Suggested amendments to the Rules

For discussion on anything retrieving related - trialing, training equipment, news, etc.

Moderator: Peter Butterfield

Postby Kate Eltringham » Tue 16 Mar 2004 5:55 pm

Prue,

For your info there were 24 people in attendance on the night of the rule change discussions. Of the 24, 19 were trialers of which 8 of those are judges who actively compete in retrieving and 2 additional trialers who are currently marking sheets at trials etc.

One wonders where we as a country would be if changes had not been made to the Australian Constitution since Federation :!:

Kate
Kate Eltringham
 
Posts: 471
Joined: Tue 25 Nov 2003 5:15 pm
Location: Melbourne

Postby Prue Winkfield » Wed 17 Mar 2004 8:23 am

Thanks for clarifying that Kate - please can we have the changes that were supported - if not, why not? SA put forward those and I think it would be of interest to everyone here to see what all the States submit unless it is supposed to be secret? Perhaps someone on RAFT can clarify this?
Prue Winkfield
 
Posts: 705
Joined: Fri 14 Feb 2003 9:17 am
Location: victoria

Re: pauline's post

Postby Jason Ferris » Wed 17 Mar 2004 11:13 am

Hi Peter

Just a couple of responses to points you raised in your post...

Peter Betteridge wrote:I believe that you are being a little harsh in your appraisal of pauline's post.

You may be right Peter. I was just very dissappointed to have such a negative post after more than 1200 positive and constructive ones.

Peter Betteridge wrote:I believe that she is intitled to her opinion

I could not agree more. I have no problem with anyone suggesting that changes to the rules are unecessary or that my suggestions were not on the right track. I was however concerned with the way that Pauline chose to express her opinion.

Peter Betteridge wrote:I believe heated debate is healthy for the sport.Gareth and I totally disagree on the subject of exotic game. It is a heated but amicable debate that gets people thinking about retriever related issues.

I agree on this point also. As you know, part of the reason I offered to do this job was to encourage communication and debate about retrieving - particularly across states. Your example of the exotic game debate is a good one - it has been quite heated yet still constructive.

Cheers, Jason.
Jason Ferris
Board Admin
 
Posts: 989
Joined: Mon 05 May 2003 1:04 pm
Location: Canberra region, New South Wales

Postby Jason Ferris » Wed 17 Mar 2004 11:18 am

Prue Winkfield wrote:...please can we have the changes that were supported - if not, why not? SA put forward those and I think it would be of interest to everyone here to see what all the States submit unless it is supposed to be secret?


This is an excellent suggestion Prue - it will encourage people to think about them and hopefully make the RAFT's consideration of the consolidated list easier.

The ACT meeting agreed that we would post our proposed rule changes also. We are currently working on presentation of them and hope to post them soon.

Cheers, Jason.
Jason Ferris
Board Admin
 
Posts: 989
Joined: Mon 05 May 2003 1:04 pm
Location: Canberra region, New South Wales

RAFT committee NSW - rule change suggestions

Postby hcornelius » Fri 26 Mar 2004 1:50 pm

Rules for the conduct of Retrieving Trials for Gundogs
2004 amendments proposed by RNSWCC RAFT committee
24 February, 2004
Rule 4
Current rule:
Directives of a Member Body shall apply to a Retrieving Trial in that State/Territory and to any affiliate conducting Retrieving Trials, with the exception of National Trials, and in the event of any inconsistency the Rules of the ANKC shall apply.
At a National Retrieving Trial Championship the only Rule that shall apply are the Rules for the conduct of Retrieving Trials as approved by the ANKC.
Proposed Rule
Directives of a Member Body shall apply to any affiliate conducting a Retrieving Trial in that state or territory. The rules of the ANKC shall govern the conduct of all trials in that state or territory. The rules of the ANKC shall include or embody those rules that Member Bodies of the ANKC may wish to include from time to time. Such rules shall apply to that State or Territory only.
Only ANKC rules applicable to all States and Territories shall apply at a National Retrieving Trial Championship.
Rationale:
Local rules should be debated by the ANKC and if agreed to, should be included in the booklet under a heading for that State so that interstate visitors have the opportunity to know what will be required of them when they complete in that state. For example, in WA bitches in season are allowed to compete. Competitors from interstate need to know this.

