Suggested amendments to the Rules

[Jason Ferris]

Hi all

As mentioned in the Rule Review thread, here are my ideas for amendments to the rules. I am posting them to try to encourage constructive national discussion, and to encourage people to think about the big picture of where the sport is heading. I have tried to take into consideration many of the themes raised in discussion on the bulletin board.

Regards, Jason.


The rules in their current form (effective from 1 January 2000) are showing their age. They have been subject to eight reviews over their 35 year life and require a comprehensive review. I believe that we should use the opportunity of this review to think carefully about the future of the sport and adjust the rules to provide for that future. Such big picture thinking is also needed to address the issues raised by Joe Law and others in the recent discussions on the bulletin board.

My view is that, with this big picture in mind, there are only a limited number of significant changes required to the content of the rules to refocus them and provide a foundation which, in combination with a carefully drafted Judges Guide, will set the framework for the sport of retrieving trialling for the next five years and beyond. There is also a number of changes to presentation which, while they do not alter the intent or content significantly, are needed to clarify the rules.

Some of the key points which I believe need to be addressed are:

1) I would simplify the rules by deleting outdated and unused stakes and tests. This would include deletion of all rules and references to puppy stakes, derby stakes, brace stakes, team stakes and water tests. Puppy and derby stakes rely on age-based criteria, which I believe are unworkable with the fields competing today. Similarly brace and team stakes would require much larger fields to be workable. Water tests only address part of the range of abilities which make up a good retriever. I would contend that these stakes and tests are no longer relevant to the sport. The fact that these stakes and tests are not currently run anywhere in Australia (as far as I am aware) supports this argument.

2) In deleting puppy stakes, I would recognise the important role that beginners tests have in providing an entry point to trialling for new dogs and handlers in some states. I believe that the beginners test (as currently described in rule 45) should be elevated to the status of a stake to replace the puppy stake but without the age restriction. This should be recognised as the starting level of trialling.

3) I would provide for a dog to progress through the levels of trialling by making some small changes to the novice stake. These would be aimed at reducing the number of new concepts required to progress from novice to restricted and would include giving novice judges the option of including a walk up (with limitations on the angle from the line) and/or a simple double mark (with limitations on separation, timing and distance) in novice runs.

4) In both beginners and novice, I would give the handler the option of having the gun steward handle and fire the gun, as suggested by Peter. This would negate any impact that firearm licensing and handling requirements may be having on newcomers to the sport. Most handlers who are intending to go further in competition would not take up the option, and there is, in my opinion no advantage, provided the gun is fired in close proximity to the dog.

5) I would require a restricted run to include at least one blind retrieve - at present it is possible to win restricted without picking up a blind. It also provides for a very wide variation in the degree of difficulty of restricted runs. I would also include Julies suggestion and make it mandatory for the judge to subtly mark the location of the blinds in restricted, so the handler (who is contending with a whole host of new concepts themselves) doesnt have to test their own memory recalling where the blind is located. I would also take relocations out of restricted stakes.

6) At the All Age level I would adopt the suggestion Gareth made about limiting the distance of a relocation to not more than 20m. I would either remove wounded game retrieves altogether or redefine them to make them more equitable (if this is possible).

7) I would provide for dogs to continue to compete in any stake, even when they have titled, until they have placed in a higher stake. These dogs would be ineligible for awards or places. This allows for handlers/dogs who have no interest or capacity to progress past a particular stake to continue to participate.

8 ) I would also do away with rules 12, 13, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22 which describe some, but not all, of the permutations and combinations of multiple marks and blinds. These seem unnecessary and overcomplicated. Why not just have a definition of a mark (as per rule 24 but presented earlier at rule 8 ), a walk up (rule 9), relocation (new rule required), wounded game (rule 10), a blind (rules 11 and 28 ), double rise (rule 14), two bird (rule 15) and double fall (rule 16), then provide for the judge to combine these elements (as in the second sentence of rule 22) with some limitations such as timing of casts and separation (lifted from the deleted rules).

9) I would introduce a rule requiring judges to consider the safety of the dogs in setting runs.

10) I would also include a rule relating to the spectators (incorporating the second sentence of rule 57) and requiring the judge to consider their view of the run if at all possible.

11) I would update and clarify the roles of the officials at the trial. From my experience each trial has a trial manager (not a chief steward - a term I have never seen used outside the rules). Each stake has a judge, a gun steward and several game stewards. I would update the rules to reflect these roles. I would also introduce the role of stake manager to provide recognition for an official who is overseeing the operation and assisting the judge at each stake. As a novice/restricted competitor, I have often seen the trial manager go to help out/run in All Age, leaving the judge in Novice and/or Restricted to their own devices. In the event of a protest or conflict situation this can be difficult as there is no third party to arbitrate. I suggest that each stake should have a stake manager who is responsible for the conduct of the stake and who is made known to the competitors (and may in fact be competing) and the judge.

