The New Rules - Interpretation

[Alan Donovan]

Hi All

Now a new season is about to start, with the latest update of the Rules, there is some discussion on how the following new rules should be handled by judges:

8 (r) In Line Game - Items of game shall be considered to be “in line” if the lines to these items of game are separated by less than 10 metres at a distance of 50 metres from the Firing Point; less than 20 metres at a distance of 100 metres from the Firing Point and less than 30 metres at a distance of 150 metres from the Firing Point


24. The Judge shall not specify the order of pick-up if items of game are deemed to be “In Line” and that decision shall be left to the handler’s discretion.

Question - should a judge be able to ask the handler to state his decision (prior to sending the dog) on the order of pickup? If a handler were to do so, and the dog then makes a different decision - what penalty should apply?

It would be triffic if all judges in all states were to be consistent on this (and also various other rules, but I'd better not go there!)

Cheers - Alan

[Gareth Tawton]

Alan,

Joe Law, Dad and myself had this very discussion. After a 2 to 1 vote Joe being the casting vote I am happy to say we agreed that the handler would be entitled to reply "his/her discretion was to allow the dog to decide the pick order". Therefore the handler, within the boundaries of the rules would not have formally indicated which bird was to be picked up first. This does not precluded the juding from penalizing the dog that returns to an old fall, switches hunting one bird to the other, has an excessive hunt area or requires unneccessary handling.

I think when deciding how to deal with these inevitable grey areas we should be honest about the original intent of the rule not find a way to flaunt it. In this case the intent was to stop the unreasonable selection order of inline birds. To simply switch the person who has to make that pick up order decision is flaunting the intent of the rule.

Regards,

Gareth

[Alan Donovan]

Hi Gareth

I agree that it is a good idea not to have unreasonable selection order of in-line birds, but if a judge puts on a double blind (which is a test of control) and the birds are "in line" - one at 100 metres and one at 150 metres with the near one being say 18 metres off the line to the long one, - isn't it reasonable that the handler nominate what he intends to do? The problem is that the rule is not clear on whether the judge would then penalise for disobedience, or No-score due to picking up a bird other than the nominated one. (The rules not specifying that the nomination has to come from the judge)

In the case of a short double rise, with a long mark (in-line), presumably the 2 legs of the double rise could not be interrupted with the retrieve of the long mark, so a certain amount of "nomination" would be required.

I have no problem with "leaving it to the dog" as long as all judges are consistent on it, and handlers know what to expect. And as you had a 2 - 1 vote, obviously it needs clarification.

Cheers - Alan

[Joe Law]

As Gareth has pointed out I was recently involved in a casual discussion about the new "in-line" rule. It was my opinion that the new rule is being introduced because when game is placed or cast in-line it is unreasonable to expect a handler to be able to indicate to the dog which article of game it is being sent to retrieve. Therefore, by allowing the handler the discretion to decide the order of pick-up, the handler is then able to read the dog and determine during the course of the run which article of game the dog has happened to see, remember, focus upon, or scent before making any final decision about the order of pick-up; this would be of particular value in marking tests where control should not be the major issue being tested. It seems to me that if a judge was to require handlers to indicate their order of pick-up before commencing the run that this would constitute a denial of the "discretion" that this rule aims to afford the handler. I have since checked the rational that was presented to the committee that approved this rule and it reads: "It is considered that in situations where items of game are deliberately cast or placed "in line" and the judge specifies that the "back" item of game is to be retrieved first, the scenario calls for levels of control that are outside the spirit of the sport. There is a widely held view that runs of this type are designed to eliminate competitors rather than produce fair competition that can be assessed in an appropriate manner and suitable safeguards are required.

[Diane McCann]

From a non judge view I would agree with Gareth and Joe-

It appears that the rule change states that the judge cannot determine the order of pick up of in-line birds and that the reason for the change is because such an expectation was deemed unreasonable

I would think that by asking the handler to nominate the order of pick up before running, and then penalising them if the dog does not pick up in the nominated order, very little would have changed except placing the onus on the handler.

