Presentations

[Kirsty Blair]

Hi All,

At the risk of being publicly chastised (again) I'd like to pose another question to judges (please note I'm not calling you "you judges" ).

I have noticed a trend in presentations where some judges seem to be concentrating on the negatives of the dogs who have won and placed. Comments such as "the winning dog would have scored higher if it had not disobeyed some commands, or had been steadier etc etc", or "I was generally disappointed with the quality of dogs overall, handlers need to concentrate on blah blah".

At a trial in Victoria this year, the comments by the judge toward the winning dog were so negative that I was tempted to ask why that judge had awarded a place at all? The winning dog had beaten twenty plus dogs that day, the judge must have liked something about it to give it the top score so why not tell us why it was worthy of first place?

Most of us are well aware of our dogs' shortcomings and I, more than anyone, appreciate constructive criticism from judges and other competitors. Can't this criticism be given privately, one-on-one at the end of the trial? Or if it is a general trend across all the handlers in the stake, could the judge possibly address the competitors in that stake prior to presentation?

I have been to lots of presentations for other sporting and academic disciplines and I have yet to experience something like, "Tommy has won the award for Best and Fairest but I was disappointed in his ball handling skills and his accuracy needs to improve. Generally, he was the best of a really bad bunch". Sounds stupid, but that's exactly what we get at retrieving trials...

Kirsty

[Robert Tawton]

Well said Kirsty!! Someone once said, "that if you can't say something nice it is better not to say anything!"
Regards, RWT

[Teresa Parkinson]

I certainly agree with your assessment Kirsty. Most of us work damn hard to compete and if our dogs are successful, it's nice to hear the positives. As you point out, we are well aware of our dogs' shortcomings! God knows, we're out there most days trying to improve on them.

Bob, while I agree that it's better to say nothing than to be negative, surely if a dog has been deemed worthy of a win it must have done something to deserve it. Logically then, a judge should be able to find something positive to say about its performance. If on the other hand, a judge can't make a single positive comment about that dog's performance, perhaps it shouldn't have won. IMHO, the absence of a critique by a judge can therefore be as detrimental as a negative one. Just my thoughts.....

By the way, congratulations of Tank's 3rd in AA on Saturday. Great effort.

Teresa

[Prue Winkfield]

Agree 100% - at the end of the day we don't want public criticism unless it is a constructive comment in general - usually about handling!

[Annie Warner]

Hi Kirsty
you are so spot on !
...and one sort of 'pet hate' I have is the Presentation remark that a few Judges have used in the past 'I lost my best dog in the *** run', that leaves me speechless, as I always thought the best dog must have been the one to finnish with more points than the rest!
Much nicer to end the day with some thoughtfull comments that are positive I would think.
Annie

[Maureen Cooper]

Reading Kirsty's comments, a few things spring to mind.

Many outed handlers have gone home by presentation which means it is not always possible to address the handlers on the quiet before then. I do try and make the point of telling a handler about their handling errors either after the trial or next day or even next trial if they are inexperienced and had gone home. Judges cannot tell handlers about the errors they are making until after the trial is over.

If there is a big field then it is probably easier and quicker to address the handlers as a group rather than indivually and especially if the presentation is running out of daylight!

As judges have not always given points out in NSW then other Stake handlers do not know from placings whether it was a high or low point scoring win so I guess many have got used to hearing comments made about the field as a whole but point taken.

Also if a number of handlers are going between Stakes then they are not always aware of what other dogs have done so a precis at presentation could fill them in. If their dog did not do well then it could be comforting to know the others also did not, especially if they are handlers who have had more than one dog to All Age before!!!

Most of us are well aware of our dogs shortcomings but it is interesting to hear handlers say they only had one command/cast on the mark (or whatever) when the gallery have heard/seen 6 or 7!!! I dont know one handler who has not said this, including yours truly!!

Judges are expected to say something at presentation and one can hardly say the dogs were great if the winning dog only scored 110 pts out of the 165. I am quite happy to hand sashes out and say nothing, and then handlers would feel let down when I did. See Teresa's comment. People like feedback.

