Joe Law paper

For discussion on anything retrieving related - trialing, training equipment, news, etc.

Moderator: Peter Butterfield

Joe Law paper

Postby Jason Ferris » Thu 13 Nov 2003 1:46 pm

Hi all

A new article by Joe Law called "AUSTRALIAN RETRIEVING TRIALS: IN WHAT DIRECTION ARE THEY HEADING" has been posted on the Articles and Archives page on the main site. Click here to jump to it. Makes for interesting reading.

Cheers, Jason.
Jason Ferris
Board Admin
 
Posts: 989
Joined: Mon 05 May 2003 1:04 pm
Location: Canberra region, New South Wales

Joe's article

Postby Kirsty Blair » Thu 13 Nov 2003 4:57 pm

Hmmmm...this was indeed interesting reading. To me, its yet another voice behind putting together a national judges guide. If there are so many triallers wanting a judge's guide to be formulated then what's the problem? :?

Was it discussed at all at the National?

Kirsty

P.S. Thanks for posting the link, Jason! :D
Last edited by Kirsty Blair on Thu 13 Nov 2003 9:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Kirsty Blair
 
Posts: 455
Joined: Wed 23 Apr 2003 7:41 pm
Location: Hawkesbury, NSW

Postby Gareth Tawton » Thu 13 Nov 2003 8:56 pm

Well said Joe, I couldn't agree more with your summation as to what we should be looking for while judging. Having competed in most of the state titles this year, I would agree there is some tendency for some judges to try and eliminate or "beat" dogs in runs rather than assess the relative merits of the dogs. It seems trialling is a bit like a pendulum. A couple of years ago, too much emphasis was being placed on blinds and tight control, in my opinion (I was probably guilty of this myself!!). Accusations of overly robotic dogs were thrown around. The response seems to be remove the handler from the equation and leave the dog to his own devices. Often birds are now "found" by dogs covering vast amounts of territory unduly disturbing potential hunting ground. It would seem a happy balance between control and natural hunt is where we should all be aiming. A dog that can mark and hunt a defined area on his own and then convert to an obediant servant willing to accept command and direction from its handler when required. is the ideal hunting companion to me.

If we agree there is a problem then we need to look to address these isssues. To me this can come in two fronts.

Some rule changes designed to limit judges ability to deviate from the desired style of trialling we are looking for would be a starting point.

Firstly, I would limit relocations to 20 meters. I would also remove drags from the rule book completly. History has shown them to be a very inequitable run. Early dogs face a different test to later dogs as an increasing ses pool of scent develops during the run. Although wounded game is often found in shooting our rules require and ambit of equality which I believe is impossible to achieve. Perhaps the one way around this is to have wounded game to be used only as a test of steadiness at a short range where the final destination of the game is known to all handlers.

These rule changes along with a general guide to judges on a national level would certainly help alleviate our problems. These two items need to be addressed by our National RAFT. However, our national RAFT appears to be an inadequate and underperforming body. Our rules are due for review next year yet no communication has come from National RAFT to allow for timely debate and a consensus of opinion to be reached.
Perhaps a panel of our more seniour judges could be seconded by National RAFT to develop a general guide to judging. Input would also be required from our day to day triallers at all levels Novice to Championship.

My congrats to the finishers in the National, Tas Champ and Vic Champ. You have done extremly well in very difficult and demanding trials. Also congrats to the managers of the Tassie trials. You should be proud of your efforts!!! Well done see ya next time.

Gareth
Gareth Tawton
 
Posts: 673
Joined: Thu 06 Mar 2003 8:24 pm
Location: Bendigo

comments on the Joe Law paper

Postby Peter Betteridge » Thu 13 Nov 2003 10:07 pm

I would like to commend Joe for taking a stand re the issues he raised.I find it odius to try and handle my dog from behind a tree. The logic of not allowing me the opportunity to see my dog work totally escapes me.Surely this is not a typical shooting situation!
I agree with gareth that wounded game retrieves are a complete waste of time they are either
unfair
dont work
or a nothing run.
Personally I feel that double rises fall into the nothing run catagory . In all my years in all age I have yet to see one really seperate dogs ( such as a quality triple mark would)
I don't have a problem with relocations if done sensibly and when the terrain dictates.