12) I would provide for the game stewards to advise the judge if the game is not cast as directed (following on from rule 80, and incorporating rule 93b) as suggested by Julie.

13) In reviewing the rules I would give serious consideration to the way they are presented. At the moment related rules are not necessarily presented together. I would suggest that the rules be reorganised as follows:

Purpose (rule 1, 5, 27, 4, and 6)
Definition of Terms (rule 7)
Retrieves (rule 8/24, 9/28, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 30, 22, 26, 29, 23, 25, 26, 31)
Stakes and Eligibility (rule 2, 3, 32, 45, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 43, 44)
Required entries (rule 51, notes 38, and 40)
Judges (rule 111, 71, 72, 73,)
Duties of Trial manager and stake managers (rule 92)
Duties of Gun steward (rule 93f)
Duties of Game stewards (rule 93a-e,g)
General regulations for Conduct of the trial (rule 52, 60, 58, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 59, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 68, 67, 69, 70, 74, 75)
Procedure for conducting trials (rule 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91), Method of scoring (rules 112, 113, 114)
Awards (rules 110b, 110a, 97, 98, 99, 110, 101, 102, 94, 95, 104, 105, 106)
Titles (rules 103, 107, 108, 109).

14) I would make most of the notes in the current rules into numbered rules. The notes are confusing as their status is not clear. I would also split the rules which cover more than one topic or issue into separate rules. I would then allocate these to the appropriate heading above.

15) The rules should also be modernised in several places. The reference to shooting laws in rule 6 for example should more correctly termed firearms laws. Rule 11 which refers to hides being constructed of natural materials could be interpreted as encouraging officials to cut branches from trees to construct a hide - this is inappropriate on properties we dont own or manage. The gender biased references to the judge and handler should be edited to his/her, he/she etc. We have a large number of women competing and officiating in this sport and such language is inappropriate.

[Joe Law]

Wow Jason!!! You sure have given serious and intelligent thought to a review of the rules. I believe the is much excellent material here for our RAFT committies to work with and I do hope your suggestions are taken seriously and dealt with comprehensively. On a personal note I want to congratulate you and thank you for your efforts. Joe

[Prue Winkfield]

What a fantastic effort Jason! Just what do you envisage as the the next step - do we debate your ideas here or take your document, with our own comments, to our respective RAFT meetings?

[Julie Cramond]

Prue, LOL, if only I could "put" my thoughts into words as succinctly as Jason.

I think personally it would be wonderful if we could discuss it on the forum first, or else our meetings will be daaaaaays long.

Someone recently vocally suggested we have 300 yard retrieves. That blew my mind. In our cover, with our birds!!!!!!

[Jason Ferris]

Thanks Joe and Prue

I was hoping people would discuss my ideas and raise ideas of their own on the bulletin board as way of having a bit of 'national' discussion before we all go into our repective State RAFT huddles.

Last night I looked at the ANKC summary of the last review and there were lots of good ideas that didn't get up. I think this was partly because there was limited opportunity to discuss them and find out where people were coming from. Hopefully with the bulletin board we can have some of that discussion this time around and facilitate an effective review.

Cheers, Jason.

[Gareth Tawton]

Jason,

Great work!!! I would agree with most of it.

I woudn't be in favour of altering novice as this is retrieving in it purest and most simple form. New handlers to the sport often have difficulty steadying dogs without the added encouragement of a walk up.

As I undertsand it there is already the option for an incapacitated handler to have a gunner. My view is that a handler without a gun licence is incapacitated and therefore can use a gunner. Problem solved so to speak. I used this very interpretation in Tas this year with no objections.

I think a mandatory blind in Restricted is a great idea.

Some of your other suggestion are not really rule changes but should probably be more covered in a judges guide. It seems time and again we are presented with the the idea that a judges guide is worth following thru with. Maybe our national RAFT wil start to listen!!

Gareth

[hcornelius]

Dear Jason, I too was most impressed by the work you have done for the rule changes. I will take copies along to our NSW meeting on 4th for people who are not on the web. All the discussions are most helpful. It's a big step forward on where we were with the last rule changes. Thanks to all contributors,
Helena

[Kirsty Blair]

Hi Jason,

Top work! With a piece of writing structured like that anyone would think you worked for the government

I agree with most, if not all, of what you have said. Just one thing regarding the wording of your (5). Do you mean that a blind should be included in every restricted "stake" not, as you've stated, "run"?