Rule 6
Current Rule
The Shooting and Game Laws of each State or Territory must be observed and will govern the conduct of all Trials in conjunction with the Rules and Regulations of each State or Territory Member Body.
Proposed Rule
The Shooting, Game Laws and Firearms Legislation of each State or Territory must be observed and will govern the conduct of all Trials in conjunction with the Rules and Regulations of each State or Territory Member Body as approved by the ANKC.
Rationale
This brings the rule up-to-date with current names of relevant legislation and the proposed changes in Rule 4.

Rule 8
Current Rule
Single Mark Retrieve shall be a retrieve where only one object of game is cast and is to be retrieved.
Proposed Rule
Single Mark Retrieve shall be a retrieve where only one object of game is cast and is to be retrieved,
and as further defined in Rule 24.
Rationale
The rules of what constitutes a mark need to be very well defined. At the moment the Rule Book splits the definition, with the danger that aspects of the definition as laid out in Rule 24 may be overlooked. This will also provide for greater clarity for new triallers.

Rule 9
Current Rule
A walk-Up Retrieve is one where the dog is walking at heel, the game is cast and shot at. Immediately the handers pauses to fire, the dog shall sit, drop or stand steady until orders by the handler to retrieve. A walk up is not permitted in a Novice or Puppy Stake or a Beginners Test.
Proposed Rule
A walk-Up Retrieve is one where the dog is walking at heel, the game is cast and shot at. Immediately the handers pauses to fire, the dog shall sit, drop or stand steady until orders by the handler to retrieve. A walk up is not permitted in a Puppy Stake or a Beginners Test. A walk-up is permitted in a Novice Stake provided the bird rises and falls generally straight in front of the dog and handler’s prescribed walking track.
Rationale
At present there is a major jump in the work required of a dog moving from Novice to Restricted. This rule change would smooth the transition a little and provide an interesting extra option in a Novice stake that most Novice dogs who have undergone their training well can be quite successful at.

Rule 13
Current Rule
A Double Blind Retrieve. The game will be located as in a double mark, with the game being placed so that the dog cannot sight them.
Proposed Rule
A Double Blind Retrieve. Two pieces of game will be placed so that the dog cannot sight them. The two birds shall be cast or placed so that they are not in line with the point from which the dog leaves to retrieve them. The angle of separation shall be at least ten (10) degrees in an All Age Stake and forty five (45) degrees in a Restricted Stake.
Rationale
The distances and lines that are acceptable for Double marks are not the same for Double Blinds. We believe a certain minimum separation needs to be defined so that two blinds cannot effectively be in line. This separation needs to be considerably wider in Restricted so the dog is being asked to look in a substantially different direction for each blind.

Rule 26
Current Rule
On Marked Retrieves, where more than one bird is to be retrieved, the order may be specified by the judge and may be considered a test of control, i.e. a handling test.


Proposed Rule
On Marked Retrieves, where more than one bird is to be retrieved, the order may be specified by the judge. The handler is permitted to indicate clearly to the dog which bird it is being sent for. However, further handling will be penalised accordingly.
Rationale
Multiple marked retrieves should not be treated by the handler as though you were retrieving multiple blinds, but the rule as it stands now could seem to imply this. The present wording is open to misinterpretation.

Rule 31
Current Rule
No more than two (2) retrieves judged by the same judge may be run jointly.
Proposed Rule
No more than two (2) retrieves judged by the same judge may be run jointly. No more than four (4) items of game may be retrieved in total.
Rationale
If two runs are run back to back for each dog there is danger of excessive fatigue and stress on the dog unless the number of items retrieved is limited.

