Rule Review

[Prue Winkfield]

For those of you who may not be aware, the GSP Club in Victoria run three retrieving trials a year. We, along with the other clubs who run trials, have been invited to make submissions to the rule change review. TheCommittee of the GSP Club at its meeting last night drafted a resolution proposing a rule change to allow non competing dogs to run in Beginners, Novice and Restricted once they have become ineligible to compete. This also proposes that the non competing dogs will count for the purposes of having enough numbers to run stakes which should help those states who are struggling. Will be interesting to see how it goes down with the peple here.

[Kate Eltringham]

Paul,

Being the painfully organised person that I can be I've been sitting here looking at the year planner. In my previous post I asked if it was possible to get a more definitive timetable in place for the rule changes and having looked at the year planner we could get ourselves into a spot of bother so as chair could you look at setting some dates for the July/August meeting

Reason being, work back from September:

September 3-5 National in Qld
August 28-29 Qld State
August 21-22 2 day trial in NSW, 4 run All Age in Victoria, SA State??

As you can see we are already back to August 15-16 and I think it is only reasonable that the ANKC reps who intend competing in Qld have the opportunity to run their dogs leading up to those events so when is it going to be feasible to have the rule change meeting.

Cheers

Kate

[Gareth Tawton]

Prue,

Great proposal from the GSP club. How do they envisage a non competing dog being considered a competing dog for entry purposes? In the states with low entry numbers this could lead to a situation of say 10 non competing dogs and one competing entry. The competing entry could then win the trial against no one so to speak. Perhaps the rule change should include that a minimum of 4 fully competing entries must be included in order for the trial to count towards a RRD win.

Gareth

[Prue Winkfield]

Hi Gareth - you raised points that Jason had discussed and I think you would have to have at least 4 competing dogs. Another point raised - would the judges be expected to judge the non competing dogs? Teresa P is down here and we discussed this last night. We thought that if the non-competing dogs were judged and given marks, one way or another it would be used to 'discredit' the achievement of the winning competing dog. (One would assume that the non-competing dogs should be the higher scorer most of the time). So, I would think the dogs are not marked. It has been suggested that they run at the tail of the field but I think they should run in draw order with the judges being advised which numbers are non-competing. (As a judge what do you think of that?) . This way everyone benefits from watching all dogs compete - with more novice handlers having the opportnity of learning from the more experienced handlers. Next question - who would bother entering if they were not makrked or receive a prize. Our view would be that it is the people who seriously want to give their dogs more experience at that level before moving up and a few people who might come for the social - fun side - especially in support of their Club when it is putting on a trial. We (GSP Committee) want these entries to pay the same amount as everyone else. Prue

[Gareth Tawton]

Prue,

I agree we need at least 4 competing dogs. The question for states with smaller fields is how do we get those 4 dogs. In the last couple of years the ACT and NSW has had to cancel several Rest because of lack of entries. How about a compromise. 5 wins in restricted with 3 wins for RRD before you either have to advance or become non competing. Non competing are just that and therfore the current minimum entry requiremenst would stand. This would raise the standard off restricted winners a little thru 2 extra trials but not make it rediculous. But, at the sametime allow digs to stay in restricted competing that little bit longer giving the chance of larger fields. We would still allow non competing dogs to stay as long as long as they want.

I think if Non Competing dogs pay full entry (I think they should) then they should recieve full service. Judge properly run in order etc etc. Just because they are judged and scored does not mean this would be recognized at presentations. It does allow for a competitor or non competitor if you like, to approach the judged afterwards for some feedback and advice. If they are not scored the judge has no paperwork to quote from. As a judge I woudn't mind judging non competing dogs.

Gareth

[Glenice McClure]

Hi Gareth - just noting one of your comments "as a Judge I wouldn't mind judging non-competing dogs". Would like to ask the question - if you were a competing handler, how would you feel about sitting around in the teeming rain or searing heat waiting for non competing dogs to have a run. Do you not think it unfair on the official competing handlers/dogs?.
It would make the day an extra couple of hours longer for these handlers and their dogs. Do you think it is fair to ask stewards to work an extra couple of hours a day, knowing how hard it is to get workers for trials.
I believe that if we wish to go ahead with non competing dogs being able to run on in restricted after they have qualified for their RRD then separate events should be run for them and call them Restricted Competition. These handlers could also take it in turns to work the machines, gun steward etc for each other. Alternatively, allow them to run after the competing dogs, again stewarding for each other.
Because each State conducts their events in a different manner it will be very difficult to come to agree to a system that will benefit everybody.

