Guidelines for Judges

[Alan Donovan]

In response to popular demand, Robert Tawton has posted a Discussion Paper "Draft Guidelines for Judges" as an Article on this website. The objectives are to achieve more consistency in judging, and aid in interpreting the Rule Book. Maybe also give some insight to triallers who are not judges into the "Black Art" of judging!

Any feedback?

Cheers - Alan

[Peter Betteridge]

Well done Bob
I long overdue document that needed to be tabled.I for one appreciate the huge amount of work that has gone into producing a document of this quality.lets hope most of the nation's judges take note and produce some feedback.Ever competitor has the right to know where they stand and what judge's value.I think this draft goes along way to addressing that point.Congratulations!Bob ,Noel,Alan,Gareth and Glenice

[Jason Ferris]

To jump to the Articles and Archives page, click here.

Cheers, Jason.

Download this article from here Admin 2013.

[Jason Ferris]

Hi all

Thanks to Bob and the team of 'editors' for creating a good starting point for discussion on the judges guide. I hope it will provoke constuctive discussion that will lead to a guide being adopted nationally.

I have looked at the paper and think the it has some very useful content. I was a bit concerned about the structure. My main concern is with the rule-by-rule approach which I think may be difficult to agree on because it necessitates a reinterpretation of the rules. I think that an aternative approach might be to present the guide in the stages of conducting a trial,
ie

- preamble
- the role and obligations of the judge
- designing and selecting runs
- instructing stewards
- instructing competitors
- conduct of runs
- scoring, major and minor faults and deductions
- handling protests and disputes
- awards

The material Bob has compiled would fit under these (or similar)
headings and could be cross referenced back to the rules.

Regards, Jason.

[Kerry Webster]

As I said to Rob when he emailed me his draft last week, I do believe a guide should include an interpretation of certain rules, not a "do this", "deduct this" list. I still feel there should be a certain amount of individual preference allowed and encouraged in judging, otherwise the sport will become over regulated. The judging sheets list deductions to guide judges, and from what I have witnessed most make a fair assessment of each dog running in regard to these deductions.

Over regulation would lead to a huge departure of triallers, who were/are in retrieving for the fun, and absolute pleasure of running their dog in situations that gun dogs were bred for.

From my point of view, I still believe the biggest problem has been the setting up of runs, moreso than the judging of them, and this area I feel requires the guide for interpretation. With the forthcoming submissions for rule reviews, I am sure that several of the points addressed (eg. Giving tongue), in Rob's draft will be on the table for interpretation in the new rule book.

I still do not think that a guide should state a points deduction scale, and that this is already included in the Judging sheet.

The requirement for judges to keep all things equal for all dogs in a trial, is paramount I feel, and the suggestions referring to this in the draft have my full support.

At least this is a start towards discussion on preparing such a guide for judges. It will be interesting to read the opinions from both competitors and judges.

Kerry

[Gareth Tawton]

Kerry,

Like you I would prefer to see the standardise deductions (for want of a better word) removed. I know these were taken from the original Qld document and am sure if enough people agreed we could have this done.

I am a firm believer that no matter what the small downfalls or inadequacies this draft document has it benefits far outway these. Hopefully enough people will give it the support required to have it as a suppliment to the rules. Don't forget once we at elast have some form of guide it can always be revised, refined and redeveloped over the years, just like the rules.

I think our best bet is to have various state RAFTs request its inclusion in the rules with the allowance for a preapproved subcommittee to make any minor adjustments that may need to be reflected in the current rule changes. i.e. Current rule changes are passed in Aug or whenever. the subcommittee wopuld then make the neccesary adjustments and the guide and it would then be automatically added as a supliment to the new rules effective Jan1 2005. We would also require an additional rule recognising the suplliment and the requirement for judges to heed its advice.

Gareth

PS its great to see both positive and negative comments