Cheers, Diane

[John Lawton]

It is great that other states other than Victoria can comment on the new rules.The RAFT committee of Victoria has not even bothered to notify anyone about any rule changes at all!!

It is a poor show of unity in Victoria, that the RAFT (which should represent the trialers as we all know an expect) does not even bother to notify the trialling fraternity of any changes at all.

Would anyone from interstate please let us know who our Victorian RAFT rep was on the ANKC committee?

There has been calls for a meeting of the rule changes, since October LAST YEAR Even now they CANT BE BOTHERED TO DO ANYTHING FOR THE TRIALLERS.

So when our interstate friends trial or judge in Victoria this year be expected to trial under the old rules

Happy trialling and let the competitions begin.

[Joe Law]

John, if the grapevine information is correct the new rules have been finalised and with the printer. In the meantime it would be helpful if an electronic copy could be published on this site, as it appears we are jumping the gun with this discussion. Can anyone help?

[Alan Donovan]

Hi Joe - I have sent a "preliminary draft" copy to be available under the "Articles" section.

We will all need to buy the new book when it comes out, of course.

While the discussion seems to have been mainly on the issue of whether judges should be able to ask competitors what order of pickup is intended - the real problem is how to achieve a consistent approach, and hence avoid arguments in the field.

Maybe another issue to be covered by the "Judges' Guidelines" - any chance of

1) Bob T. updating them to address issues raised by the new rules

2) Guidelines actually "seeing the light of day"?

Cheers - Alan

PS - for those unaware - the draft Guidelines are posted under "Articles", and seem to have received scant attention........

[Jason Ferris]

Joe and Alan

I have sought the agreement of Paul Littlejohn, chair of the National RAFT, to publish the rules on this site.

Cheers, Jason.

[Joe Law]

Hi Alan
I might be accused of having tunnel-vision, but really the rules seem adequately clear to me.
Firstly, as indicated earlier, I believe a judge would be out of order in demanding handlers to declare their intentions about their order of pick-up of in-line retrieves.
I suspect you are taking on a "devil's advocate" role when you ask these questions and you should be respected for this. It is to be hoped that through discussion amongst people of good will that the rules will become clear and that consistent approach that you refer to will be achieved.
In reply to your question about a double blind; one at 100m and the other at 150m, with the near one say 18m off the line of the long one, I would agree that this could appear reasonable in some cases. However, under the new rule the 18m would need to be extended to at least 20m for the test to be legal. Clearly, when arriving at rules boundaries are set and why do we need to push these boundaries?
Likewise, combining a double-rise with another in-line article of game would bring the in-line rule into conflict with the double-rise rule and ipso facto this would not be permitted. As a matter of principle all rules need to be satisified before a test could be considered permissible.
Another situation where rules could appear to be in conflict would be a double-fall bird which falls say 21m from the line of the first bird and at a distance of more than 100m from the firing point. Once again, if the principle "ALL RULES NEED TO BE SATISFIED" is applied then in this case the distance of the double-fall bird from the initial line would need to be extended. Surely, this is no big deal!

[Margaret Hall]

Dear John;
At the last Victorian RAFT meeting on December 1, (at which only two observers were present), the rules as drafted at Leyburn Qld had not been finalised, or approved or ratified. So the Victorian RAFT committee has been in no position to have any meetings about the rule changes that were drafted in Leyburn.

The draft that everybody seems to be talking about has only just been finalised in DRAFT form by the delegates who attended the Leyburn meeting, and is still not ratified by ANKC committee. Unfortunately for trailers, judges and RAFT delegates this process is very frustrating, annoying and time consuming, but totally out of our control.

Whilst it was the intent of the resolution of the Leyburn meeting that the new rules would become effective from 1.1.2005 as far as the Victorian RAFT delegates are concerned the old rules still apply until we receive official notification from the ANKC that the new rules has been approved and are printed. I can assure you that we have been as frustrated about the process as you seem to be from your posting.