[Kirsty Blair]

Hi Glenice,

Here in NSW non-competing handlers in Restricted contribute enormously to the pool of helpers in that stake. We are not fortunate enough to have many helpers who just come along to help for the day. Our trials are run by handlers alternating between running their dog, stewarding and throwing birds.

When there are only 4 or 5 dogs running in the stake it is invaluable to have additional help. The non-competing handlers ARE those hard working stewards that are so hard to come by.

Personally, I am more than happy to wait a little bit longer for the stake to finish so that these non-competing trialers have opportunity to run their dogs. These same people are the ones who have sat out on the thrower in the teeming rain or seering heat so that I can run mine.

Kirsty

[Prue Winkfield]

Gareth - you must remember that the GSP Club is representing its members in Victoria. Have done a bit of a canvass and no one thinks you should be allowed to win more than 3 to get RRD. If you could win 5 - that would still make it much harder for people to get their RRD. I think if other states wish to put this up they can. In Vic we have plenty of restricted dogs and the standard is high most years. I still have a problem with the judge marking the non competing dogs because people are always going to boast about their dog and it would take away from the winning competing dog - in my view.

Glenice - I don't believe the numbers would increase out of hand. In the circumstances, and we are talking Novice as well as Restricted, it would be only a few really keen people who would want to enter and pay just for the expereience and nothing else. Prue

[Gareth Tawton]

Glenice,

Personally it woudn't bother me at all to do what was is required to allow non competing dogs as I figure I'm out for the day no matter what. Having said that I see your point and agree. I personally woudn't have non competing dogs but increase the number of restricted wins a dog can have before being forced to AA. This would remove all the downfalls already mentioned by you and others of non competing dogs.

Unlike Prue I don't think the standard of restricted is high enough in most states including Victoria. Especailly when you compare it to the standard of all age. It is very rare that a dog wins 3 restricteds and even finishes their first couple of all ages.

It is all well and good for both clubs and individuals to only represent their own personal needs and desires as Prue suggests the GSP club is doing. However if we all take a personal view and not one of common good for all states then no changes will ever be made. No agreement will ever be reached. It may be that some compromise by all parties is the only way we will get any change for the good in our sport. As a result of these thoughts I am prepared to compromise to some extent in an attempt to get a better system on average for all the country. As I have already said my preferred option would be an increase in Restricted wins to somewhere between 7 and 10. Even if it does make it harder for Prue to get her RRD

Gareth

[Peter Betteridge]

Prue
no one to my knowledge on this bulletin board has ever suggested that the number of wins be increased to acheive a RRD.It seems to me that the discussion has centred around making awards performance based or increasing the number of restricted wins to 10 or more.I personally feel that unlimited access should be allowed to restricted stakes with dogs only disqualifing themselves by placing in a higher stake.
prue ,I feel that your fears are misplaced.No all age handler with a reasonable dog is going to stay in restricted for any extended period.RRD's mean nothing to all age handlers.Both my last two old dogs were in all age after 1 or 2 restricted wins.I dont believe that there is any prestige felt by all age handlers in winning restricted.As Gareth has stated, most AA handlers wont that RTCH and dont even apply for NRD;s or RRds.I know I didnt.I think you will find that if an AA handler is running his dog in restricted it is because his dog is not yet capable of AA work.In NSW we lose many people thru pushing them up into all age when they may have a dog that will never be competitive.I beleive that your fear that somehow all age handlers are going to remain in restricted and stop other people from gaining titles is groundless.
Prue ,I do agree with you that all dogs should be competing
regards peter

[Kirsty Blair]

Hi Peter and all,

I initially also thought that Prue had misunderstood and that she must believe that the requirement for RRD would be increased to 5 wins. Looking at her post closer I think she is saying that dogs will be prevented from gaining their three wins because very competitive dogs are going to stay in restricted until they have 5 wins (thus taking the first places that would have otherwise gone to untitled dogs).

