Hi All,
I read with interest the SA proposal as well as the comments/suggestions from others.
Following are my suggestions and /or observations:
Grand Champion
I fully support the concept, but suggest that the choice of 100 points needs further consideration. For a start, it is not a number that is easily divisible by 6 and it is not 10 times a Champion, as is the title of Grand Champion in the Show world. May I suggest that the total number of points required to gain the title be increased to 120 i.e. ten times a RTCH. I also think that the requirement to gain 12 points in Championship Stakes is an excellent idea. However the current wording is a little ambiguous viz, “twelve (12) of which must be awarded in Championship stake competition”. Is this intended to mean the dog must have won a Championship (thereby gaining 12 points) or is intended that two 2nd Places in Championships would suffice i.e. two times 6 points?
Perhaps the proposal should read: 107 (b)-: The title of Rt. Grand Champion may be awarded to any dog that achieves 120 Championship points, of which not less than twelve (12) have been awarded in Championship Stake/s.
The proposal does not address the issue of implementation and retrospectivity. In this regard, it may be advisable to follow the example set by the Show world, see below.
7 Grand Champion (10/97, 4.7.2)
a) Using the points system as approved by the ANKC at the time, an animal will be required to receive 1000 points to be eligible to the title of Grand Champion.
b) The implementation date for the awarding of the title of Grand Champion is 1.1.98.
c) Grand Championship will not be awarded to animals retrospectively, but an animal will be eligible to be awarded the title of Grand Champion, if they gain some points towards the title of Grand Champion (1000 points)
after the implementation date of 1.1.98.
d) The title and number of points for a Grand Champion to be reviewed annually for the next 3 years.
The areas to be examined in the annual review are:
i Total number of Grand Champion titles awarded.
ii Number of Grand Champions awarded per individual breeds.
iii Number of Grand Champions awarded per Member Body.
Grand Champion Title be retained and a 5 year moratorium imposed on changes to the Grand Champion Title. (5/01)
No Score
I understand and have considerable sympathy for the rationale that underpins the proposed changes. Like Gareth, I struggle with allowing all dogs to run on all Runs, especially when large fields are involved. Maintaining the running order also brings with it the potential to unnecessarily disadvantage some active competitors, especially in fading light conditions and where dogs spend long peiods of time in the hide with little or no shade or area to be "aired".
Perhaps the solution is to include in the “Guidelines for Judges” a statement to the effect that; “wherever practicable Judges are encouraged to provide dogs that have received a “No Score” the opportunity to complete subsequent Runs in the Stake and shall be judged and scored in the usual manner”.
The SA proposal states;
(o) No Score - Where a dog has been marked "No Score", the dog may continue on the stake at the discretion of the Judge, but cannot be placed.
Catalogue order/or order of running will be maintained in subsequent runs for all entrants. Subsequent runs will be judged and scored in the usual manner. The Trial Manager or Judge should provide reasonable justification for refusing.
Apart from the typo “on the stake”, which should read “in the Stake”
, the proposed additional paragraph is in conflict with the wording for Rule No 7 (o). On one hand, dogs that have received a “No Score” may continue in the Stake at the discretion of the Judge and on the other hand, “The Trial Manager or the Judge should provide reasonable justification for refusing”. It is not clear to me exactly what role the Trial Manager has to play in this matter and the requirement “to provide reasonable justification” (who decides) and “at the discretion of the Judge” is an area for conflict.
BFN, RWT