Grounds for Elimination

[Alan Donovan]

This is Prue(from Vic) using Alan Donovan's computer. I have been having a lovely time in sunny Queensland thoroughly enjoying the trials - lots of diversity and fun. A couple of instances last weekend left me confused and would appreciate clarification if possible: Case 1 - competitors are asked to leave their dog - walk up, fire at a blind, reload then call the dog up. Some competitors (including yours truly)did not take this in exactly and reloaded after calling the dog up therefore 'not following judge's instructions' - result - points deducted. Case 2 - competitor leaves dog in hide and fires at two blinds with a specified order of firing (dog out of sight of handler). Competitor does not take this in and fires at the blinds in a different order therefore 'not following judge's instructions' - result - elimination.

Why is one instance of not exactly 'following judge's instructions' grounds for elimination and the other is not? Other than failure to retrieve, swapping game, extreme hard mouth which should be marked 'no score' hence grounds for elimination, not working to the judge's satisfaction, - what other grounds for elimination are there?

Would be great to get input from our judges around the country and to hear of competitors' experiences.

[Allan Bartram]

Hi Pru, my humble opinion on your query is that to be excluded for not firing at blinds in the correct order is a pretty stiff penalty. I personally may make a small deduction for not following an instruction but that would only be one or two points.I stress that would be MY interpetation and ther are no hard and fast rules covering such occassions.
In your case 1 senario I would certainly apply some penalty as the judge is indicating that he is testing the steadiness of the dog by asking you to reload before calling the dog,if you call the dog before reloading you are indicating to the judge that your dog is not steady and has failed that part of the test
The rule book does not specify a penalty for failure to follow a judges instruction so hence a judge may apply any penalty he sees fit.

Hope this helps

regards Allan

[Kerry Webster]

Okay I'll put my foot in here and state an opinion.

I do think that a handler not following instructions from the judge as in the case of reloading before calling the dog, should have points deducted. They are showing they don't have faith in their dog to be steady and should be penalised, compared against the handler & dog that does the exercise correctly.

The 2nd scenario again did not follow the judges instructions and should, in my opinion, have had points deducted, not elimination. There was nothing to gain by the handler or dog (if it stayed in the hide), by firing at the blinds in the wrong order, and should only be penalised for disobeyed instructions.

I would think that a protest on the elimination would have re-instated the handler to the competition, because it was a minor infraction of the instructions, and not the rules. Still, everyone has that option open to them, and whether it is taken is often a matter of importance, or lack of it.

My opinion. Don't hold your breath for many more judges to state an opinion here though; it won't be forthcoming.

Kerry

[Joe Law]

Allan, your humble opinion is appreciated and well stated. As for me, Case 2 as reported here seems unbelievable. Is there another side to this story? I have always assumed that it was the duty and the responsibility of a judge to provide competitors with a fair opportunity to exhibit their dog and demonstrate to all present what they and their dog have been able to achieve. It is the dogs' trainability, natural ability and breeding that is being displayed. How does the specific order of firing at two blinds while the dog is out of sight of the handler have any significance in this case? Is there more to this case that has not been reported or is it simply a case of poor attitude and judgement? On the other hand, competitors need to keep in mind that judges are providing a service to our sport and that some errors in judgement will always be inevitable. If competitors appear to be trying to exploit a situation in order to gain an unfair advantage then their apparent poor sportsmanship should and probably will attract some penality. Certainly, these type of incidents and their publicity dont help to promote our sport. No number of rules will ever be able to prevent poor judgement and attitude and rules are only needed for people who can't agree.

[Pat Thorn]

The rule book does not specify a penalty for failure to follow a judges instruction so hence a judge may apply any penalty he sees fit.

This kind of scenario where a judge may apply any penalty he sees fit means there is a lack of thought that has gone into making the rules.

In one case it's a few points, in another it's "out you go".

Just my two cents worth.

[Alan Donovan]

Hi Pat

The rule book could not be a comprehensive guide to cover everything that might happen in a trial without becoming a legalistic document which would be a couple of hundred pages thick.

So we have often have to rely on "common sense" - and of course, when it is most needed it is not common at all. It can be exceedingly scarce.

It is perhaps unfortunate that most competitors are very reluctant to put in a protest - even if successful in protesting a judge's decision, you are then re-judged by the same judge who thought you should not have protested........ Result may be that you do not receive fair treatment. Not only on that day, but every time you run under that judge in the future, because you were the one who belittled him when he made the mistake.

How many times has a competitor who put in a successful protest actually ended up winning the event? I can think of none.

But most judges are reasonable and do have their fair share of common sense - that's why I keep on trialling.

Cheers - Alan

[Pat Thorn]

The rule book could not be a comprehensive guide to cover everything that might happen in a trial without becoming a legalistic document which would be a couple of hundred pages thick.

So we have often have to rely on "common sense" - and of course, when it is most needed it is not common at all. It can be exceedingly scarce.

I am on another forum each day and the saying goes "common sense aint so common"

It is perhaps unfortunate that most competitors are very reluctant to put in a protest - even if successful in protesting a judge's decision, you are then re-judged by the same judge who thought you should not have protested........ Result may be that you do not receive fair treatment. Not only on that day, but every time you run under that judge in the future, because you were the one who belittled him when he made the mistake.

Belittleing is not the aim, a fair go is.

How many times has a competitor who put in a successful protest actually ended up winning the event? I can think of none.

So what's the point of a protest, if you are not going to be judged fairly.

But most judges are reasonable and do have their fair share of common sense - that's why I keep on trialling.

Fair point.

nb. You are very diplomatic Alan, an admirable trait.

[Allan Bartram]

Hi Pat, As a judge I and I would believe the vast majority of my fellow judges take no pleasure in removing a dog from competition . We set runs to test dogs ability and unfortunately some dogs will fail to meet our standards,however we are human and do make mistakes. I believe that a competitor who queries a decision (by protest)is exercising a right to question the interpretation of the rules and certainally don't bare any animosity to that person . Remember most judges are competitors too!
I don't have a problem with someone questioning my decision , I don't like people questioning my ethics.
If a protest is upheld so be it , accept the decision and move on.
My personal gripe is that competitors grizzle and moan in the gallery instead of doing something about it,if you feel strongly that you have been wronged...lodge a protest,otherwise accept the decision sit back,relax and enjoy the great sport we are involved in.
The rule book is not perfect but it is being continually reviewed and improved ...long may common sense prevail !
Sorry to have rambled on a bit

Cheers Allan

[Raymond Johnson]

Case 2. Like Joe I can't help thinking we're not hearing the full story.
I can't see the point nominating when a dogs in a hide & can't see. However if that what the judge decided, then to make it fair, it should have been announce at the beginning for that run. So everyone was aware what he wanted & the penalty was.
Ray. WA

[Prue Winkfield]

Thanks everyone for your comments. Yes, unfortunately you are hearing the full story - it did not happen to me so I am unbiased in this case. I think many Queensland judges and cometitors feel embarrassed by what happened and hopefully the publicity may have an impact. Agree with Alan, it is impossible to cover every possibility in a rule book and hope that judges judge to the spirit of the sport which is to give everyone a fair go (I Hope) and not look for excuses to eliminate people:roll: