Rule Review

[Alan Donovan]

Hi Kerry

In Queensland we have contacted all Retrieving judges and members of the gundog clubs inviting them to submit proposals for the Rule Review, and attend a meeting with our RAFT Sub Committee on March 9th to confirm the Queensland proposals. The Queensland position on the proposals from other states will be decided at a similar meeting in June.

This procedure was also adopted 5 years ago at the last review - basically anyone can have their say.

Cheers

Alan Donovan (Secretary of the Qld RAFT)

[Margaret Hall]

In reply to Kerry. The Victorian RAFT will be having a further meeting later in the year for all intersted people to attend that looks at and discuses the submissions recieved from ALL states.
The whole idea is to get a concensious from all the trialing fraternity in relation to the rules review.

This may not happen in other states, if not then that is up to the state concerned and the competitor in that state to lobby their delegates on RAFT.
In Victoria we are elected onto the RAFT committee to represent the trialers and make decisions on their behalf, not sure if this happens in every state.

Other RAFT matters are determine by at bi-monthly meetings, and it is up to interested trialers to attend those meetings or to put their point of view to the delgates on the RAFT so their input is heard. Anybody can write to RAFT and their letter would be on the agenda at the meeting.
Important matters like rule changes usually involve meetings of trialers.

Margaret Hall

[Kate Eltringham]

Hi Kerry,

I can't answer for what will happen in SA this rule review, but the last one involved all triallers and numerous meetings were held to discuss SA's proposals, proposals received from interstate organisations and finally it was decided at a meeting of the trialers how our representative was to vote on the proposals at the ANKC meeting.

We have found this year that due to the timetable for the changes being received during Christmas/New Year the meetings are being arranged with much haste to allow our trialers input. Having said that I know that a number of trialers have already been discussing issues for discussion at our first meeting.

We are very fortunate in Victoria that our retrieving RAFT members are (the majority that is) all very active in the trialling scene over here, judging, stewarding and to my mind most importantly running dogs in trials.

Hopefully, even with the rushed timetable we will have given all of the trialers an opportunity to have input into this rule change review as it would be a pity to hear, as was the case after the last rule change, so many trialers not happy with what had occurred.

Anyway, it's getting late over here and it's time for bed where I can listen to the rain on the roof - yes it's raining in metropolitan Melbourne

Kate

[Joe Law]

Last night I attended a meeting called by the NSW RAFT to discuss the National Championship to be hosted by NSW in 2005. The meeting for Rule Review is scheduled for next Wednesday 4th February. It became fairly obvious last night that for the most part our NSW RAFT and several of our judges are currently oblivious to the discussions that have been taking place on this website. I have emailed the control today with a suggestion that the chairman of the Rule Change meeting might do well to visit this website and have a good read before next Wednesday's meeting. Unfortunately, our chairman is not a trialer and does not attend trials, but I feel is doing his best to help us in our moment of need.

[Gareth Tawton]

Hi everyone,

Following is a rough (and I mean very rough) outline of some of the rule changes I think would be worth pursuing.

1. Define a relocation in the rule book. Then, limit its use to All Age and Championship events only.
Limit the distance a competitor can be relocated to 20 meters. Also that the handlers view of the run can not be markedly different to that he/she would have had at the original firing point. This should prevent some of the rediculous relocations we have had in the last couple of years where handlers are put in a hole to stop them from helping their dog or relocated massive distance so that the dogs has no idea of what he is to pick up.

2. Have the pick up order of all multiple retrieves THAT HAVE BIRDS ON LINE to be at the handlers discretion. ie the handler can choose to pick the front or back bird up first not the judge demand the back bird. Game is to be considered inline if there is less than 11 degress of seperation between lines. In practical terms this means at 50 meters the birds will be 10 meters apart . At 100 meters they will be 20 meters apart and at 150m they will bve 30m apart. These distance have been tested in training and seem to be quite workable and fair. Also, no diversionary birds can be placed or cast "on line".

3. Allow competitors to continue to run in Restricted for 10 wins. RRD will still to be awarded after 3 wins. This will allow those wanting to stay in Restricted longer to gain more experienc to do so. At the same time it doesn't prevent those who wish to proceed to All Age at and ealier stage from choosing this course of action. Any dog placed 1st 2nd or 3rd in all age or a championship would be no longer eligible to run in Restricted. I would expect this will strengthen the standard in Restricted without hindrering those pushing for higher honours in all age.

4. Introducing the concept of an All Age Retriever dog. Although the actual requirments are still hotly debated, something along the lines of completing 10 All Ages with at least 1 placing 1st, 2nd or 3rd seems reasonable.

When I have finshed the final draft of these I will post it as well.

This is just some food for thought I suppose.

