CHANGES TO NOVICE AND RESTRICTED

[Trevor Stevens]

There hasn't been any discussion about the Victorian suggestions for changes to both the Novice and Restricted rules. Hopefully it is because everyone agrees, but that may not be the case so I thought I would start a new topic on them.
Firstly, the proposal to introduce the title of Qualifying Novice Dog. In recent years Victoria has had big fields in our Novice Stakes. Some competitors, particularly those with minor breeds, have dogs that are quite capable of completing the Stake, but the three wins required for an NRD title eludes them. They have nothing to show for their commitment to the sport apart from a QC, which is not a title. Apart from becoming disenchanted, when they advertise a litter they have nothing as evidence of the good work that their dog has done, compared to other breeders. This title is to recognise these dogs. Also it may influence new people to enter the sport. (By the way, it is intended that the QC be retained as is.)
Secondly, the proposal to allow dogs to gain their RRD title after three wins in Restricted, but to stay at that level (if they wish) until they have had six wins. This proposal is to allow competitors and dogs that aren't ready to make the jump into All Age to stay down for an extended period if they wish. The downside is that it may make it harder for other competitors to gain their RRD title, but competitors always have the option of opting out of Restricted and going into AA if they think their dog is capable of it. I didn't introduce these changes, so I hope I haven't misrepresented those who did introduce them. Anyway I would be interested to hear what other people have to say on the topics.
Trevor Stevens

[Peter Betteridge]

bravo Victoria
definetly a step in the right direction. I think it will help trialling in NSW where we are forced to push dogs up into all age before they are ready. What it doesnt address is the triallers who have no wish to ever compete in AA for what ever reason.
However I support this excellent ininative from Victoria as an important first step. Like Trevor I cant believe this topic hasnt been vigourously debated. There has been much debate about side deliveries and dog vests which I consider to be fairly minor issues
THIS ISSUE IS CENTRAL TO OUR GROWTH AND SURVIVAL AS A SPORT
Well done Victoia

[Allan Bartram]

Hi All,
If you peruse the proposed rule changes you will note that WA has independantally put forward a very similar proposal to the Victorian Novice QC Title , save for the number of trials completed to obtain the award. This to me would indicate there is a good deal of support nationally for a "preliminary" title to encorage newcomers to remain in the sport.

Regards
Allan

[Joe Law]

Comment deleted as now irrelevant. Joe

[Tony Rowland]

hi all

Was looking at threads and came across this one.

I have come to believe there is a change to the rules of restricted that may have an impact on the number of dogs that
finish resticted and dont go on to compete in all age because they have got through restricted with out being able to handle reliably.
In the past several years I have bought two dog though restricted. The a normal trial is double mark ,double rise or mark and two bird, and a mark and a short blind of 30 to 40 m (dog runs around falls over it or winds it).
I have heard people say more than once that peoples dogs need to stay in resticted or we need to set triples in restricted.
I believe that the rules need to be amended to put more weight to blinds in restricted as this is where aa differs from restricted most.
An amendment to the rules making 2 blind legs in each trail, one being no less than 70 to 80m, I believe would help.
This will allow handlers and their dogs to grow in restricted and hone skills closing the gap to aa .
This along with judges putting dogs out for ignoring whistles and signals may help (running the paddock)
just my five cents.

tony

[Gareth Tawton]

HI Trevor,

I have been a big advocate of the propsed changes to restricted. It seems to me that no one rule change is perfect for every state which makes getting a national consensus difficult. However I hope when the time comes for a national vote people look beyond their own back yard and look for what is best for our sport nationally.

In the case of allowing dogs to remain in restricted for 6 wins while still gaining a title after 3 has the following benefits.

Historically the title will remain the same 3 wins.
The overall standard of restricted dogs entering aa should raise.
Looking at the competitive life of a dog this would allow most people who are not interested in aa to remain in restricted for most of the dogs competitive life. This type of competitor is likely to get thru novice by the time the dog is 3 or 4. Then if they win 2 restricted stakes per year the dog is 6 or 7 before being forced to aa. At 7 many people are looking to bring along a new pup.
Those not interested in staying in restricted long are always able to shoot straight to aa if they so desire.
The average size of a resricted field should rise.

I struggle to find a down side to this proposed change.