Another of my pet dislikes are 2 birds, most often they dont work or are arbituary.I have seen several judges who put on 2 birds that actually disadvantaged dogs that returned straight. Others have been either to easy or a lucky dip. It takes a very skillful judge to put on a meaningful and fair 2 bird
Pet dislike of the century is judges who put up a second bird the moment the first bird hits the ground. A bird can only be marked after it hits the ground NOT whilst it is still in the air.Most of us have enough problems with head swinging without judges compounding our problems for us
At an interstate trial some years back we (the competitors) were told in the judges pre trial instructions that it was US against HIM !! I'm sorry I dont understand.
Rabbits why bother? another hassle for city people to contend with. retrieving trials are a country sport supported by mainly city people. the vast majority of retrievers love rabbits but organizing them for city dogs is a hassle
Comming out of the blind is it creeping or breaking?? I witnessed in a northern state national in the 1990's a handler being put out of a NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP because her dog came 6 feet out of the blind. In the same national a dog that broke to shot was penalized 10 points
Can someone please explain to me how the penalty for retrieving without permission can possibly be the same as an under control dog who happens to join his handler at the pegs uninvited
I would like to conclude my little whinge by commending Gareth for his inniatitive in trying to get some form of greater uniformity from our judges I'm disappointed that the opportunity wasn't taken in tasmania for senior judges to get their heads together and thrash out a policy direction Maybe then our national RAFT can get of their bums and show us some leadership
Peter Betteridge
 
Posts: 436
Joined: Fri 20 Sep 2002 2:36 pm
Location: east lindfield sydney

Judges forum on bulletin board

Postby Jason Ferris » Fri 14 Nov 2003 9:03 am

Hi all

One of the features of this bulletin board which we don't current use is the ability to have closed lists - that is lists that are only open to particular people. It occurs to me that this feature might be a useful way for judges to communicate with each other in developing the judges guide and considering rule interpretation or changes. I'd be happy to set this up if the judges felt it useful.

Jason.
Jason Ferris
Board Admin
 
Posts: 989
Joined: Mon 05 May 2003 1:04 pm
Location: Canberra region, New South Wales

closed list

Postby Kirsty Blair » Fri 14 Nov 2003 1:07 pm

Hi Jason,

Great idea. Judges, for some reason, don't tend to contribute to discussions on this board very often (apart from Gareth and Maureen). Perhaps if you give them their own room they might actually put something in writing. The vast majority certainly don't seem to be doing it at the moment. :?

The main issue, as I see it, is that judges currently have the freedom to set up pretty much whatever runs they want, however they want them. What would be the driving force for them to push for something that limits this freedom?

Really, the judge's guide is for the benefit of handlers. We need to know the boundaries of what is expected from our dogs.

This is even more the case in the lower levels of trialling where inappropriately difficult runs can destroy young dogs' confidence and lead to inexperienced handlers leaving the sport altogether. I have been told that it used to be a rarity in Restricted for a blind to be collected before a mark. Now this is asked for at almost all trials. Angles between marks and blinds are getting smaller and smaller and marks are increasing in difficulty all the time. A Restricted trial that I competed in in Vic last year asked the dog to collect two blinds before a mark. The angles between the birds were less than 40 degrees. We also did a triple mark with relocations for the 2nd and 3rd birds.

Personally, I don't believe the quality of our dogs to be so excellent that they cannot be separated on straight forward marking and control tests. I sometimes wonder if judges just "cop out" of carefully considered marking regimes by putting on runs they know alot of dogs will fail to complete.

After all, at the end of the day, we're meant to be looking for the best dog to take hunting - a dog which hunts and marks well, and which works quietly and under control. If I had to go through a Restricted or All Age set of retrieves every time I went hunting I'd give up, go to the corner store and get a roast chook for dinner. :wink:

Kirsty
Kirsty Blair
 
Posts: 455
Joined: Wed 23 Apr 2003 7:41 pm
Location: Hawkesbury, NSW

Postby Kerry Webster » Fri 14 Nov 2003 7:56 pm

Good on you Joe for initiating a forum on where retrieving is going. As a "newie" to the sport (almost 8 yrs), I have witnessed a change in the setting of runs, particularly for All Age. My dogs are accustomed to actually sighting a bird (mark) before being sent to retrieve, but, even in W.A. where we always had marks break the skyline, there are now times when a dark background of trees or hillside are used to frame a throw. I don't know about others, but unless that bird is at least 50% white, I have a devil of a time seeing it. How, my dog is supposed to see it is beyond me. This practise has been more evident to me in my visits to Eastern States trials, and I cannot understand how triallers can go along with it, over there. I am all for a test of a dog's memory, but first of all, let him see the mark/s. Several marks at the National came under the category of "unseen".