I would also definitely like to see limits set on the separation of double marks/marks and blinds in Restricted.

Kirsty

[Kate Eltringham]

Hi Jason,

Job well done, I'd like to add something else to the mix, isn't it about time that the rule book was written in plain English. It is 2004 not 1968 and the language in the book should reflect this - we should be endevouring to be as user friendly as possible.

Just out of curiosity could someone tell me the last time a brace was run anywhere in the country.

Cheers

Kate

[Annie Warner]

great work Jason.
A couple of 'rule change' years ago I seem to remember "Molly' knew of someone who would do a plain english version of the rules....is this my early onset alzheimers playing tricks on me again or am i right? Kate/Molly is there someone out there who would do that?

annie

[Jason Ferris]

Hi all

Great to see the discussion is getting rolling. Thanks also for your compliments.

In response to some of the points raised:

I woudn't be in favour of altering novice as this is retrieving in it purest and most simple form. New handlers to the sport often have difficulty steadying dogs without the added encouragement of a walk up.

I can see your point about walk ups, and don't feel particularly strongly about this one. I am more interested in the idea of simple doubles in novice. Did anyone have a good arguement against this idea?

As I undertsand it there is already the option for an incapacitated handler to have a gunner. My view is that a handler without a gun licence is incapacitated and therefore can use a gunner. Problem solved so to speak. I used this very interpretation in Tas this year with no objections.

I think some people would see this as a fairly lateral interpretation of the rules and more importantly it is not obvious to new handlers that they have the option. Why not spell it out?

Some of your other suggestion are not really rule changes but should probably be more covered in a judges guide. It seems time and again we are presented with the the idea that a judges guide is worth following thru with. Maybe our national RAFT wil start to listen!!

Can you tell me which ones you think should be in the Judges Guide? I was trying to avoid issues which I felt should be in there. My test of logic was 'is there likely to be protest based on this issue'. If the answer was 'maybe' or 'yes' then it I think it should be in the rules.

Just one thing regarding the wording of your (5). Do you mean that a blind should be included in every restricted "stake" not, as you've stated, "run"?

Sorry, yes I meant 'stake' not 'run'. I think handlers should turn up to a restricted trial knowing they are going to get a blind.

I would also definitely like to see limits set on the separation of double marks/marks and blinds in Restricted.

I agree, but this one does seem to be me to be one that fits better in the judges guide rather than the rules, because it would be difficult to be too prescriptive given the variations of terrain etc.

isn't it about time that the rule book was written in plain English. It is 2004 not 1968 and the language in the book should reflect this - we should be endevouring to be as user friendly as possible.

I agree Kate - lets start by getting rid of the outdated concepts and language.

Cheers, Jason.

[Kerry Webster]

Hi Jason and everyone else on this thread,

Wow Jason, that must have taken you ages to put together.
Here are some of my views on points within your post, and others.

1. Re Brace and Team stakes. I have never personally seen one, but maybe the concept of running such a stake requires too much work, and, probably, there would not be too many of us with two or more dogs of different breeds at the same level of competition.(I do, as a matter of fact)

2. Puppy stakes have been held here over the past few years. Birds were not used and only short marks, and no formality in the control area. This event allowed people/puppies who were not ready to take on Novice a chance to "have a go". I do believe this is important, but not necessarily as a part of the ANKC rulebook. This event could easily be taken on by any club as an unofficial encouragement stake.

3. I agree with Gareth that a walkup in Novice would not be a good idea. Too many new triallers have trouble heeling their dogs as it is, and a walkup would only create a situation where a full break would probably be the outcome.

4. Gun Handling: Certainly some of the very new handlers to retrieving feel intimidated by the gun, and possibly having the gun steward fire for them initially could ease their mind, but, this should not be a long term remedy, and handlers should be encouraged to handle the gun as much as possible. A limitation on how many trials this aid would be given to each handler would need to be set.

5. Blind in Restricted: I think having an obligatory blind in a restricted stake is a good idea. I do not think tagging the blind area for the handler is necessary. We are supposed to be in hunting/shooting conditions, and we all may as well get used to it. These runs are tests of skill, both of the dog and the handler, and remembering where the blind is, is just another part of the trial. Some are better at it than others. If we start putting a marker on blinds, then there is absolutely no requirement for any handler to make a mental note of where the blind is, and is not testing their memory. A couple of mistakes here and very soon the position of the blind has become a very necessary part of the handlers memory.

6. Wounded Game: As much as I like doing wounded game retrieves, I do believe that the majority are not set out well, and, I question the fairness of the run to all dogs running after number one.

