Rule Review

[Jason Ferris]

I understand that the National RAFT has prepared a timetable for review of the retrieving trial rules. Do any of the RAFT members want to share the details on the timing and process?

Cheers, Jason.

[Alan Donovan]

Hi Jason

The ANKC timetable for "member bodies" is (as I understand it) as follows:

Jan 2004 - Proposals from triallers and Clubs received by State RAFT committees

Feb 2004 - State discussion meetings completed

March - Drafting completed by each State for submission to ANKC

April - ANKC distributes all submissions to each State

June - Judges/triallers discussion meeting. Review completed

July/August - National RAFT meeting

September - Final Draft completed

October - ANKC ratification

November - Printing and distribution

January 2005 - Effective date


Better start writing!

Cheers - Alan Donovan

[Joe Law]

Thanks Jason, Thanks Alan! Great to see the improvement in communication taking place. It would be great if state RAFT members would be prepared to share their submissions with us as they become available so we can all share in and enjoy the process as it unfolds!

[Kirsty Blair]

Isn't there a meeting of the NSW RAFT in the first week of February? Joe Vella said that this is where preliminary discussion about rule changes would occur. These meetings are open to all interested parties so its important that we attend if we would like to have input into the process. I will phone Joe to confirm the date as he doesn't have access to the internet.

Kirsty

[Joe Law]

There has been a cry from a number of triallers before this to have a "Guide" for judges and handlers which could be read in conjunction with the "Rule Book" and which would assist in an appropriate and consistent interpretation of the rules. I'm wondering if any of the state RAFT bodies would be prepared to support this idea and whether in this year of review it is now the appropriate time to push for a specialist committee to be appointed to work on the production of such a document. Jason has made the offer a few times previously to organise a closed section of this website which would enable such a committee (perhaps with representatives from each state) to work together on such a project. If the idea is adequately supported, it would seem to me to be appropriate if the document could be produced in draft form with the opportunity for judges and handlers to comment before submission to the National RAFT for approval. How great is the support for this idea? As Kirsty has already indicated, we need to speak up now if we want to have input into the process.

[Kerry Webster]

Right on, Joe. The time is right for discussion and input from both judges and handlers. It has become increasingly obvious that there is unrest in the camp of retrieving.

Personally, I have these queries :-

1. Why isn't there a yearly forum of handlers/judges in each state to voice their views, suggestions, differences or gripes, with state representatives so this can be tabled at National meetings? Do some states do this ??

2. Are triallers being represented on an individual state basis at RAFT meetings, or does it come down to a consensus of opinion at voting time ?

3. I don't agree that any state in Australia should have more than one vote at the RAFT meetings. We all participate in the sport nationwide, so why should one body of triallers in one state have more say than another.

4. What does it take to act on the "cry" for a judges guide, or adjust the rule book to simplify interpretation of carrying out these rules. ?.

Kerry

[Gareth Tawton]

Everyone interested in seeing some adjustemnts to the rules needs to get of their back side and contact thier local state RAFT. If you feel your local RAFT is letting you down perhaps it would be worthwhile contacting Paul Littlejohn as he is the new National RAFT Chairmen. It is Pauls responsibilty to see that the desires of the majority of handlers is implimented.

In the case of a rule review we all need to remember several keys issues.

1. Any rules changes will be applied Nationally. Therefore the consequense of proposed changes need to be thought of on a national basis not just your own backyard.
2. If we are to have a judges guide who is appropriate to write such a guide and how would they be instructed as to its content? There is no point putting in submissions that are not nationally realistic and achievable. Submission would be better off if they included how they would be implemented.

Perhaps those people who are interested in making a submission, could make one to all states on behalf of the Web site users group so to speak.
Maybe, Jason could co ordinate something like this.

Does anyone have a lsit and contact details of the various state reps?

Gareth

[Kirsty Blair]

HI Everyone,

The NSW RAFT committee meeting will be on Wednesday 4th February, 7.30pm,at RNSW Canine Council grounds. Open to all trialers, this is your opportunity to put forward any recommendations for the rule review.

Kirsty

[Steve Hall]

Hi everybody
For all those competitors, and judges in Victoria interested in participating in the discussion on the Retrieving Trial Rules Review, there is a meeting scheduled on March 10th at the Showgrounds at 7.30 pm. Any person interested is invited to submit rule changes and include a rationale for the change so it is clear to everybody why you want the change to occur.

The timetable from the ANKC listed by Alan is correct and there is a lot of work to be done before the end of the year just to get each state submissions together and then analysed. Unfortunately the timetable did not come out to the VCA until 16th December 2003 hence the fact that there has not been much publicity until now.

The Vic. RAFT will be looking at all submission and then having another meeting for trialers to determine which changes they feel have merit and will improve our current rules. This ensures that when voting takes place the Victorian representative on the National RAFT will be voting on behalf of the Victorian trialing fraternity.

Margaret Hall - Vic. RAFT representative

[Jason Ferris]

Hi all

A quick reply to some of the ideas posted in this thread over the past few days...