Another quirk I have, is marks not falling in the designated area stipulated by the judge, but, not being called a no bird. If a judge cannot see the fall of a bird, then surely the question should be asked "why not?" and if not, why shouldn't a field steward then have the authority to call a no bird. In my opinion, there were several no bird situations during the Nationals, which were not called.

Joe states, that many failures by dogs and handlers are passed off as 'bad luck', and whilst that is true in several cases, many a time it is due to bad run setup, and often a judge overestimating his/her expectations of the dogs running. There will always be good dogs and handlers who get eliminated, often by bad luck, bad handling, or disobedient dogs, but I was under the impression that retrieving trials were supposed to simulate real hunting field action, not, as it often appears today to be, a test to eliminate.

Crazy situations such as handling from behind trees and in ditches, may create interest, but they are not real handling situations. I'll bet there are no hunters out there who would purposely stand behind trees and bushes to direct his dog, when walking 20ft to the right gives him a clear view. Most times all these situations do, is give a tall handler an advantage over a short one (and I know cos I'm short).

I think this all boils down to fairness. Being fair to the dogs, being fair to the handlers. Not just in setting runs, but in judging them too. No one can tell me that favouritism doesn't exist in retrieving. I saw it several times over, just a few weeks ago.
I can't see an easy way around this, but judges, especially in All Age and Championship level, need to be careful. They are being watched too, and notes are being taken on their performance as well as the dogs.
There is no room for favourites in this game, especially when triallers are travelling from all over the nation with their dogs, spending enormous amounts of money to do so, then finding there is an unequal standing, not on the performance of their dog/s, but because they may be new and unknown.

Surely there can be tests for the dogs which a judge can say of "this is a good testing run, not unrealistic from actual hunting; now let's see which dog does it the best". Most times judges don't need to have runs so complicated that they eliminate dogs/handlers. They (dogs/handlers) often eliminate themselves.

Will our judges take note of the unrest, will RAFT make changes, and will there be discussion to try and rectify the situation now seen, I sincerely hope so! For the future of our sport, some guidance is definitely in order.
Kerry Webster
 
Posts: 825
Joined: Sat 16 Nov 2002 1:23 pm
Location: Boddington, Western Australia

Postby Prue Winkfield » Fri 14 Nov 2003 9:04 pm

Well this is a great topic but one which has been touched upon before. I don't know how many judges read this but there are very few that comment. I have been trialling since about 1975 and have run in all stakes over the years. Certainly AA appears to have little connection to hunting. The first questions must be - is it supposed to resemble hunting? IMHO AA bears about as much relationship to hunting as Olympic cycling does to a Sunday afernoon ride with the kids. If we accept that it is more like the Olympics then, as other people have said, it must be fair for everyone and a 'level playing field'.

Joe made much of the marks. I can't see a problem with dogs having to work out of sight of the handler but a couple of times is probably enough - I have certainly been duck hunting and had to send the dog over a river bank and wait patiently for the return - but of course you have to see the duck to shoot it in the first place! Regarding the drag - normally (in my experience) if you shoot and wound a rabit you don't then wait for some ducks to come in and then send the dog on the rabit drag after shooting and retrieving the ducks (someone will tell me they have done just this!). If the rabit is dead could be a different story and then no drag.

Certainly the AA and Championships need fixing but it worries me that, as usual, nearly all the emphasis is at this level. As you know from my previous posts, my main concern is with dropping numbers and what is going on at the lower stakes - particularly Novice. In Victoria we are now having fairly tight angles and inconspicuous marks with most of the finishers and place getters already running in Restricted. Newcomers are asking if the judges are out to 'trick' the dogs - surely not a good way to encourage people into the sport and to stay in it.

