Bending the rule (book)

[Maureen Cooper]

Over the past few seasons it appears that the retrieves as listed in the rule book are being 'modified' to suit certain scenarios.

We are now seeing a single bird cast and the run described as a double rise with a mark on the way back from pick up of the mark. The problem is that on many occasions the second bird is cast fairly close to the line of the returning dog as a two bird retrieve may be and the dog has then to be sent to complete the double rise past the second close bird. It is all well and good to teach ones dog a double rise retrieve and a two bird retrieve as exercises but it now seems we have to teach a concept which combines the two but is not listed as a legitimate retrieve.

A triple blind is not in the rule book so it is described as a double blind and a blind!

A double fall is not allowed en route to a blind so when it is set up this way and the mark cast at double fall distance (at times quite close), it is called a diversionary bird.

Surely the rules are now being bent to provide a reason for what some judges see as a 'nice little run'(quote!) We are now looking at distracting dogs from doing good working and marking runs and to what another judge called 'obedience in the field'. We are scrambling dogs brains! I have had four dogs to All Age level, titled two and retired one due to injury and still competeing with the fourth but boy, have I seen some changes over these years and not all for the good of the sport.

Recently I also experienced a case where the handlers were told they could not handle their dogs on a short mark into moving water, quite contrary to rules 66 and 68 which state a 'handler handling/hunting a dog may speak, whistle and work it by hand directions as he may deem proper', the handler who did so (yours truly) was eliminated for a quiet 'find it' and the handlers were NOT told that they would be eliminated if they handled! Being third handler up who had to go to another stake and due to the high numbers of All Age entries I did not lodge a protest but I had travelled 700 kms and paid the entry for such a scenario. Makes one wonder what judging is coming to and where the rule book fits in.

We are supposedly trying to encourage people into the sport, for what reason?? To make up the numbers?? How many times do we see and hear of better known handlers allowed much more time, more disobeyed commands and dogs out of the area on retrieves. The scourge of the show ring 'face judging' rears its head even in retrieving trials. How to deal with this? Vote with your non entry. I know that an argument put forward is that ANY trial is experience for your dog and that is quite true but if it happens once too often under a judge then make your decision.

All these scenarios are being discussed amongst triallers but it does not get a mention in public writing so come on, lets have some feedback.

[Pat Thorn]

We are supposedly trying to encourage people into the sport, for what reason?? To make up the numbers?? How many times do we see and hear of better known handlers allowed much more time, more disobeyed commands and dogs out of the area on retrieves. The scourge of the show ring 'face judging' rears its head even in retrieving trials.
Makes one wonder what judging is coming to and where the rule book fits in.

Well done, Maureen, someone who is prepared to question the so called "rule benders".
Judges just make the rules as they go, I have seen too much of this in the past.

Take a case of the dog that breaks a birds back and the handler is then told that if the dog marks the bird in the next run, he is out. What rule states this? The rules states that if a dog crunches the bird, and in the judges opinion, if the bird is unfit for the table, then he can be put out.

Also how can a dog be marked the same or close to the same when on a mark the dog that is clearly going to run past and is stopped by his handler as opposed to the dog that goes straight to the bird on his own.

"Face" judging as you put it is "rife", too often I have seen a well known handler being allowed a lot of extra time as opposed to not so well known handlers who are put out very quickly indeed. How can these well known handlers claim a prize (a place) when their dog should have been put out of the stake?

Another gripe is on a double fall, when a competitor whistles his dog to stop just prior to the double fall bird being cast, then signalling his dog to the correct bird. Surely the test of the double fall is what the dog will do when in top flight and the double fall bird goes off. A dog that goes straight to the bird he is supposed to get should surely be marked much higher that the dog who is called of the double fall bird.

[Prue Winkfield]

Very good post Maureen - I think it is because we are becoming Americanised in the retrieving world just as we are in the 'real' world! Also, it must make judging much easier when you are looking at 'control' rather than retrieving ability especially when the standard is high and it might be difficult to put on diffiult marks and blinds due to terrain, etc.

