Deductions in rules

[Pat Thorn]

In the rules are the following deductions, these are open to the judges interpretation as are other rules.
a. Breaking to Shot - max 10 points
b. Hard mouth - max 10 points
c. Blinking and over-running game - max 5 points
d. Dropping game - max 5 points, and
Not firing from the shoulder - max 5 points

When are we going to be more specific in our rules where judges cannot differ to each other in the interpretations.

[Robert Tawton]

Pat,
I’m not sure that I fully understanding the point you are seeking to make. In our every day life, we are governed by all manner of Rules and Regulations most, if not all, are subject to some form of interpretation. For example, in the State of Victoria and within the built-up areas, if you exceed 50 kmph you are deemed to be speeding. The Law recognises that there are degrees of speeding and the penalties increase accordingly. Extenuating circumstances are often taken into account by those administering the Law before they set the final penalty. Why wouldn’t the same logic apply to misdemeanours committed by dogs during the course of a Retrieving Trial?
Perhaps it is worthwhile to reflect on how our Rules have been developed and on the scope to introduce change.
In 1954 the Labrador Retriever Club of Victoria sponsored the development of the initial set Retrieving Trials Rules and two “trial” events were conducted, under the watchful eye of the Kennel Control Council (KCC). The KCC then approved the concept and the first “official” Novice Trial was held on June 1, 1957 and the first KCC Victorian State Retrieving Trial Championship held in 1958. During this period similar, but quite independent, development was taking place in New South Wales (NSW) with much of the organisational credit due to (the late) Mr Len De Groen and his brother Harry.
Charles Behrendt, a founding member of the LRC, was a regular visitor to the USA and on one occasion brought back a set of AKC Field Trial Rules, which were subsequently blended into the existing rules developed by both Victoria and New South Wales. The upshot of this activity was that the Australian National Kennel Council (ANKC) ratified the Rules for the Conduct of Non-Slip Retrieving Trials for Gundogs in 1966.
Since 1966 the Rules have been subject to regular review on a 5 year cycle. In each “review year” and on a State by State basis, triallers are invited to submit suggested changes and/or improvements. Subject to a proposed change gaining majority support from the home State, all proposed changes are then considered by the National Retriever and Field Trial Sub-committee. Proposals gaining majority NRAFT support are then duly implemented. The most recent meeting of the NRAFT was held in Leyburn, QLD on 31 August 2004 and it is intended that the updated Rules will come into effect on 1 Jan 2005, subject to ANKC ratification. I understand that none of the proposed changes will impact on the status quo in regard to the areas you cite.
Regards, RWT

[Pat Thorn]

Bob
Thanks for the history lesson, very informative indeed.

But you miss my point, or at least I think you do.

Lets take a case in point:
a. Breaking to Shot - max 10 points

This tells me that a judge can deduct 10 points (in his opinion) if the dog takes a couple of steps forward, while another judge will deduct 2 points (say) for the same breach. As you can see the rules do not specify what the couple of steps are worth, it is left to the judge.
And if you go thru the rules you will find that the above is rife.

[Jason Ferris]

Hi Pat

Looking at the issue from another perspective - why does it matter if each judge has a different interpretation of how to apply the deductions, as long as they use the same interpretation when assessing the performance of all of the dogs in a stake? The score system is after all a subjective one and the ambit of equality comes from a consistent interpretation by the judge across all competitors.

The only problem I see is when there are multiple judges for a given stake (where one judge's extreme interpretation of the rules can cancel out a softer judges interpretation on other runs), or when we try to compare points scored across trials (something which in my opinion we shouldn't try to do as the scoring system doesn't support it).

Cheers, Jason.

[Pat Thorn]

The score system is after all a subjective one and the ambit of equality comes from a consistent interpretation by the judge across all competitors.

That's the problem, they are subjective not objective as I would like them. That's the beauty of opinion, they are like bums, everybody's got one.

I have made my point, you have made yours, we'll end this one here unless....

[Robert Tawton]

Pat,

I will respond on two fronts:

A Judge is unlikely to penalise a dog 10 points if (to use your words) “the dog takes a couple of steps forward” for the simple reason the Judge would have left himself with nowhere to go if another dog broke to shot and completed the retrieve. In my view the dynamics of the situation require that the Judge must have flexibility in assessing the relative seriousness of any infringement and the attendant circumstances surrounding the incident. Consider the question “Is a dog that takes a couple of steps forward in a Walk-up Retrieve breaking to shot? Adopting a “Point a Step” approach would still not cover the case of the dog breaking and completing the retrieve. I would like to think that Judges have at least a modicum of common sense coupled with considerable experience in training and competing with dogs.

The insight into the formation of the Rules and the processes for up-grading them was provided so that if you feel strongly enough you can formulate new Rules for consideration in 2009. During 2005 a Proposed Guide for Judges is scheduled for further development and perhaps you can provide some input into that document. The initial draft maybe found on this site under Articles and Archives.

Regards, RWT

[Peter Betteridge]

I'm with Pat on this one. The rules should be as objective as possible.there are plenty of areas where this is not possible but Bob's example of coming out of the hide is one of them. Bob stated that most judges would exercise discretion in penalizing a dog that came out of the hide given that there are only 10 points available for penalizing a dog that has broken to shot. Yes Bob you are right but it DOESN'T HAPPEN that way all the time. There are plenty of judges that have had little all age experience as successful competitors and even the ones that judge nationals don't always see it as you and I do. A good case in point was a national that I competed in, in the late 1990's.In that national one competitor was put out of the trial without ever getting the opportunity to pick up a bird.the dog didn't break to shot it just came out of the hide. On the 4th run of the same trial the judge instructed us that if our dog came out of the hide (one body length) we were to return to the dog and re position him. If it happened again we could pick up our dog.that is the sort of thing that happens when the rules are allowed to be overly subjective.Not every judge can draw on as much wisdom and experience as Bob Tawton.I guess everybody has to start somewhere but lets try to legislate as much consistency as is possible to help our judges and lets support gareth's judges guide proposal as an essential part of growing our great sport.COMPETITORS NEED CONSISTANCY