Rule 34
Current Rule
Novice Stake is a stake confined to Gundogs that have not won any stake other than two (2) Novice Stakes, Puppy Stakes and ‘Beginners’ Tests excluded. A “Walk up” is not permitted in a Novice or Puppy Stake or Beginners’ Test.
Proposed Rule
Novice Stake is a stake confined to Gundogs that have not. won three (3) Novice Stakes (Puppy Stakes and Beginners’ Tests excluded). A “Walk up” is permitted in a Novice Stake as per Rule 9.
Rationale
The changes in the 1st sentence are to make the eligibility requirements clearer. The second sentence is changed to align the Rule Book with our proposed change to Rule 9. Puppy stakes are defined in Rule 32 where it is implied that a walk up is not included.

Rule 35
Current Rule
Derby Stake is a stake confined to all Gundogs six (6) months of age and not exceeding two (2) years at the date of the event.
Note: Work for Derby Stakes must not include blind finds. Work for Novice and Puppy stakes must be single-marked retrieves, and importance must be placed on arranging runs with clear marking. All events shall be restricted to dogs six (6) months or over.
Proposed Rule
Derby Stake is a stake confined to all Gundogs over six (6) months of age. It is a test of marking.
Note: Work for Derby Stakes must not include blind finds or double rises. Importance must be placed on arranging runs with clear marking.
Rationale
To permit dogs to run in a Derby stake at any age over 6 months. To define more clearly the nature of a Derby stake. To delete reference to Novice and Puppy stakes under this heading. In any case the Novice stake would, if our recommendations are accepted, include a walk up. The rule of single marked retrieves for Puppy stakes is already included in Rule 32. The last sentence has been removed to avoid repetition.

Rule 36
Current Rule
Restricted Stake is a stake confined to Gundogs that have not won three (3) Restricted stakes or an All Age Stake or been placed first or second in a Championship Stake.
Proposed Rule
Restricted Stake is a stake confined to Gundogs that have not won three (3) Restricted stakes or an All Age Stake or been placed first or second in a Championship Stake.
At least one blind shall be included in a Restricted Stake. A blind should preferably be picked up after, rather than before, a mark, double rise or a two-bird retrieve. Where a blind is to be retrieved 1st the angle of separation shall be at least 90 degrees.
Rationale
To introduced the dog to the concept of a blind without the added difficulty of running past or close to other game. Angles less than 90 degrees do not make it possible to take the dog’s eyes right away from where the mark fell.

Rules 46-47-48- 49-50 Water Tests
Current rules
46. A Water Test shall consist of two (2) retrieves, one (1) to be from water and one (1) across water and both to be single-marked retrieves.
47. Novice Water Test is a test for dogs which have not won any Water Test or Retrieving Trial Stake or been placed first or second in a Retrieving Trial Championship Stake (Beginners’ Test excluded).
48. Restricted Water Test is a test for dogs which have not won an All Age Water test or an All Age Stake Retrieving Trial or have been place first or second in a Championship Stake Retrieving Trial.
49 All Age Water Test is a test for dogs without restriction to age or previous performance, except that Retrieving Trial Champions cannot compete.
50. Any Judge holding a Novice Licence or higher shall be eligible to judge any Water Test.
Proposed
Delete Rules 46-50 inclusive.
Rationale
This would bring this rule book in line with alterations to other field trial rules, and eliminate irrelevant material from the Rule Book.

Rule 59
Current Rule
The course over which a stake shall be run shall be selected by the Judge and where possible, two (2) members of the Trial Committee conducting the Trial. Such Committee members shall be appointed at a Trial Committee meeting preceding the Trial and shall be members who are not competing in the particular stake for which they have selected the runs.
Proposed Rule
The course over which a stake shall be run shall be selected by the Judge and where possible, two (2) members of the Trial Committee conducting the Trial. Such Committee members shall be appointed at a Trial Committee meeting preceding the Trial and shall be members who are not competing in the particular stake for which they have selected the runs.
The judge shall select his/her own runs. The committee has the right to intervene only if the selected runs contravene the ANKC rules or the dogs’ safety is in serious question.
Rationale
The Judge should in general principle be allowed to select his/her own runs, with the safety factor of a committee’s veto for a serious problem.