When are you coming down to Vic and what will your phone number be? Prue

[Kerry Webster]

I quite agree Maureen. It seems that sometimes, the judge of an All Age trial suddenly becomes hell bent on creating runs designed purely to put as many dogs out of the trial as possible, rather than determining which dog did it in the best and most efficient manner. I must admit I have seen this occur mostly on my trips to the Eastern States, but there have been occasional episodes even in W.A. trials.

You would be aware from the 2001 Nationals, where I put in a protest on one of the "illegal" runs, that, judges have now officially been instructed that a doublefall cannot be put up on a blind. From what you have said, there are judges skirting around this ruling by having a diversionary bird. This to me is drawing a very fine line, and just another attempt to do whatever the judge wants, rather that follow the rules.
A triple blind (double blind,single blind), is contradictory. Three blinds on the one run constitute a triple in my arithmetics, just as three marks on a run constitute a triple mark, not a double mark and a single mark.

There are several judges who obviously have no regard for the rules, and treat themselves as little "gods", to which the lowly competitors should bow and scrape to. Sorry, guys, not this person. I am not backward in coming forward, as quite a few triallers have discovered. I consider all competitors have paid for their entries and deserve a good and fair innings, and that the rules are there for the good of the sport, to be adhered to by competitors and judges. And I mean ALL.

Face judging is obviously rife in the sport, all over the nation, probably.
I even had a judge tell me to my face, that a well known and successful competitor would be given more time on the block than he would give me.
I was lost for words at the time, which is a rare occurence, but later, at a trial where this other competitor and myself were up against each other, and this particular judge presided, he certainly received leniency in several runs, where I and others were penalised.

As I see it, one of the problems with All Age judges is there is no assessment done of their trials/judging, once they pass the initial three trial assessment. Some judges may go out of the sport for several years, and on their return may be out of touch with how the sport has progressed. Others consider that making runs so difficult, and often unrealistic, for dogs to achieve, is the correct procedure. An example of a statement by a qualified judge, heard whilst sitting around at the Nationals last year, is, that he would judge a blind as a mark. The moment the handler spoke or whistled a command, he would deduct points, regardless of whether it was obeyed or not. He also stated he would expect a dog to run the blind exactly like a mark.

Well, it isn't often I see a blind run like a mark by any dog, and I thought this was a ridiculous statement to be made, but is the way this judge thinks.

Unfortunately, the consequences of this rule bending will probably be the exit of dogs/handlers, permanently. But, yes, maybe non entry for the trials with judges who constantly are blatant in their deviation from the rules, may get the message across, but I doubt it. I would suggest that more people write to the club holding the event, then to their Retrieving Sub Committee, protesting and asking for an investigation. If the representatives are worth their salt, and there are several protests, then it cannot be ignored.

[kirsty]

As a newby to the sport I find the rule book to be extremely ambiguous. When I was first interested in starting a dog in non-slip I purchased the rule book in order to get an idea of what was required. It was absolutely no help whatsoever. As you say, Maureen, judges are "bending the rules" in order to set the runs that they want. However, a comprehensive, clear set of rules would not allow this to occur. If judges are setting triple blinds under the guise of a "double blind and a single blind" then let's amend the rule book to say that "not more than two blinds may be given on any one run." The rule book should never remain static in the face of dynamic changes to our sport.
Of course, judges argue that a loose set of rules allow them to change their runs to suit the challenges offered by different terrains etc. This is true, but I feel it is possible to challenge dogs just as much without setting runs that are outside the parameters of the rule book.
Also, shows and obedience trials have a Canine Council Representative at all events. Their job is to document any variances from the rules that occur at that event. Do we have these for our retrieving trials? If not, why not? And if we do, I've never seen one.
Personally, I would find it extremely difficult to put in a formal complaint against a judge. Firstly, because its almost impossible to find a rule in the rule book that's airtight. It can often go either way. Secondly, people assume you're being a "bad sport" because your dog's crap and can't do the run. Thirdly, if someone's dog successfully completes the run they're not going to complain because there's more chance of their dog getting the first place if all other dogs fail to complete.
To put it simply, the rule book shouldn't give judges the opportunity to "make their own rules". We need to organise a National Committee for reform in order to fill all the holes in the sieve we call a rule book.