7. Running in stakes after titled: This has been talked about before, and tried by a few clubs. A very good idea to encourage handlers to stay in retrieving, and, give dogs a chance to gain more experience.

8. Doing away with rule descriptions in the current rule book may seem a way of clearing out the cupboard, but, I remember when I first started trialling, I read these descriptions over and over to understand what the concept of the rules were. It is important I think not to eliminate all the definitions you suggest, as they are there for the competitor as well as the judge.

9. Safety of the Dogs in runs: Most definitely a very good idea, and should be implemented into the rule book immediately.

10. Spectators: I think this particular item would come under the judges guide.

11. Officials at Trials: Obviously, we do it differently over here, as where one stake/one day is held, there is a Trial Manager solely for that stake, and they do not compete.
Where we have three stakes on one day (Novice,Restricted,All Age), we do not run them simultaneously, and, there is a trial manager appointed for each stake. These T.M.'s do not compete in the stake they are overseeing.

Further to the above, these are my obvservations:

The Judges Guide should state emphaticly that the rules state that on a marked retrieve the dog (not just the handler), should be able to see a bird in the air , and, as it falls.
This would be one of the most common errors I have seen from judges.

Also, the separation between two birds and doublefall birds, and the first game, should be more rather than less.

In the Definition of Terms (7 (a) ) Action and Style. There is no reference to eagerness here. Just that action and style are both seen in a fearless well trained dog that covers its ground with good free movement, head well held, tail swinging nicely from side to side.

There is nothing to state how fast, just good free movement. I have seen many dogs running at a good normal pace and doing a retrieve without disturbing ground/game, being underscored because it wasn't "flashy", even though often the time taken on this dogs retrieve was equal to the "fast" retriever. Too much emphasis is placed on speed rather than the retrieve being done efficiently and quietly. Again, possibly for the judges guide.

In my opinion, if we all stuck with the wording of Rule 1, this is pretty clear on what a retrieving trial is all about.

Kerry

[Kate Eltringham]

Hi all,

There certainly is a lot of discussion going on about potential rule changes. I have asked Paul Littlejohn under the "Rule Review" heading if we can't get a more difinitive time table with dates not just months.

People are going to a lot of trouble at this early stage and I would hate to see things rushed unnecessarily like last rule change because of timeframes that were unrealistic or receiving of paperwork requiring a reply in 5 days or less

Looks like we could be having some lively chats round the fire at Easter when we'll have alot of the trialers who don't have access to the internet to be involved. It would be nice to think we could have something in writing from the ANKC by then it does say April in the timetable.

One thing that I think we all have to be careful of when defining what should be done in what stakes, if we are training our dogs for the higher levels we shouldn't be frightened to enter higher stakes when we are able to and putting in the rule book dogs are able to run X amount of times in the stake they have qualified in could be to the detriment of the higher stakes. On a number of occasions I have seen young dogs entered into Novice to make up numbers and older dogs taken out of retirement to make up an All Age Stake. IMHO I believe those sort of decisions should be determined by the State bodies as putting it in the Rule Book means if it causes problems you're looking at 5 years before it can be changed.

Kate

[Graeme Parkinson]

1. I think the first rule to be reviewed should be Rule 1, All Age and Championship trials bear little or no resemblance to any shooting I do. We are kidding ourselves if we think otherwise. I am not complaining I see nothing wrong with trialing for trialings sake, but lets admit thats what we do.

2. I would like to see walk ups in novice. I would also like to see the maximum distance increased to 150 mtrs. These are not stakes for puppies they are novice retrieving dog stakes and we should lift the standard a little. However I would like to see the rquirement for novice marks to be seen by the dog in the air and to the ground/water.

3. Make beginners stakes three marked retrieves up to 100 mtrs.

[Paul Littlejohn]

Intersting and Good work Jason,

I wish I could put all the information that has been before so people can see that a lot of this has been discussed even at the last review, Walk up in Novice were squashed even with the directive that they had to be with 10 degree's of straight ahead for novice dogs. This was raised by I believe J.Cole but never got passed first base.

I hear what you are saying about Restricted, yes. But if we read some other forums I believe that this stake is where a lot of our problems are starting with being able to keep new trialler in the sport.

Some verbal discussion has been had that do as you say for restricted but then introduce a complete new stake between that and novice where only marks and limited mutipal retrieves are used. This would create a stepping stone out of Novice rather that the massive step that sometime occurs.

Stkakes/Events would then go Beginners, Novice, NEW, Restricted,A/A and Champ.

But once again well done.

Paul