RETRIEVING AUSTRALIA FORUM

Triallers/RAFT delegates,

I have had discussions with a number of individuals and it seems that there is a belief in some quarters that if a dog has been awarded a Restricted title under the old rules, this prevents the dog from being entered under the rules as commenced this year, in Restricted. Surely this is incorrect, as there is no mention of such an exclusion method within the new rules. In my view this would to a large extent defeat the whole purpose of the rule amendments pertaining to lower stakes eligibility. If I am missing something in my scouring of the Rules please advise. Cheers

Thanks for raising this Question Steve.

I'd like clarification of this new rule as well.

this subject was raised at the end of the season last year, as there was confusion. To the best of my knowledge, the allowance is for all dogs, whether they achieved their three wins & titles several years ago, last season, or do so this coming year. The onus is on the owner of the dog to be aware of how many 1st places a dog has achieved I believe. Anything other than allowing all eligible dogs take advantage of this rule change would be pointless, and as you say Steve, defeat the purpose of having it.

The Working Gundog Club Inc are pleased to advise that we will be accepting entries for our trials based on the ANKC Retrieving Trials Rules for the conduct of Retrieving Trials for Gundogs (Effective from 1st January 2015) in that:

Rule 37. Novice Stake is a Stake confined to Gundogs that have not won any Stake other than (4) Novice Stakes or have gained Championship Points and/or been awarded an AARD title.

Rule 38. Restricted Stake is a Stake confined to Gundogs that have not won five (5) Restricted Stakes, or gained Championship Points and/or been awarded an AARD title.

These rules are very clear and in essence mean that if you have a Restricted dog that has received its RRD title and not won any championship points or AARD title you may complete in the Restricted stake for another two wins.

We, the Committee, hope that this clarifies your concerns and look forward to seeing you at our June Long Weekend trial.

The Committee

Hi All

The new rules 37 & 38 should be read in conjunction with rules 106 & 107 (titles). The title QRD is not retrospective and can only be awarded on the basis of results obtained from 1 January 2015.

Rules 37 & 38 do not include a "not retrospective" clause meaning that dogs that meet the 2015 eligibility criteria can compete in those stakes.

Trevor Stevens has provided me with a response he has given to handlers who have queried the new rules and I quote "As I understand it, your dog has its RRD but you want to run it in Restricted even though it has been (and is currently) running in AA. There wouldn't be any problem at all in it running in Restricted (until it gets 5 wins), provided that it hasn't got its AARD or won championship points."

Trevor is not currently in a position to add comment.

Rules 37 & 38 (from 1/1/2015) allow dogs to compete in novice or restricted beyond the old 3 wins and titles, if the handler wishes, up to 5 wins before having to go up unless they have gained Championship points and/or an AARD title. There is nothing in the rules stopping a dog that has gained an NRD or RRD title in the past competing at those levels again until they meet the new 2015 criterias of 5 wins or gaining an AARD and/or Championship points.

The new rules are quite clear.

Hope this helps

Regards

Jeff Griffiths
Dogs NSW RAFT

Thank you to Jeff and others here who have helped clear up the questions on retrospectivity. This should certainly help anyone reading these posts.

Apologies in advance for this, but I’d like to stay with this “Entry Eligibility Confusion” theme for a moment as I don’t agree that “..the rules are quite/very clear” at all. At least not for simple-minded folk like me. The wording in 37 & 38 may be technically correct but I find the way they are composed a little frustrating, i.e.:

Rule 37. Novice Stake is a Stake confined to Gundogs that have not won any Stake other than four (4) Novice Stakes (Beginners' Tests are excluded) or have gained Championship Points and/or been awarded an AARD title…

Rule 38. Restricted Stake is a Stake confined to Gundogs that have not won five (5) Restricted Stakes, or have gained Championship Points and/or been awarded an AARD title…

The references to (4) wins used in Novice then (5) wins used in Restricted make the eligibility cut off points appear different for each level when the rules are read together, and require some scrutiny to double-check the intended meanings. I notice that when people explain the new eligibility criteria they simply say “…dogs can now have up to 5 wins in Novice or Restricted unless …bla bla”.

Possibly a succession of amendments to these and other clauses have affected their clarity over time? If RAFT revisits these rules in the future I would definitely prefer to see simpler more consistent wording used and would suggest at least changing 37 to read similar to 38, eg: “ Novice Stake is a Stake confined to Gundogs that have not won five (5) Novice Stakes or any other Stake (Beginners' Tests are excluded) or have gained Championship Points and/or been awarded an AARD title… “

If I have missed some important point by all means someone let me know. However, if you don’t consider the existing wording to be confusing, I suggest doing what I did. Download a copy of this Survey, print off a few copies, and hand them to anyone who is not already familiar with theses rules. I think you’ll be surprised at the variety of interpretations you’ll get back.

This is a personal observation and comment only and is definitely not intended as criticism of anybody ...just something to consider. I imagine it’s no easy task managing rule changes.

Regards
Peter Butterfield

Hi Peter
The change that you have proposed makes sense to me.
Rule changes occur every 4 years and there is a complicated process to ensure consensus between states for any proposed changes. The change must be submitted by an individual then supported by their state and then supported by a majority of states.
National RAFT Committee has only very limited discretion to make editorial changes. Hopefully in 3 years time someone will remember to submit this change.
RegardTrevor