Kirsty

[Prue Winkfield]

Kirsty - as a matter of interest and only slightly off subject: I am involved in field trials and at a meeting to discuss rule changes asked the question as to whether the rules were there for the judges or competitors and was tlod they were there for the judges and in reality they could do what they liked - within reason I supppose! Have never asked thequestion re retrieving so perhaps when the rules next come up for review we should!

Regarding complaints - I believe the time to make a complaint is before anyone has run - in AA there are definitley enough people there to assesss the run before doing it - many of the handlers are judges. I suspect that some handlers hope their dog will do it and others wont. Prue

[Robert Tawton]

Hi All,

Much has been said about "bending the rules" in regard to the types of retrieves being set by certain Judges, coupled with implication that there is a plethora of "so called" illegal Runs creeping into our wonderful sport.
Perhaps it would be wise to consider the following before reaching a conclusion:
Rule No 1 says;
A Retrieving Trial is an event at which competitions for the working of registered Gundogs are conducted, both on land and in water, to determine their relative merits in the field under conditions which emulate as closely as possible those which would be found whilst shooting, but at the same time bringing the work of each dog within the ambit of equality where assessment may be fairly made.
The key features embodied in Rule 1 include,
a. that we are seeking to emulate retrieves that could reasonably occur in the field, and
b. that the retrieve/s for each dog should fall within an ambit of equality where assessmants can be fairly made.
Rules Nos 8 through 21 list a range of retrieves all of which could/would be found in a typical hunting scenario.
Inter alia, Rule 22 states;
On multiple Retrieves the Judge may stipulate the order of retrieving. Any reasonable combination of the listed retrieves shall be permissible, provided that a dog shall not be required to pick up more than three (3) items of game in any retrieve.
It should be noted that any reasonable combination of retrieves is permissable provided no more than three items of game are to be recovered.
Rule 30 states;
The maximum distance for any retrieve will be 150 metres. It is desirable in a Novice Stake that Runs not be more than 100 metres.
The requriements of Rule 30 are self explanatory.
The last and by no mean least important issue that must be taken into consideration;
Whether or not the scenario proposed by the Judge is specifically excluded by the Rules? Only two examples where this may occur come to mind viz, Rule 16 which specifically excludes a "Double Fall" being run directly linked to a blind retrieve and Rule 28 which relates to a dog being in sight, until it reaches the area of fall, on a well planned blind.
Based on the criteria and the discussion above, I cannot accept that a Blind Find Retrieve (Rule 11) and a Double Blind Retrieve (Rule 13) run in conjuction with each other (Rule 22), popularly referred to as a Triple Blind, amounts to an illegal run as implied in the subject article.
To date I fail to be convinced that there is a need to specifically define all the possible variations permitted under the current regime. Surely common sense and tests and/or combinations of tests that satisfy the criteria above is all that is necessary? Can you imagine the volume of effort required to define in absolute terms and get agreement to all the possible variations and to what end? Many trial grounds are far from ideal, help is always at a premium, running a trial can be a logistical nightmare and often Judges are left to their own devices. Overlay this situation with the need to take into consideration the needs of competitors moving between Stakes and providing the gallery with a clear view of the proceedings. Judges need the maximum flexibility possible, if they are to set realistc, interesting and challenging events equitable for all competitors.

Perhaps it maybe more "cost effective" for us to direct our energies towards those areas not addressed or inadequately covered by the current Rules. The increasing use of "diversionary and/or No No birds" and significant relocations possibly fall into this category. With more than 50 years experience as a hunter I have never repositioned myself to make it more difficult for my dog to complete a retrieve! Food for thought, do most relocations comply with Rule No 1?

regards, RWT

[Kerry Webster]

Hi Rob,

Good to see your response, representing a judges view, as well as a competitor.