Gareth

[Paul Littlejohn]

Hi All,

Let me start with a suggestion, we have 4 disciplines that are discussed over a five year period, this year is retrrieving, what do we do on the the 5th year? nothing only loose continuity with what has gone before.
why not make that the year for judges discussions, rather that try a bundle every thing into a time frame that doesn't fit.

I have asked this question before at ANKC meetings and got no support.

We loose that year and everything changes and we have to fight to get back. Look at when we lost our face to face meetings.

I still see that there appears to be a problem with communication from the member bodies to their State RAFT. Tassy has a system in place that within 7 days of any business relative to a field discipline arriving at the office it is to be forwarded to the Raft secretary.

This cannot be happening everywhere as Bob Tawton E mailed on the 25th thinking everything had to be done by May, he is the ACT member to the National RAFT ??????

I believe that this forum is good but I must still think of members who do not have access to the system.

The reply from Margaret HALL was very good but how many states give THEIR delegates the right to have a conscious vote as well as a deliberate vote.every state has the right to change the delegates vote within a time frame after the National RAFT meeting

How many trialler no the voting rights. NSW VIC QLD votes count as 2 while all the other states count as one, but there are some little twist in this as well. This is a ANKC voting procedure not a RAFT one and we have tried to change it but no go.

In all reviews there are always discussions that do not get passed and some people get upset but that is the society we live in Democratic so I ill attempt to assist and answer questions but please be aware that the final outcome comes to State delegates agreeing.

Paul

[Gareth Tawton]

Paul,

Putting changes off to another year just seems much of the same of past history. There seems to be a common thread that competitors around the country aren't happy with past history. So why not get the rule changes happening and have national raft appoint an independent sub committee to develop a judges guide that is recognized within the frame work of the rules.

Gareth

[Kate Eltringham]

Paul,

With regards to the timetable could you please advise/assist on the following.

The time table I have seen refers to the various months for completion of submissions etc i.e.

March - Drafting completed by State Retrieving and Field Trial Committee for submission to ANKC administrator

April - ANKC administrator to distribute all submissions to Member Bodies

and so it continues until January 1 2005 - Effective date. No where else in the time table are there any dates for us to work from how can we effectively arrange meetings and distribution without this information . I hate to think when in April we'll get paperwork considering there are fewer working days due to Easter and the Anzac long weekend. We all know how much paperwork gets lost/mislaid in the offices of the organisations that we deal with so if we have a difinitive timetable those involved can follow things up.

Another alternative is to have a co-ordinator independent of the ANKC and member bodies to have the timetable and ensure that all organisations follow it and distribute the paperwork well within the time frames.

You say in your comments that delegates can after the meeting (I'm taking this to mean that the rule changes will be discussed face to face) return to their states to discuss/advise if they changed their vote from how they were instructed - there does not appear to have been made an allowance for this in the "timetable" nor is there any mention of the amendments as voted on being forwarded to the delegates for comfirmation that they are correct before the ANKC ratification.

Cheers

Kate

[Prue Winkfield]

Gareth - just to comment on Restricted: If dogs can win ten Restricted stakes, it means it will become even harder for anyone who is not an established AA handler to get an RRD. Suggest that competitors can run in Restricted as non-competing dogs once they have their RRD until they get placed in AA or Championship. You must remember that places and wins contribute to Club awards which many people, especially breeders, covet. In Vic we currently have large restricted fields so don't know what the judges would think of this either. I would also like to see a place in AA eliminating a dog from running in Novice (at the moment don't think it does). Agree with you re Novice - should be straight forward retrieves - none of this angle entries into water to encourage dogs to run the banks either!

[Prue Winkfield]

Forgot to say - agree with concept of All Age Dog but think just completing 10 AAs would be more than enough. Lets face it - if a dog can get placed in AA, it normally ends up winning if the handler keeps going!

[Paul Littlejohn]

Hi,

First Kate,

Very true there has been a three and half month window left from the time the states receive all info from every where to discuss matters raised and inform the delegates on how to vote. No date has been set for the actual meeting as without the full agenda it would and still could become a nightmare. If we can not get a face to face then the whole agenda must be discussed with 90 minutes on a phone hook up,

From some of the comments we are the little people, the ANKC is made up from the show faternity and I need say no more but we loose our effectivness as a voice when every thing is to come from the member bodies but the ANKC has set there proceedure up that way.

Gareth,

I agree but let us look at what is being talked about, to call a meeting to have a sub committee formed would be knocked on the head before we started the member bodies would not agree to the costing aspect.