[Maureen Cooper]

OOOPS again, pressed submit instead of preview and had not signed off but got the chance to read Annie's comment and laughed, try winning a State Champ. and have that said too!!!! Totally agree, and may I never make the same comment. Good to have comments on various subjects, food for thought.

TTFN
Maureen

[Wayne Parkinson]

Hi Maureen.

I have been accused of giving 6 or seven commands but I still maintain
that saying
"Come in here you black @%$%#% I said come in you@%^#&
I'm gunna kick your @^#$^ backside when I get hold of you if you don't come in"
is only one command if said without pausing or taking a breath.

Wayne P.

We pay our entry and with that we get the judges opinion.
If a particluar judge doesn't express himself or herself the way we like we don't have to put an entry in.
or we coiuld pay the money to have them trained in the communication skills we feel they need.
Because with some people it doesn't come naturally.

Wayne P.

[Maureen Cooper]

Thanks for a good laugh Wayne!! Am green with envy at those oh so obedient dogs!!

It is difficult also facing a sea of faces expecting a run down of the dogs performances and I know I can trip up verbally and am much better with a small group. Shall have to try and remember what I was told many years ago, pick a spot in the distance and talk to it!

I think the other thing in Kirsty's last paragraph is that a dog trial consists of a dog and a handler not just a handler as it would be in Best and Fairest scenario. As a handler we can do our very best but our best friend is after all "just a dog" and despite our best efforts, they can have a bad day, go rabbiting, mark badly or get the wind up their tail as we have seen some dogs do in the couple of windy trials we have had recently.

TTFN
Maureen

[Kerry Webster]

Hi All,

How about this one from a judge at presentations:

" So & so, is my training partner so I had to give them a place "

AND

" This dog did a very good blind, getting the topscore. It found the steward and did a good job tracking to the bird. "

Don't laugh, these were actually said in front of all competitors. It isn't a joke, although the judge obviously was oblivious that a smack in the face had just been given to every competitor who entered the trial in good faith.

Kerry

[Wayne Parkinson]

It may be required when people are put through the judges scheme there is some guidence given on how to make an effective presentation and not have everyone going home thinking that this trialing game stinks.


Wayne P

[Joanne Hagan]

Kerry, I think that judge must have some friends out there in the conformation judging world!!

Sheesh!

Joanne

[Kerry Webster]

Along the same lines as those expressed by Kirsty, is what seems to be becoming a common practise here in W.A..

Several clubs here, allow dogs to attempt all runs, after being "no scored"/"eliminated" from the competition. This in itself is wonderful, as it encourages dogs and handlers alike to keep coming back, and also gives them a certain degree of confidence, and, an opportunity to run their dog/s to achieve retrieves and gives them value for money.

Several times over the past two seasons I have noticed that some judges are marking scoresheets for these "eliminated" dogs in the successive runs. Does this create an issue ?? No, not usually, as most retrieving people are polite, but, I do not condone the practise of marking on a scoresheet the "no score" dogs, then giving the results of these dogs at the presentations.

Often, a dog which has failed its first run, will do a good second or third run, often with a score topping the dogs that eventually are placed.

When presentations are made here, scores for each run are announced. When the dogs who have finished the complete trial of 3 or 4 runs, are then knocked off their pedestal by an eliminated dog achieving a higher score in a run that they weren't even eligible to do, and, this is announced as such, it is demeaning to those dogs that have picked up ALL the birds.

If judges do score eliminated dogs on subsequent runs, then these scores could be made available privately, if the handler wished to know them, otherwise, put the scoresheet away, and let them do the run, but without judgement, and let the real placegetters who actually finish the trial, have the glory.

The best dog on the day is the one that has picked up all the birds, and has the highest score, not a dog that has gone out on the first or second runs, regardless of how well the subsequent runs were performed. Lets give credit where it is due, instead of the "what may have beens".

Although I have always supported letting "no score" competitors have the experience of running where possible, these dogs have already proven they are not up to the standard required on the day, so on my judges sheet, they would not be scored, and no insult would be inflicted on those that finish the trial .

Kerry