Gareth
Gareth

[Trevor Stevens]

Thanks Tony for giving this thread another run. Readers will note that it was posted in 2009 at the time that changes for retrieving rules were being formulated. It didn't get much comment then. The idea of a QND got up but not enough states supported the idea of dogs being able to 'stay down' in Restricted. If people are keen on this idea (or some version of it) then they need to discuss it with their state RAFT representatives and put a proposal forward at the next rule review (which I believe will be in 2014). This is a good website for such discussion, but don't forget there is also the "AWRC Members Only" section (see main index) for possibly sensitive issues that you want to discuss but don't want published to the whole world.
Trevor

[Lynette Lennell]

Thanks for raising this issue again Tony. I am sure it will start many debates on what will be the best for all concerned throughout Australia.

I know in South Australia we are struggling for entries in Novice and Restricted and as such some dogs are moving up without having the experience
required to be competitive in the higher levels. Perhaps your suggestion could include Novice.

The other suggestion is to allow that Dog to remain in the same level of competition until the end of the Year in which it gains it's Title.

[Trevor Stow]

I agree with Gareth. Good idea and I hope that it gets passed.

[PennyAngel]

I think this discussion is great for the sport and can only see an upside to these changes, especially when talking about restricted. I have only been in the sport for two years and spent this year in restricted learning all the concepts, especially those required as a handler. I found the step up from novice to be mostly about me. Most people I have spoken to in Novice are all aware of the extra work required for their dogs in regard to the different run types. However anyone new to the sport with an older dog is always going to have an uphill battle in regard to teaching their dogs to handle. This means that restricted for a lot of us will be the highlight of our first dogs career and therefore I definately support an extended life in this level.

[Sue Batchelor]

Some good points raised, Penny.
I too am in the new handler/old dog category and finding it difficult to move on.
There has been some great recruitment recently here in NSW with lots of new interest in the sport.
Perhaps now we need more advanced training for the new "addicts" ( those who want to move on and not just compete in RATG and Novice).
I would like to see smaller training groups focusing on handling, drills, whistle work, etc.

[Gareth Tawton]

Thanks Penny and Sue,

It is important we get the perspective of newbys for want of a better word. It is also important they make their view known to the relevant RAFT reps and inturn those reps follow up with the "majorities view" not just a personal view when it comes to revise the rules again.

Sue, it has been some years since we had a seminar from a pro trainer. Do you or anyone else think there is a desire to have another seminar with an international speaker/trainer???

Gareth

[Craig Dyson]

Sue, it has been some years since we had a seminar from a pro trainer. Do you or anyone else think there is a desire to have another seminar with an international speaker/trainer???

Gareth[/quote]

I would be interested in a seminar of some sort even a regular training day would be a great help to, for both new people coming into the sport and Im sure some of the handlers that are currently running in restricted. I got into the sport through training days run by CHWGC and the Field and Game training weekend as did a few others(some still running some not). It has been a long time since Ive run in an A/A and even then I did not run in many but since then there appears to be more concepts involved with a little more difficulty as well. Im not sure that the people who have been in the sport constantly realise how much it has changed as they have gone through and grown with it,but if you have been out of it for a number of years it has changed greatly.
I think the 6 restricted wins is a good idea even having the option for the judges to add a triple of some type to one leg of the restricted to better prepare handlers and dogs for the next step, another thing I have noticed is dogs winning with extremely low scores I think judges would be better off not awarding a 1st place when this happens as it puts dogs through that are not up to the standard, I would rather not have the win than be awarded it just because I scraped through with no other dogs finishing(perhaps a minimum point score to be awarded a win towards an RRD).
Unfortunately the way things are going at the moment in 10 yrs time I cant see the sport continuing in its current form. Cheers Craig

[Sue Batchelor]

Hi Gareth,

Don't think an international training would be helpful to me personally at this time. There are plenty of local experts with all the knowledge I need.

If there was a seminar, however, I would be very interested in attending.

[Prue Winkfield]

As a recipient of a couple of things mentioned here thought I would put my 2 bobs worth in. One of the most useful training sesions I have been involved with (apart from Bill Eckett) was a couple of days held in Victoria a few years ago. People were divided into small groups depending on what level they were at and an All Age judge (think they were all judges) gave advice on what to do for that stake and helped the individuals with their dogs. At the time I was just moving (or trying to move) from Restricted to All Age with Joy and will never forget the advice and help I received from Jim Hargreaves. As a thankyou to the AA people, they worked their dogs on the Sunday with help on throwers,etc from the people they had been helping the day before. For those that stayed to help it also gave them an insight to how these top handlers trained their dogs.

The second thing: a couple of times I have finished a trial - field and retrieving and have not been awarded a place. Personally there is nothing worse than to have finally completed something only to be told at presentations it was not good enough. Those are two trials I will never forget for the wrong reasons! In my opinion it is far better to be called in whilst competing and told by the judge at the time why this was happening.