I think 5 wins is a good compromise because it prevents dogs dominating the stake for a whole season or two (which could happen with a 10 win limit) whilst still increasing standard of competition in Restricted. I don't believe that just because a dog has three wins in Restricted it is unbeatable in that stake. Therefore, there's no reason why a well trained, untitled dog won't be able to beat a titled dog who is staying on for the extra two wins.

I also believe that anything that helps to increase the standard of dogs over time is a good thing. I'd prefer the standard to increase because of healthy competition rather than frustrated judges putting on inappropriately difficult runs .

I find it interesting that there's so much debate about forcing non-titled dogs to compete against titled dogs when its commonly accepted in All Age. In All Age it can be a matter of waiting for years until a particularly consistent winner retires - I don't think an extra two wins is much to ask of Restricted.

Kirsty

[Maureen Cooper]

In NSW and ACT, as Gareth has pointed out, we struggle to have a Restricted Stake and having gained three wins over a year ago, I have got to the second run in All Age once!! Both I and my dog are somewhat disillusioned! I have run non-competing and several times have been well and truly beaten so as Kirsty points out, a three win dog does not mean it will still win. I think that 3 wins for the RRD and then continuing for 5 wins would be a good benchmark as those experienced handlers who aspire to All Age will probably not hang around anyway as Peter says.

I think folks reading do not realise that in the States mentioned, Novice and Restricted are judged by the same judge,usually. The judge will select a run for Novice and then add another mark, two bird,double rise, blind etc for Restricted. This means the Novice handlers are there to help at Rest. and also get an idea of what is required at Restricted level and then Rest. handlers help at Novice. Yes, it also means one cannot enter in both Stakes with the same dog. The Novice run is done first.

I am just wondering, does the idea of being allowed to run non-competing even come into the rule book, can clubs have their own criteria? I think being allowed to win up to 5 Restricteds with the RRD granted at 3 wins would have to go into the rule book but non-competing?? I do think ALL dogs should be scored, it is helpful to a new judge as 'practise' but also it lets you know what the judge thought of your dog's work.

Jason, a friend got into strife several years with the 'wins/placing in higher classes' when she applied for, and received, her RRD with a second in All Age. She was later told by a prominent judge that only a win in the higher Stakes merited the titles and the 'placing' (Note no 's') referred to a second in a Championship which of course, gave one 6 points towards the RT Ch. Our Canine Council staff are not always fully aware of the criteria required and so if you apply, they assume you are correct.

TTFN
Maureen

[Prue Winkfield]

Gareth and others - what the GSP Club is putting up is the committee's view - not my personal view. We do not have another meeting before the rule changes have to be put in. I can not change what the committee has agreed to. Before it all gets more personal - I think the Victorian Retriever community are grateful that a non retrieving club puts on so many trials and am sure recognises their right to represent their members. For the record - I have never had any problem getting RRD with my dogs - and my 'personal' desire is to be able to run in Restricted for ever!

My understanding is that each state puts up its own requirements and then it is hammered out at National RAFT level. Gareth - you are a judge and a prominant member of the retrieving fraternity - why can't you put in a submission for NSW and ACT? It then can be voted on and I am sure a compromose reached. If I was to put up a personal submission (which I may or may not) it would be to make gaining a place in a higher stake putting you out of the lower stake - ie a place in Restricted - out of Novice - a place in AA out of Restricted. I very much doubt that would get up in Victoria. If we had that in place, everything else would be academic! NSW may be different but there are numerous examples here of AA handlers with dogs that have been placed in AA running dogs in Restricted as well and on the same day - some in Novice also! Novice judges are forever waiting for dogs to come back from other stakes to finish their Novice runs. Prue

[Kirsty Blair]

Has a date been set for the National RAFT meeting regarding the rule review?

Apologies if this information has already been provided but I couldn't find it after a quick search.

Many thanks
Kirsty