The New Rules - Interpretation

[Alan Donovan]

Alan,
Really, what fair-minded judge would have set out, even in the past, to cast or place yet another article of game in line with a double-rise?

Hi Joe - I can remember runs that have been set in trials by judges (who I always thought fair-minded, but probably safer not to name them!) involving "in line" retrieves:

A short teaser bird, in combination with a long double rise

A short double rise, with a long mark to be picked up last

But I agree that the "in-line" rule is not going to change the world.

I am looking for support for the next rule review (2010) to increase the distance for All Age up to 250 metres, and a maximum of 4 items of game to be retrieved. Let's give judges a bit more flexibility in run setting!

Cheers - Alan

[Prue Winkfield]

Have been reluctant to join in this discussion! However, I believe where Alan is coming from is that not all judges appear to be sensible in interpreting the rules. Whether this is because they genuinely make mistakes or are trying to eliminate dogs, these runs that do not seem to be in the spirit of AA do get put on.

[Alan Donovan]

Hi Prue

No - my opinion was that the introduction of the new rules should not leave judges not knowing where they stand. eg my query re whether a judge will be able to ask a competitor to nominate the pick up order for "in-line" retrieves - between Gareth and Bob Tawton there was initially a difference of opinion. So it is obviously not clear how the new rules should be interpreted.

I have no problem with elimination runs - rather enjoy them as you know. Not long ago I had the only finisher in a couple of All Age trials. Obviously had better control. Pity it never works out that way in the National. Nothing to do with the judges!

Cheers - Alan

[John Lawton]

Well, Well, it appears that the National RAFT did all the Who harin up in Queensland, then every body went home and sat on their hands unable to follow through, some fifteen weeks ago. Will it take another fifteen weeks to agree on a final draft? Maybe another six weeks after that for the printer?
Wasn't it a clear mandate to have the new rule change book printed for January 2005?

Also their is a mention that the draft should be made available on this web site. the RAFT Committees must realise that many triallers are not privy to this particular form of communication as yet.

Come on guys lets see some action. Remember its only 4 1/2 years to the next rule change review.

[Gareth Tawton]

John,

I think you will eventually see that the rules working party did anything but sit on their hands. This is an extremly complex and time consuming process. How much work did you do on it? You should also no by now the final draft has already been approved is on its way to print but we are waiting on ANKC formalli notifying the state bodies of available of the new printed edition and an effective date. As for getting them on the website well I wouldn't even bother get ANKC permission as it isn't required. Any individual who has a copy can do that. If someone can cend me a copy I will.

The slow down appears to have been more in the political side of the ANKC workings and a lack of communication from SOME but not all members of the National RAFT. Perhaps you should ask who on the national RAFT is slow in responding to requests from the working party and is our chairperson at a national level following up with the ANKC to see that the rule changes are put thru as speadily as possible. Remember it is you the triallers that elected these people. You need to follow up that they are following thru with any clear mandate such as the rule changes you have asked for.

Good luck!!!!

Gareth

PS at least now thru the website there is considerably more communication than ever before.

Gareth

[Joe Law]

For the most part, I would support Gareth's viewpoint. A friend of mine,Asifit Matters, has provided me with a copy of the draft which he claims is genuine. Being a journo of sorts he wouldn't disclose his source. However, if anyone feels they cant wait for the official release because of the delays, you could email me and for what it is worth I could reply with Asif's unofficial copy attached.
As Alan keeps pointing out:- the new rules should not leave judges not knowing where they stand.