I have a couple of queries. First, I cannot understand the logic in having a run that incorporates us, the handler, firing at a diversionary bird, and then specifically not having our dog pick up that bird, but, often purposely directing the dog past the diversion to pick up another bird/s.

Surely, in a real hunting situation, this wouldn't occur ?????

I can understand another gunner in the field, and not allowing my dog to pick up his bird, but why would a person shoot down a bird, then tell their dog "No".

Also, if a diversionary bird is being put up as a dog is being sent for a blind, isn't this still a doublefall, regardless of the fact that it isn't to be retrieved ??

I would also like to hear opinions on the situation of dogs being eliminated on mark retrieves, where a dog which doesn't see the mark and needs a few commands to get to the area, is eliminated after 3 to 4 commands, but a dog which has seen the mark, over-runs the fall and needs 12 commands to be brought back onto the bird, is left in the competition. You would know personally about this one Rob, as I do.

Don't the rules say "fair and equal" for all competitors.

Kerry

[Robert Tawton]

Hi Kerry,

I will try to answer your queries as best I can. You wrote,"I cannot understand the logic in having a run that incorporates us, the handler, firing at a diversionary bird, and then specifically not having our dog pick up that bird, but, often purposely directing the dog past the diversion to pick up another bird/s.
As I said in my earlier input to this thread , the Rules are largely silent on how a single diversionary bird may be used, other than to say it can be cast or placed (see Rule 23 (a) ). Furthermore, its physical relationship to the other items of game that are to be retrieved is not specified, whereas Rules 14, 15, 16 and 18 place physical constraints on the relationship between the various items of game in relevant retrieves.
In regard to the logic behind using a diversionary bird in the manner you describe, I can only surmise that the Judge was seeking to establish an extreme test of control. By having you fire at the diversion bird the dog was fully aware of its existence, yet it was required to recover other items of game located/falling on similar but different line/s. Again I can only presume that the Judge placed no value on the effort required to retrieve the diversionary bird and so this was not required.
You wrote,"Surely, in a real hunting situation, this wouldn't occur ?????"
In response to this question I can only remember one occasion where this happened. Gareth and I were shooting over a common set of decoys and were separated by about 50 metres. Without warning a duck approached and we both instinctively and simultaneously fired, yet Gareth claimed the "kill" as the bird dropped amongst the decoys and relatively close to me. Moments later I shot a bird that fell beyond the decoys and almost in line with "Gareth's" bird. From Homah's perspective I shot both birds yet he only got to retrieve the long bird and Gareth then used Jake to pick up the bird closer to me. The skills necessary to handle a dog past one item of game in order to recover another are frequently used in real hunting situations. It is often necessary to recover wounded game ahead of dead game closer to hand.

In response to your question,"if a diversionary bird is being put up as a dog is being sent for a blind, isn't this still a doublefall, regardless of the fact that it isn't to be retrieved ?? " my view is: By definition a bird cast while the dog is in transit to a blind is not a Double Fall see Rule 16. The use of a diversionary bird in this manner is certainly a demanding test of control, but is it legal - Yes! Why do I say this? Depending upon the set up, doe it meet the following criteria: Was the test consistent with the requirements of Rule 1? I believe the answer is "Yes", it could and does happen in real hunting situations and was it equitable for all dogs where assessment could be fairly made? If the answer is Yes, did it comply with Rule 30 and because the bird was not to be retrieved, it was not in conflict with Rule 16, nor was it in conflict with Rule 23 (a). As described, I agree that the Run was controversial but not, in my opinion, illegal.

The hour is late, so I will respond to your last question tomorrow.