In anticipation of the new rules the RAFT committee at their last meeting tentatively arranged a general meeting for February 23 at the Showgrounds at 7.30 pm, to discuss the rule changes. But until we have confirmation of the new rules we have been are unable to publish that date officially. Copies of the new rule book hopefully will be available for sale at that meeting. As of last week all Victorian judges had been sent a copy of the Draft rules stating that they are as yet not ratified.

All Victorian judges will be sent a letter regarding the February meeting and we will also be advertising on the bulletin board and in club newsletters. Unfortunately we are unable to do any more than that as our hands are tied. This meeting of course will be open for all trialers, judges and interested people to attend,

Margaret Hall - Retrieving Trial delegate of VIC RAFT Committee

[Robert Tawton]

Hi All,

As Chair of the Rules Working Party, and independent of Jason’s request, yesterday I jointly e-mailed Hugh Gent (President of the ANKC), Paul Littlejohn (Chair of the National RAFT Subcommittee) and Tracey Barry (ANKC Administrator) seeking permission to post a draft of the new Rules on this website.

Following is a precise of the response I received today;

The ANKC has received final confirmation that Version Z4 is now ready to be sent to the printers. This will be done and a notice will be sent to all State Offices advising of the effective date of the new Rulebook and also advising that stocks of the new Rulebook are currently being printed.

In regards to posting the Rules on the http://www.australianworkingretrievercentral.org.au website, please note that any such request would first need to receive approval from all State Offices before permission could be granted as this is outside normal practice in regards to publishing ANKC Rulebooks. Should you wish to proceed please forward your request (together with a detailed rationale) to the ACTCA asking them to send it to this office for circulation to all State Offices through the 'out of session' approval process.

The ACTCA Office is closed until 17 January 2005; nevertheless, I plan to contact the Chair of the ACTCA RAFT seeking to promote support for the request.

Regards, RWT

[Gareth Tawton]

Seems this is just another typical example of overuse of governing procedures. Surely our national chair should be following this up to fast track such a simple task. Last I saw the ANKC retrieving rules don't have a copy right on them and are public knowledge. What does anybody achieve by delaying their public viewing.

It might also be worth having some sort of update on these sort of issues on a national level instead of thru the various states. That way everyone would recieve the same information at the same time. This wouldn't water down the various states RAFT roles but help simplify the dissemination of information. Dare I say but maybe another job for the National Chair.

Speaking of which Jason have you had a response from him yet?

[Alan Donovan]

Hi All

I'm not sure that asking everyone you can think of whether it is OK to have the rules of the sport on a website about the sport is absolutely necessary. But it should slow things up a bit........

As the Duke of Wellington once said - "Publish and be Damned"!

Is it illegal for me to email a draft copy of the new rules to anyone who requests it from me? Or do I just get suspended by the ANKC?

Any bush lawyers out there?!

Further to my comments on consistency - it was not obvious to me that double rises or double falls set in a previously acceptable way would now be illegal runs (refer Joe Law's opinion). We are taking the necessary steps to have a judges' forum in Queensland to (hopefully) prepare judges /triallers for the new rules. Prior to their introduction would be good........

Cheers - Alan

[Joe Law]

Alan,
I'm with you on the question of withholding information. It seems our administrators are being pretty precious about their roles and positions. Who owns this information anyway? Will I get to see you in gaol? Hopefully, I won't end up in the same cell!

Re your references to double rises and double falls: certainly, most double rises and most double falls that were "set in a previously acceptable way" will still be legal and still perfectly acceptable. I would suggest that perhaps a few would need to be slightly adjusted in order to comply with the new "in-line" rule. 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? But, whatever your opinion about this being acceptable, I believe it is only this combination involving a double- rise that would become illegal. Any other previous arrangement will remain perfectly acceptable. I never meant to imply otherwise.

Likewise, the only double falls that would require a slight adjustment would be the case of a double-fall which falls at a distance of more than 100 metres from the firing point. Even then, the adjustment required to make this legal would be another 10 m maximum from the line of the initial mark. As I said previously, "no big deal!" - especially as in the past most double falls are not set at this distance and no change would be required.

Keep up the good work as "devil's advocate" and hey! - just as well we have some opportunity for discussion about the new rules before the 2005 season begins!