I hope it is possible to get judges together from around the country and agree some standards but why not start from the bottom where it should be easier and work up?
Prue Winkfield
 
Posts: 705
Joined: Fri 14 Feb 2003 9:17 am
Location: victoria

joe law paper

Postby Maureen Cooper » Sun 16 Nov 2003 9:56 pm

Well done Joe! It will be interesting to see who replies to this debate in the judging scene! My article on 'bending the rule 'book' gave me plenty of positive feedback with handlers agreeing but no-one wanted to back me up in writing..why? As someone suggested, handlers are frightened of'payback' if they criticise runs put on by judges and indeed I was criticised to my face on the triple blind comment I made but I had been asked to mention this and it has been put on several times so was not aimed at any particular person. If a triple mark can be named in the rule book why not a triple blind?

I totally agree about handlers being placed in "holes" and it would appear that sometimes a taller handler CAN see their dog where a much shorter handler cannot so where is the equality?

I know all too well that clubs have to accept whatever colour birds they can but if dark birds are used then they should all be dark birds and there should not be a couple of pure white ones in the game bag, it places an odious task on the game steward as it gives a huge advantage against a poor background. We might all joke about how much they paid for THAT bird but when a previous handler has struggled with an unsighted dark bird then again where is the equality, especially in a National?

Drags? I like drags!!! Ask Pat and Kirsty how my two dogs handled their first try a few weeks ago!! Ask them how their dogs did too! However I do agree that with a large field too large a pool of scent can be left. Also it appears that many handlers do not teach drags and are therefore obsessed with knowing exactly where the game ends up so they can treat it as a blind which defeats the purpose.

Doing away with 2 birds,drags,double rises and double falls? Crumbs, all we would be left with are marks and blinds.. how boring! Mind a few judges need lessons on how to set these up correctly! I am always amazed that handlers do not teach say, the 2 bird drill, before they enter trials. Rule 7h states that a well trained dog should stop on command and to SHOT so why not set this up on the park as a drill before going into the field.


Why was there no debate in Tassie? Probably no-one was game to set it up! The only time everyone was there was between the State and the National so if runs were criticised then runs set up in the State could have been seen to be criticised and runs set by judges for the National could be pre-criticised. It needs doing out of season.

One other thing, in discussion with Julie while staying there, she suggested that 10 points for the control area was too much, it is not an obedience trial and on reflection I agree with her, similarly I think 10 for style,eagerness and action is also too much. I think 5 points for each area is quite adequate and the extra 10 points would be more valuable in the field. There is nothing to stop a half point being given in the two mentioned areas if you really need to split dogs. The conformation of dogs differs and a long legged rangey dog will cope very differently in dense cover to a shorter coupled, shorter legged dog or a 15 kilo dog can be infinitely more agile than a 35 kilo dog, just go and look at Agility trials! My two 25 kilo bitches are much faster than their 34 kilo grandmother yet she was a good dog and titled. Too much is made of speed but I do love those fast dogs too ( dont I Kirsty?!)

Come on, judges, make this an open book and lets have some feedback.
Maureen
Maureen Cooper
 
Posts: 202
Joined: Tue 28 Jan 2003 2:42 pm
Location: Leumeah.NSW

Postby Prue Winkfield » Mon 17 Nov 2003 8:39 am

Has anyone got an idea of how we can get judges to even acknowledge there is a problem - should the clubs that run trials try and come up with a document to be submitted to the ANKC and their State bodies? That would mean getting all the States to agree on the document first! :lol:
Prue Winkfield
 
Posts: 705
Joined: Fri 14 Feb 2003 9:17 am
Location: victoria

Postby Jason Ferris » Mon 17 Nov 2003 8:59 am

Hi all

The message below has been forwarded to me from Glenice McMclure and is posted here with her permission.

Regards, Jason.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

The article has certainly given me something to think about, not that I hadn't been thinking about "where are our trials heading to" for quite some years now.

I have taken a few days before responding as I wanted to ensure that what I feel is hopefully a positive reflection.

It has been quite a few years now since Mike and I have travelled to the Eastern States mainly because we became very disillusioned with the standard of the majority of the Judging and the very poor courses that are set to go hand in hand with that judging and now year after year I see our WA triallers return home with that same "let down" attitude.