Regards, RWT

[Robert Tawton]

Hi Kerry,

As promised, I will now focus on your last question. You wrote, "I would also like to hear opinions on the situation of dogs being eliminated on mark retrieves, where a dog which doesn't see the mark and needs a few commands to get to the area, is eliminated after 3 to 4 commands, but a dog which has seen the mark, over-runs the fall and needs 12 commands to be brought back onto the bird, is left in the competition. You would know personally about this one Rob, as I do.
From the outset let me say that, in relation to my dog, I am comfortable with the Judge's decision. Mac was not working to my satisfaction so I have no qualms with the Judge using Rule 58 to have me call the dog in. I did not see your dog nor the one requiring the "12 commands", so I cannot comment directly. Nevertheless, let us examine the situation from a "game theory" perspective. In relation to the test I suggest that we would both agree that the Mark was fair and that the dogs were given ample opportunity to observe the flight of the bird and its fall (see Rule 24). As leader of the team, the handler has an obligation to position and/or cue the dog such to maximize its opportunity to see the bird (see Rules 5 and 81). For whatever reason Mac did not see the bird and therefore failed the most important aspect of the whole exercise, which was after all a mark, not a blind. Mac then added to his demise by not going as sent. Furthermore, by not arriving in the area of the fall after 3 or 4 commands, he was by definition disobedient. The Judge therefore made, in my opinion, the correct decision.
Turning to the dog that had "12 commands", you say that it, "saw the bird but over-ran the fall and needed 12 commands to be brought onto the bird". Can I suggest that what constitutes the "area of the fall" defies accurate definition; yet, at the outset of every test, each Judge must arbitrarily define its boundaries for himself, and for each bird within the particular test, so he can assess whether the dog has remained within his concept of the "area of fall", as well as how far it has wandered away from the "area" and how much cover it has unnecessarily disturbed. These later two aspects are particularly relevant to Rule 25. In establishing these arbitrary and hypothetical boundaries the Judge should take into consideration; a) the type, height and uniformity of the cover, b) light conditions, c) the direction of the wind and its intensity, d) the length of the fall, e) the speed of individual dogs, f) any significant changes in cover within the fall area and lastly, which bird is it in the sequence of the events, since each area of fall will be different from the other. I can only presume that in the case in question, the judge deemed that the dog had only made a mistake in recognising exactly where the bird had fallen and that it had not failed the exercise, was not out of control or grossly outside the "area of fall". In the end, whether 12 commands were too much boils down to a matter of opinion!

Regards, RWT

[Kerry Webster]

Thanks for replying Rob.
I understand the situation that you described whilst out hunting with Gareth, but still can't see the logic in the practise of a diversionary bird that I shoot at, but don't want to retrieve. Discounting wounded game in the run, it just appears to be another area for confusion for the dog.

I also cannot find any reference to rules regarding diversion birds, other that Rule 23, saying it can be done.

You also stated Rob that in your view, a diversionary mark whilst a dog was on its way to a blind, did not constitute a double fall. Would you be stating this because the dog would not be required to pick it up ? I would have thought that any bird cast whilst a dog is on it's way to retrieve, would be classed a doublefall. It would appear there is a loophole here in regards to the rule (16) for doublefalls, which needs clarifying by RAFT.

In regard to the other issue I asked comment on, re commands on marks, Rule 27, also states in part that a dog that "will take direction from his handler is of great value". I can understand a dog being eliminated after disobeying 3 to 4 commands of direction to a mark, but not, when the commands are being obeyed. But, there was inconsistency in the judging here.

Ok, you saw the area of the mark, and the hill behind the fall, and, where the two bird was falling. I watched as several dogs who obviously didn't mark down the fall, ran on up the hill way past the bird. a good 60 metres. A couple even went to the right towards the blind. I counted the commands for only one of these dogs (12), and obviously by this number, the dog hadn't got to the area of the fall 'within the 4 command limit', or, was even close.

My dog didn't see the mark, but went out willingly. Three commands had her just past the fall area of the two bird. I didn't get a chance to give a fourth command, because we were called in.
This was to me a case of NOT being fair and equal to all competitors.

It is all finished with now, but again, to us from the West, it was just another example of the "them and us" attitude we have become used to seeing on our travels east. Goodness, our judges here aren't perfect, but they do attempt to have marks with good skylines, no doublefalls that aren't in the rule book, and they give everyone a fair go at each retrieve.