That leaves the RAFT conference to discuss this matter and then set up a panel, what criteria? This is done and then the ball starts rolling if any guidlines are agreed to it comes back to the next RAFT meeting so states can vote on it. Is 2005 not the vacant year so without something put into place we could very easily be drawn out to 2006 not implimented to Jan 2007. I hear what you are saying, but I can only call meetings if the President of the ANKC and member bodies agree and I do not believe that this is a possibilty.

A while ago I mentioned the ability to hold a face to face I hope this is still in every one thoughts or we could very easily be pushed to rush this to meet the 90 minutes pohone time.

PS By the way the time table has not really changed that much since it was set up some 8 years ago only member bodies have not pushed the matter to RAFT so that action can be forth comming. Every state should have been aware that 2004 was the year for the review of Retrieving Rules.

Paul

[Gareth Tawton]

Paul,

Sorry, I just can't agree. In todays day and age the basics of a judges guide could all be done via email at no cost to the member bodies. The judges guide would then need to be formally recognised in the current rule changes in order to give it some teeth and printed as an addition to the existing rules.

National RAFT thru either a request via one of the states or of its own bat could easily commision a sub committee to develop the judges guide. The basis for this guide has already been developed in QLD and this could be further enhanced to make a truly national guide. After submitting the guide to National RAFT each state RAFT would simply need to gain on endorsement or disemdorsement of the guide from their members.

It is not practical to have every part of a guide picked t pieces by everyone as we will never agree on every thing. That is the very reason for having a guide developed by a suitable sub committee and put to the members as a simple yes or no.

This subcommittee would need to be made of experianced judges/handlers with the neccessary computer skills to allow this to be all done electronically. Additionl memebes with a more advanced command of the english language (for appropriate wordin) and advanced computer skill (for appropriate layout) would also be highly desirable.

I think as National Chair you should be seeing how we can get this done NOW instead of why we should put it off.

As a past president of the Drycleaning Institue of Australia we used this very method to gain the acceptance of a National Safe Handling of Drycleaning Solvent guide recognised by all the states and territories various EPA's and Occupational Health and Saftey regulations.. I'm quite sure we could use it for a retrieving judges guide.

Gareth

[Paul Littlejohn]

Gareth.

I totally agree, but it has been interesting to see the replies and how long it has taken, I hope that some state puts forward these quidelines so they can be implimented within the current rule review and the sub commitee formed to finalise everything.

I was not talking about retrieving when I mentioned the fifth year, I would like to see the same for all 4 disciplines and that discussed on the fifth year, that should work well for retrieving as if any teething problems could be fixed very quickly.

This medium is a good place to start, and I will support any open discussion and democratic proceddure on this important matter.


Paul

[Gail Phoenix]

SA had a rule change meeting on 4th Feb to which all triallers are able to attend. There wasn't enough advertising of the meeting & not everyone knew about it. Those that attended all put forward ideas for changes & have to write out their proposed rule change & rationale for the change.
Another meeting is to follow shortly to discuss these ideas. Hopefully more members will be aware of when it is to occur & hence more input from a larger percentage of triallers.
Few of the people attending read this forum, so I filled them in on some of the threads being discussed.
Re staying in restricted after placing in All Age. In a small state such as SA, with 4 or 5 entries,we can gain a place or win quite easily if we complete the 3 stakes,as opposed to states with large trial entry numbers. Those of you who have seen Lotti (GSP) & I compete know we have a long way to go to be competitive interstate. With the lack of experienced handlers to help us, we would benefit greatly from staying in Restricted.
Should I be penalised for completing 3 runs? Should I nobble Lotti so we don't finish & we can stay in restricted?
Prue, I would not be staying in restricted to win awards but to try & improve & keep up my dog's confidence. Bombing out first run most trials isn't good for "novice" AA handlers.
In Obedience trials one can stay in open forever if they wish. No one complains about titled dogs beating them. Keeps you in the trial arena whilst you are training for Utility. If you like you don't have to go on to Utility.
Some handlers & dogs are not going to ever make the grade in AA for many reasons as stated previously in this forum.
Should they have to leave the sport? All other sports I have competed in have the ability for you to play at the level to which you are able to achieve.
lotti & I may have to turn our hand to Agility or flyball but would miss retrieving terribly

[Kirsty Blair]

Hi Gail,

Just one point regarding your comparison between trialling in a Restricted Retrieving Stake and trialling in Open Obedience. Don't forget that obedience titles are given out on the basis of achieving a pass mark - not winning the class. Of course, lots of triallers are happy for people to stay in Open forever as it doesn't infringe on their dog's ability to gain its title. This is the opposite case for Retrieving Trials. For this reason, I think its important we don't allow dogs to stay in Restricted for an unlimited amount of wins. I think if your dog has won Restricted 5 or 10 times it should be more than ready to move onto AA work.

Regards
Kirsty