It is not that they/we expected to go over and "beat the pants" off the opposition, in fact the most that any trialler want is for their dog to be given a "fair go" , they/we know that our dogs are in the main , not up to the standard of the "big guns".

Gone are the days when it was such a pleasure to watch and / or judge the dogs who could pinpoint the fall of the bird, hunt it out, return it to the handler, race off - remembering exactly where the next "fall" is. Gone are the days when it was a "team effort". The handler could help the dog if he needed it, but they didn't need much help then.

Today - it is "an us and them" situation. The "us" are the Judges and the "them" the triallers.

Gone are the days when a Judge is capable and indeed confident of being able to set a course that is testing to both the dog and handler and then being able get the right dog up. So it is easier do their best to elimate, as quickly as possible if necessary to hold up their own supposed self esteem. "Better to knock them out than to try and judge them and make a fool of myself??." The majority of Judges are now trying their darndest to just plain going out of their way to "trick the dog". They have no appeciation of the great "dog work" that one can enjoy if allowed to.

Where have we gone wrong.? Well, here goes - I believe that our current Judging system is not being adhered to.

When I undertook to become a Retrieving Trial Judge some twenty years ago, it was a very tough course with many, many lectures, field days, mock trials, theory and practical exams. I do not believe that this is now the norm.

We have an excellent book on "Regulations for the Conduct of Retrieving Trial - Judges Training Scheme" adopted in OCtober 1999. I ask the question - How many State Bodies are conducting their training schemes according to these regulations?. How many State RAFT Committees even have one in their files?

I guess, with the demise of so many of our older and respected trialling fraternity so goes the demise of the knowlege and sagacity that they imparted to us all. Now with the sport at an all time low, in numbers as well as quality - Judges are at a premium in most States - and many of them are relative newcomers - so as the numbers decline, so does the quality. Now it is more "mate looking after mate" and pushing Judges through before they have had the necessary quality training.

Where do we go from here, asks Joe - well I would dearly love to be able to have an answer. But I do believe that the State Member Bodies and their RAFT Committee should be looking to DEMAND a more thorough Judges course in accordance with the regulations.

In conclusion, I do not set myself up to be "the be all and end all" of Judges, heaven knows and so do the triallers - I make mistakes like everyone else, however one thing I do pride myself on and that is I do not set out to eliminate dogs or handlers, I love judging great dogs doing great work - so if in the above comments, I have offended any Judge, Handler or Official, please accept my humble apologies. I too, like Joe Law and many other triallers are extremely concerned at the current trend in our wonderful sport.

At present, we have absolutely no support from our State Governing Councils - they are absolutely, single mindedly only interested in the "show" aspect, that's where they accumulate their major supply of funding. We are a VERY, VERY small part of the ANKC and it is imperative that we have more communication with all Member Body RAFT Committees through the National RAFT Committee, something that has been sadly lacking since the resignation of Mr. Bob Maver.

Thanks again for giving me the opportunity of "having my say".

Cheers, Glen
Jason Ferris
Board Admin
 
Posts: 989
Joined: Mon 05 May 2003 1:04 pm
Location: Canberra region, New South Wales

Control Area

Postby Kirsty Blair » Mon 17 Nov 2003 9:04 am

Hi Maureen,

You have made some excellent points and I do agree with you about 2 birds, double falls etc. I also like the idea of continuing to use rabbits although I do live in the city and its hard to get them to train on. At the moment its particularly easy, though, as I just stop and pick up the very fresh, non squashed roadkill bunnies on my way to work at 4.30am! (how gross am I :!: )

With regard to the re-allocation of points from the control area; I think this is going to be a difficult argument to put forward.

Firstly, because the judge wants to see a dog obedient enough at heel that it would be a pleasure to take hunting. I am the first to admit that my dog is "hell on wheels" to take out shooting because he's just so over the top. Its impossible to concentrate on what you're doing because you're always trying to keep the dog under control. Therefore, a large proportion of a successful day's hunting is weighed on your dog's ability to keep quietly at heel and to sit and stay when told without further command. I think this should be reflected in the marking schedule for runs at trials.