Kerry

[Maureen Cooper]

Hi Bob and Kerry

Been following the dialogue between you both and interesting to read the points of view.

I tend to agree with Kerry's thought that a mark cast en route to a blind looks like a double fall but as you say, Bob, according to the rule book it is not but then how would you describe the run? As Kerry says, maybe this is one of the areas where the rules should be tightened with a distance factor involved.

A blind find is a test of control but then according to the rule book, rule 26, also states that where more than one bird is to be retrieved and the order specified by the judge then it too may be considered a test of control. One multiple marks this is where the controversy rages on giving the dog a line too. Is a brief line to the bird you wish your dog to retrieve really 'giving your dog a line' ?

Having had my father as a shooter for many years and been to Field trials in the UK and here, I think we do tend to get away from the actual field scenario in the name of competition. In the UK I have seen dogs pick up game other than the game nominated by the judge, deliver it and be resent for the 'correct' game again. This happened when a number of pheasants were shot and the lines tight. The dog was not eliminated for bringing back the 'wrong' bird first, the judges accepted the line was tight.

Bob, I was not implying a triple blind was illegal. It was a thread I was asked to include on the grounds given ie not in the rule book. I know that rule 22 gives the judge an out to do what he/she wants! It is just puzzling why the rules should give single, double and triple marks yet not blinds. I have never been out on a shoot where a dog has had to retrieve three blinds, that is all I can add. I was just the messenger re the blind comment.

I also think it is important to realise that many triallers compete in the sport for the love of it and many are happy just to complete an All Age and that these people make a huge contribution to the sport with their entry fee and in the States or National they accept their chances of finishing are pretty remote but without these entries the trophy table would be much diminished. If they did not enter you could end up with much higher entry fees. I dont mean that the standard must be lowered to accomodate these folks but just that the difficulty of some runs these days is geared to those people who have very highly trained dogs.

Handlers like to leave a trial happy, at any level, I dont think we should forget this. If their dog mucks up (and weve all had that!) we accept we need to go back and train some more but if runs are set up that are controversial then something should be done to eliminate this aspect.

Maureen

[Kerry Webster]

Hi Maureen,

Actually, it isn't legal to have a doublefall on a blind, and this was the issue two years ago at the Nationals, which caused a protest. RAFT have addressed this, and I was notified that a bird cannot be cast as a mark as a dog is on its way to retrieve a blind.

As I said in my last post in querying Rob, was, that a diversional mark on a blind, still is to me, a doublefall, but Rob's opinion of this from his previous post, was that he did not consider it a doublefall.
I just find it contradictory, if the rules allow a diversionary mark on a blind.

In consideration of the calibre of the dogs and handlers competing today, and the types of runs often set by present day judges, the present rules for the conduct of retrieving trials, appear a bit vague in several circumstances, allowing varied interpretations. This is where some tidying up is needed to eliminate the distances between interpretations, and make the implementation of the rules decidedly clear to all involved in trialling dogs.

Kerry

[Paul Littlejohn]

Hi All.

Intersesting, can see both aspects. Certainly do not agree with the double fall(diversionary) whilst dog is being sent for a blind. Triple retrieves of which all legs are blinds are OK but it could do with a governor on it very similar to the triple mark, but judges have become very aware of what they call runs and as there is no discription in the rule book they have started to refer to this run as stated.

Similar to judges from another state who refer to a run. AS per a two bird when the dog is returning from a blind retrieve.

Kerry I shoot most weeks at least twice and 5 to 6 times a week during our 3 month duck season, my case is a little different because of my son who is not old enough by law to have a Duck Licence ??? but always comes and works his own dog. As a result I very very often shoot birds that my dog is not allowed to retrieve so my sons dog gets some work and if there moving well ( ducks) then your senario often happens, but that only in my case and I often position my son away from me to affect the flight of the ducks.

Hope you all had a good trip home.

[Rick Johnston]

i wont be going to many trials if i have to drive 4,5 or 6 hours to compete once