Thanks to Alan for posting the timetable. I agree with others that we need to get on with the job now.

perhaps it would be worthwhile contacting Paul Littlejohn as he is the new National RAFT Chairmen. It is Pauls responsibilty to see that the desires of the majority of handlers is implimented

Paul it is becoming clear that some of the State/Territory RAFT's are far from functional. Do you have any thoughts on how to address this shortcoming to prevent it from impacting on the rule review?

2. Are triallers being represented on an individual state basis at RAFT meetings, or does it come down to a consensus of opinion at voting time ?

I'm also unclear on how this works. Can someone please clarify how the representation will work in deciding on proposed changes?

Jason has made the offer a few times previously to organise a closed section of this website which would enable such a committee (perhaps with representatives from each state) to work together on such a project.

I'm still happy to do this - just let me know who you want to have access I can make it happen.

Perhaps those people who are interested in making a submission, could make one to all states on behalf of the Web site users group so to speak. Maybe, Jason could co ordinate something like this.

I'd be happy to attempt this, but only if I was absolutely sure that the results would get taken seriously in the review phase. At present I doubt that would be possible as there would not be anyone to speak on behalf of the website group at the National RAFT.

Instead I would suggest that we use the bulletin board as a forum to discuss specific ideas on how the rules should be amended and the types of issues and process required for the judges guide. That way we can test if ideas are truly national and gauge support or opposition to them. We have a reasonable proportion of the trialling community represented here now and such discussion can only be a positive.

I did my own review of the rules on the weekend and came up with three types of suggested amendments: sustantive changes to the content of the rules; a heap of presentation issues (largely involving reorganisation of existing rules) and a few editorial changes. I think the focus should be on the substantive changes. I'd be happy to post my suggestions to stimulate discussion once I've finished typing them up and have drafted a rationale.

Does anyone have a list and contact details of the various state reps?

I posted a link to the ANKC RAFT membership page a while ago (http://www.ankc.aust.com/committees.html) but Paul Littlejohn made a comment in a later post that it was out of date. Can anyone clarify this?

And finally...

It would really help with the rule review if we had an electronic copy of the existing rules. Does anyone have one?

Cheers, Jason.

[Steve Hall]

Hi Jayson
Further to your summary, I would like to say that a forum for people to submit their ideas is great.
Unfortunately the process we currently have in place is controlled by the ANKC and your comments regarding the ANKC taking the group seriously is correct. That doesn't mean that the different state representatives cannot pick up on the discussion and submit those as suggested rule changes. If people on this bulletin put up suggestions that have merit and include a particular rationale for the change that everybody can understand then I don't see why it can't work to the benefit of all concerned. These people should also be sending in their proposed changes to their canine associations, even if their RAFT representatives are not organising anything.

As a Victorian RAFT representative my role is to represent the Victorian trialers which is why we are organising meetings and asking for submissions from Victorian trial fraternity.

The process in Victoria is as follows: VIC RAFT submits changes that have been suggested by their trial fraternity.
These are then sent to ANKC and then ALL submissions received by ANKC are sent to each state RAFT committee.
The RAFT committees look at those submissions and then take them back to members for discussion and decision making.
The RAFT committee then agrees on the voting procedure at the National RAFT meeting i.e. we agree to vote FOR or AGAINST any particular rule change on behalf of Victorian trialers.
The process is lengthy but if done correctly ensures that everybody has a say in the changes. It also means that whoever goes to the National RAFT meeting understands that they vote according to the decision of the state RAFT on the matter and they do not bring their own emotions into the process (this can be very hard sometimes). The Victorian National RAFT representative this year is Noel Eltringham.

One thing I would like to remind all trialers about is Rule 1 of the rule book and to make sure that we do not lose site of why Retrieving Trials were introduced in the first place.

Margaret Hall

[Prue Winkfield]

With the rules review underway, I think it is important that we differentiate between a judges' guide and the rules - it seems to me that a lot of the suggestions over the past months are really more suited to a judges' guide, Steve - what are the chances of getting a formal judges guide (also available to competitors) go through with the new rules - I suppose a sort of 'explanitory notes' in other contexts?

[Jason Ferris]

I couldn't agree more Prue. In reading through the rules on the weekend and cross referencing to the issues raised here, I came to the conclusion that the majority of issues are with the interpretation of the rules rather than the rules themselves.

Cheers, Jason.

PS - I think you meant to address your question to Margaret rather than Steve. Margaret was posting from Steve's account, we have fixed this now.

[Kerry Webster]

Thank you Margaret for explaining how the process is handled in Victoria. I have one query.........you say that the State RAFT committee there takes the suggestions that have been forwarded to it, to the members for discussion.

Does that mean that a meeting takes place for all triallers to attend and make comment on RAFT issues ?? Then, after a meeting the State RAFT make recommendations to their Nationals Rep to take to the National RAFT meeting ???

I am only asking, as in my eight years of trialling I have not been asked to give any input into any RAFT decision over here. I am not aware of there ever being a meeting to discuss any issues whatsoever. Obviously, our committee have done it all alone without member discussion.

New South Wales, it seems, are having a meeting of triallers shortly, so they can have their say. Are Queensland, S.A. and Tasmania following suit ?

Kerry

[Jason Ferris]

Hi Kerry

We are having a meeting in the ACT soon also, coordinated by Bob Tawton.

Cheers, Jason.