Rule 62
Current Rule
Should two (2) members of the Trial Committee entrusted with the management of the trial, after consultation with the Judge, consider any dog is unfit to compete by reason of sexual causes or any other causes which interfere with the safety or chance of winning of his opponents, such a dog shall be removed immediately from the ground..
Proposed Rule
Should two (2) members of the Trial Committee entrusted with the management of the trial, after consultation with the Judge, consider any dog is unfit to compete by reason of sexual causes or any tother causes which interfere with the safety or chance of winning of his opponents, such a dog shall be removed immediately from all competing areas.
Rationale
This would allow a competitor having another dog to participate while his/her animal in season can be confined elsewhere, in a trailer or away from competing areas, for example.

Rule 63
Current Rule
In each run of a stake a dog may be handled by either its owner or a handler approved by the Stewards, but it must be one or the other. When dogs are working, an owner may not interfere with his dog if another person has been deputised to handle it.
Proposed Rule
In each run of a stake a dog may be handled by either its owner or a handler approved by the Stewards, but it must be one or the other. When dogs are working, an owner must not interfere with his dog if another person has been deputised to handle it.

Rationale
This clarifies the intent of the rule. i.e. The owner cannot interfer with the dog while someone else is handling it, as this constitutes double handling.


Rule 80
Current Rule
The Game Steward shall when directed by the judge, cast the game in the area and in such manner as previously directed by the Judge, and where applicable from a position out of sight of the handler and in a way that does not distract the dog.
Proposed Rule
The Game Steward shall when directed by the judge, cast the game in the area and in such manner as previously directed by the Judge, and where applicable from a position out of sight of the handler and in a way that does not distract the dog.
Insofar as possible, where UHF radios are in use to set up a run, no communication between the Judge and the stewards shall take place via the radios while the dog is retrieving and outside the control area. Exceptions would include notification of wrongly cast game, a wounded dog, or a situation which interferes with the run for that dog.
Rationale
To avoid insofar as possible unfair distractions for the dog and encourage responsible usage of UHF radios.

Rule 86
Current Rule
The dog shall retrieve the game cleanly and without delay shall return direct to the handler and shall deliver straight to hand in front of the handler from standing or sitting position, and as instructed by the Judge. The dog shall be stationary at delivery.
Proposed Rule
The dog shall retrieve the game cleanly and without delay shall return direct to the handler and shall deliver within hand’s reach of the handler (e.g in front or at the handler’s side) from standing or sitting position, and as instructed by the Judge. The dog shall be stationary at delivery.
Rationale
We believe the dog should be allowed to deliver anywhere within a tight semi-circle from the left to the right side heeling position of the handler.

Rule 87
Current Rule
The handler, without stepping forward shall take the game with one hand from the mouth of the dog. It is important that the dog shall deliver tenderly , i.e. with a “soft mouth”. Where more than one (1) object of game is to be retrieved, the handler must carry all game or place game gently on the ground while waiting for second or more game to be delivered by the dog. When all game has been retrieved the handler shall then move back to the Control Point with the dog at heel and hand over to the Steward, the gun and all game from that retrieve. The handler will then receive lead and collar from the Steward and place it back on the dog.
Proposed Rule
The handler, without stepping towards the dog shall take the game with one hand from the mouth of the dog. It is important that the dog shall deliver tenderly , i.e. with a “soft mouth”. Where more than one (1) object of game is to be retrieved, the handler must carry all game or place game gently on the ground while waiting for second or more game to be delivered by the dog. When all game has been retrieved the handler shall them move back to the Control Point with the dog at heel and hand over to the Steward, the gun and all game from that retrieve. The handler will then receive lead and collar from the Steward and place it back on the dog.
Rationale
This enlarges on the change in Rule 86.

Rule 93 (b)
Current rule
Game stewards and Gun Stewards….
(b) Shall, in the event of game being cast in a position where a retrieve is impossible, inform the Judge of such fact.
Proposed Rule
(b) Shall, in the event of game being cast in a position where a retrieve is impossible or cast in a place substantially different to that directed by the judge, inform the Judge of such fact.
Rationale
As stewards do make this communication when needed this it should be included in the rules.

