands, and that the study would have been strengthened significantly by treating behavioral data with the same rigor as the measurement data.
The findings are not generalizable to elite competition settings.
The study was conducted on horses wearing snaffle bits. All horses competing in elite dressage wear double bridles — two bits simultaneously. The commentary authors note that the presence of a double bridle would likely complicate or prevent reliable access to the lateral maxilla, because the additional hardware and the effect of two bits on the tongue and surrounding soft tissues would alter the shape of the cheek at that location. A study designed to inform noseband checking protocols at elite competition did not test those protocols under elite competition conditions.
The study was funded by the FEI.
The commentary authors note that FEI funding is declared but that there is no statement about whether the FEI had involvement in the study's design — an omission described as unusual for declarations of industry stakeholder funding in research. This is relevant context given that the study's conclusions, if adopted, would reduce the strictness of competition noseband checking at a time when equestrian sport is under increasing public scrutiny over animal welfare.
What this means for riders, trainers, and horse owners
This commentary is primarily aimed at researchers and regulators, but its practical implications are direct for anyone who uses a noseband.
The dorsal midline remains the most reliable place to check noseband tightness. If you use the ISES taper gauge or an equivalent tool, use it at the bridge of the nose — not the side of the face. The side of the face has more soft tissue and will give you a looser reading than actually exists under the noseband.
Two fingers of space at the dorsal midline is still the best welfare standard available. The recent FEI reduction to 1.5 fingers has been contested by welfare researchers on the basis that the studies used to justify it had methodological limitations. For horses in your own care, maintaining the two-finger standard is the more protective choice.
Your horse's behavior is a welfare indicator. The commentary notes that horses withdrawn from this study as noseband tightness increased were showing behavioral indicators of negative affect. If your horse shows tension, resistance, or conflict behaviors during tacking up or under saddle, noseband tightness is worth evaluating — even if the noseband passes a check at the current regulatory standard.
Understand why equipment checking standards matter. A small change in where a measurement is taken — from the bridge of the nose to the side of the cheek — can meaningfully change whether a too-tight noseband is detected. Regulatory standards are only as protective as the methods used to enforce them.
Follow this area of research. The noseband tightness debate is ongoing and directly connected to competition welfare policy. The ISES taper gauge, the FEI's new measuring device, and the research groups on both sides of this debate will continue to generate findings that affect horses competing at every level. Staying informed is part of evidence-based horsemanship.
Read the original commentary
Henshall C, McGreevy P, Shea G, Doherty O, Christensen JW, Fenner K, Warren-Smith A, McLean A. Commentary on MacKechnie-Guire et al. Measuring Noseband Tightness on the Lateral Aspect of the Horse's Face. Animals 2026; 16(3):412. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani16030412
Figure 1. adapted from: Henshall C, McGreevy P, Shea G, Doherty O, Christensen JW, Fenner K, Warren-Smith A, McLean A. Commentary on MacKechnie-Guire et al. Measuring Noseband Tightness on the Lateral Aspect of the Horse's Face. Animals. 2026; 16(3):412. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani16030412. CC BY 4.0. Original anatomical images from: Kimberlin L, zur Linden A, Ruoff L. Atlas of Clinical Imaging and Anatomy of the Equine Head. John Wiley and Sons, 2017.
Comments