Secondly, some judges would have to admit that there are points specifically allocated to the control area. I was absolutely gobsmacked to hear an examining judge declare "there is no such thing as 10 points allocated for the control area" :shock: How are you going to argue with this person?

I think perhaps keep the 10 points for control area in Novice and then cut it down to 5 for Restricted and All Age.(?)

As for the point allocation for S E & A, I couldn't agree more. Too much emphasis is placed on a dog going flat out (although it is pretty to watch). At the end of the day I'd prefer a steady, obedient dog to beat a flashy, fast dog that made a number of errors during the run. That is unless, of course, my own fast and flashy dog has made a number of errors in the run in which case, judges, feel free to allocate 20 points for speed :wink:

Kirsty
Kirsty Blair
 
Posts: 455
Joined: Wed 23 Apr 2003 7:41 pm
Location: Hawkesbury, NSW

Postby Kirsty Blair » Mon 17 Nov 2003 11:01 am

Jason Ferris wrote: Now with the sport at an all time low, in numbers as well as quality - Judges are at a premium in most States - and many of them are relative newcomers - so as the numbers decline, so does the quality.
Cheers, Glen


Me again....

Glen, I think that this statement is a very big call to make but I'm sure you've given it much thought and consideration. I wasn't around for the great old days where the sport was booming and entry numbers were very high in all states so I can't make any comparisons. I am loathe, however, to say that the quality of dogs currently being trained and trialled is at an all time low. Given the difficulty of the runs set at the State Championships and the National I think it is testament to the calabre of trainers and dogs that we had the finishers we did. I know that the handlers of these dogs have put in 100's of hours of training to reach this standard and congratulate all for their supreme efforts.


I am also concerned that this thread might be construed as a "judge bashing" forum, something which I believe it was never intended to be. Retrieving Trial judges give up their time free of charge. They stand out in the heat, rain or wind and set up and mark run after run. When we bomb out and go home, they stay there and keep judging until the end. Judging is largely a thankless task - the only person happy with the runs you set is the person who wins. Mostly everyone else will be griping and whinging for some reason or other. This behaviour, I'm afraid, is timeless.

We don't need to make it harder for judges to become judges - its hard enough to get them anyway. I've also participated in some great trials judged by "relative newcomers". In fact, I've found that new judges seem to put on the well constructed runs aimed at the appropriate level of difficulty. Its not until later in their judging career that they seem to deteriorate into exceedingly difficult or poorly constructed runs. Its almost as if its thought that you're not a good judge if too many dogs finish the runs you've set.

Nevertheless, I'm with you Prue - what do we need to do as handlers to make something happen? I'd like our RAFT committee to be reviewed and revised as a first port of call. As Peter says, when are they going to start representing our interests??? :?

Kirsty
Kirsty Blair
 
Posts: 455
Joined: Wed 23 Apr 2003 7:41 pm
Location: Hawkesbury, NSW

Quality

Postby Jason Ferris » Mon 17 Nov 2003 12:33 pm

Being a relative newcomer, I am not in a position to assess the dogs running today against those of a yesteryear for myself, but I would support Kirsty's comments and assert that in some cases it is the very high quality of the dogs running that lets judges think they can set runs at the edges of what is reasonable.

For those who are interested, the current membership of the National Retrieving and Field Trial Committee is on the ANKC Committee's page http://www.ankc.aust.com/committees.html

Cheers, Jason.
Jason Ferris
Board Admin
 
Posts: 989
Joined: Mon 05 May 2003 1:04 pm
Location: Canberra region, New South Wales

Postby Prue Winkfield » Mon 17 Nov 2003 2:08 pm

Being one of the oldest triallers (in both senses of the word!) in Victoria and with a minority breed that used to be able to compete and finish in AA (I know Bob thinks they still can) I believe the standard has risen enormously. It seems to me that at all levels it is much easier to put on runs that eliminate the dogs than to be prepared to undertake the hard slog of judging a large number of very tallanted dogs and handlers. Having said that, I would not be a judge for quids and think they need our help and positive input rather than criticism - but how? Just a wild thought Jason - how about sending all this to members of the RAFT!?!
Prue Winkfield
 
Posts: 705
Joined: Fri 14 Feb 2003 9:17 am
Location: victoria

Next

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests

cron