Rule 93 (e)
Current Rule
Game stewards and Gun Stewards….
(e) The Game Stewards will at all times, be hidden from sight of both the handler and dog. The Game and Gun Stewards will refrain from unnecessary movement and the Gun Steward will ensure that the gun is broken at all times when not actually in use. Game to be retrieved must be at least ten (10) metres from the Game Steward.
Proposed Rule
(e) The Game Stewards will at all times, endeavour to be hidden from sight of both the handler and dog. The Game and Gun Stewards will refrain from unnecessary movement and the Gun Steward will ensure that the gun is broken at all times when not actually in use. Game to be retrieved must be at least ten (10) metres from the Game Steward.
Rationale
As sometimes it is impossible for Stewards to be completely hidden this should be allowed for in the rules.


Rule 93 (f)
Current Rule
Game stewards and Gun Stewards….
(f) Where a Gun Steward has been elected to fire on behalf of a handler, the gun will be fired when the bird is as near as possible to the apex of its flight. Only in the case of a handler being under age or incapacitated will a Gun Steward be permitted to fire for the handler. When because of a legal or physical disability a person is restricted from carry a mock gun, that person will not be required to carry anything.
Proposed Rule
Game stewards and Gun Stewards….
(f) Where a Gun Steward has been elected to fire on behalf of a handler, the gun will be fired when the bird is as near as possible to the apex of its flight. Only in the case of a handler being under age or incapacitated or prevented at law will a Gun Steward be permitted to fire for the handler. When because of a legal or physical disability a person is restricted from carry a mock gun, that person will not be required to carry anything.
Rationale
The purpose of the change is to clarify that this rule can be used to allow competitors who do not have a gun licence to compete in trials. It is the intention that this permission should not be used by people who do have a licence to avoid holding a gun. The judge may choose to require a mock gun to be held by the handler to minimise any advantage.
It is noted that the Exhibitors Declaration on the NSW entry form would need to be altered to reflect the acceptability of entering a trial without holding a gun licence. The reverse side of the Entry Form may also require alterations if Rules 34, 35, 36 are changed.
hcornelius
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed 08 Jan 2003 8:06 pm
Location: PO Box 1016 Chatswood NSW 2057 Australia

Postby Kerry Webster » Sat 27 Mar 2004 3:25 pm

Hi Helena,

Re your Rationale for Rule 4 : In my nine years of being involved in retrieving in Western Australia, never, has there been a bitch in season, allowed to compete in a retrieving trial.

Should a bitch be found in season at vetting, that bitch must be removed from the trial site.

I know that bitches used to be able to compete in season, but this obviously occured over ten years ago. Glenice McClure could probably enlighten us on that.

Just rest assured, triallers, that it is not allowed here, as in all other states.

Kerry
My goal in life is to become as wonderful as my dog thinks I am.
Kerry Webster
 
Posts: 826
Joined: Sat 16 Nov 2002 1:23 pm
Location: Boddington, Western Australia

Suggested Amendments to the Rules

Postby Glenice McClure » Sun 28 Mar 2004 10:25 am

Yes Kerry, you are correct - it has been over ten years since bitches in season have been allowed to compete in Retrieving Trials in Western Australia. It would be appreciative if the author/s of the rationale given, ensure that they have the correct information especially when something so important as a Rules Review is at stake.

Glenice McClure
Glenice McClure
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue 18 Nov 2003 10:48 am
Location: Perth, Western Australia

Postby Gareth Tawton » Thu 01 Apr 2004 6:21 pm

Kerry/Glenice

Like many others I was unaware of WA's change to its local ruling. I would have thought that is the exact point of the rule change from NSW. To make local rulings more accessable and transparent to interstaters.

Gareth
Gareth Tawton
 
Posts: 673
Joined: Thu 06 Mar 2003 8:24 pm
Location: Bendigo

Previous

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 88 guests