Re: Retrieving Trial Rule Reviews
Posted: Tue 11 Jun 2013 9:25 am
'morning all,
Just a few thoughts of my own as a judge.
Points have been well made by a number of contributors to this site. Many times has it been mentioned that dogs are getting out of Restricted too soon, dogs were the last ones standing so got the win etc etc.
Maybe it is time that both judges and competitors take it on board that there be a standard of competency that has to be achieved for a place to be awarded. Just because a dog finishes does it mean it HAS to be awarded a placing?
I have and will continue to say to competitors that I have a standard that as a judge I require the dogs to achieve and if that standard (number of points accrued) is not achieved 1st place will not be awarded. Before people get worked up saying dogs should be put out "if they are not working to the judges satisfaction etc" let me say I am not a mathematical genius and (other than Novice) do not add up my sheets until the completion of the trial so more often than not do not know how the points are adding up.
I have been in the position of being the only dog to finish a Restricted and was not awarded the "win". I agreed with the judge that the work my dog did was not worthy of the "win" and was happy to accept the judges decision. The reasoning was explained by the judge at presentations.
A lot of what we do is PR, a new handler to any level of competition that enters trials but is unsuccessful finishing trial after trial is going to be lost to the sport. Surely having a handler complete a trial, without achieving a placing is more beneficial than have them say “I bombed again”. How pleasing was it on the weekend to hear a number of Restricted handlers say that they had FINISHED a Restricted. They weren’t concerned about placing just that they had finished!
Certainly the proposal allowing dogs to stay in Restricted longer is relevant but more importantly keeping trialers in the sport at ANY level is paramount.
Kate
Just a few thoughts of my own as a judge.
Points have been well made by a number of contributors to this site. Many times has it been mentioned that dogs are getting out of Restricted too soon, dogs were the last ones standing so got the win etc etc.
Maybe it is time that both judges and competitors take it on board that there be a standard of competency that has to be achieved for a place to be awarded. Just because a dog finishes does it mean it HAS to be awarded a placing?
I have and will continue to say to competitors that I have a standard that as a judge I require the dogs to achieve and if that standard (number of points accrued) is not achieved 1st place will not be awarded. Before people get worked up saying dogs should be put out "if they are not working to the judges satisfaction etc" let me say I am not a mathematical genius and (other than Novice) do not add up my sheets until the completion of the trial so more often than not do not know how the points are adding up.
I have been in the position of being the only dog to finish a Restricted and was not awarded the "win". I agreed with the judge that the work my dog did was not worthy of the "win" and was happy to accept the judges decision. The reasoning was explained by the judge at presentations.
A lot of what we do is PR, a new handler to any level of competition that enters trials but is unsuccessful finishing trial after trial is going to be lost to the sport. Surely having a handler complete a trial, without achieving a placing is more beneficial than have them say “I bombed again”. How pleasing was it on the weekend to hear a number of Restricted handlers say that they had FINISHED a Restricted. They weren’t concerned about placing just that they had finished!
Certainly the proposal allowing dogs to stay in Restricted longer is relevant but more importantly keeping trialers in the sport at ANY level is paramount.
Kate