Joe Law paper

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

Moderator: Peter Butterfield

Postby Gareth Tawton » Mon 17 Nov 2003 8:08 pm

Well everyone great to see so many responses. I'd like to comment on a few.

Our sport is based on hunting. Rabbits are one of our most popular types of game and to remove them from our trials would be tearing at the very heart of our sport. As for removing double falls, two birds etc. I think this would make our trials very bland. The problem with these type of runs is some judges are very poor at setting them up. Don't forget all the great runs that have worked well over the years. We should educate the judges and triallers not eradicate the run for poor application.

The points in the control area. Well Kirsty I give you ten out of ten. In double retrieves I allow 5 for heeling and ten for style eagerness and action while in triples 5 and 5. You can not convince me that a bird in a triple is worth roughly 12 points ie 35/3 or about the same as a 10 for heeling between the pegs. A bit out of balance I would suggest. In novice heeling is worth about one third of the marks so I try to keep this balance in AA. As for Style etc. I think judges should take into account the dogs breed and age. Is this a stylish example of breed x or is it stylish for an older dog. Style eagerness and action is not about speed totally. It is how the dog covers it ground, carries its head, shows his desire etc. We should also remember that this is the area for a judge to reward the type of dog he/she likes. Remember as competitors we have asked for the judges opinion. An example: A dog runs hard and fast for a blind but never raises his head more than two inches from the ground. In my opinion as the judge I think he is tracking. I would score this dog poorly for SE&A as I don't like a dog that tracks. Another judge may like this style and reward the dog for it speed. It all in the eyes of the beholder.

I agree that we are lacking responses from all of our senour judges and many handlers. Jason is there a way we can email everyone who is on the websites list and say hey your input would be appreciated? Is it worthwhile sending a mailout thru some of the clubs to remind people about the website. I'm sure most clubs would do this no charge.

Did you know our national raft had a phone hookup last week to discuss primarily Spanial and Retriever rules when only two states run S&R field trials. Did anyone get notified by their local RAFT that a meeting was taking place and asked for any input?

What do people think if the idea of general petition to RAFT asking for a national review of the rules and development of a judges guide. This would mean people around the country drumming up the neccessary support.

Just a thought.

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

Postby Kirsty Blair » Tue 18 Nov 2003 1:00 am

Gareth wrote:What do people think if the idea of general petition to RAFT asking for a national review of the rules and development of a judges guide. This would mean people around the country drumming up the neccessary support.

Gareth



Let's do it. I think its a great idea. We need to get this heard.

Kirsty

P.S. I am sitting here at 1.00am in the morning 'cause I just got back from taking my dog to the vet with tick paralysis. Aah, the joys of getting home from work at midnight to be greeted by a staggering, gasping dog....Fingers crossed....
Kirsty Blair
 
Posts: 455
Joined: Wed 23 Apr 2003 7:41 pm
Location: Hawkesbury, NSW

Email to members

Postby Jason Ferris » Tue 18 Nov 2003 9:50 am

Gareth

That is a good idea. I have sent a message to the members of the email directory on the main page letting them know about the bulletin board and inviting input to this discussion.

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

Email to RAFT members

Postby Jason Ferris » Tue 18 Nov 2003 11:53 am

Hi all

For your information, here is the email I sent today to the RAFT members whose email I have. Please feel free to copy out bits and send to other people who might be interested in this discussion.

Cheers, Jason.

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

Dear Bill, Bob, Glen, Jeff, John and Paul

I am writing to you as a retrieving member of the National Retrieving and Field Trial Committee to draw to your attention to an interesting discussion that is currently occurring on the Australian Working Retriever Central bulletin board.

Following the 2003 Championships, Joe Law wrote a thought provoking paper on the future of retrieving trials in Australia. I understand that many of you have seen an email version of the paper. It has also been posted on the Australian Working Retriever Central website at http://www.australianworkingretrieverce ... eving_2003 where it has provoked a lively discussion on the bulletin board. Your thoughts and input into the discussion would be welcome.

At present many of you do not appear to be registered on the bulletin board. To do this go to http://www.australianworkingretrievercentral.org.au/bb/ click on "Register" and fill in your details. I have been trying to encourage people to use their full name so their posts are identifiable but that is up to you.

If you have any problems getting registered or posting messages let me know!

If someone could pass this message to Mrs L Golle (CCCQ) and Mrs P Dunne (VCA) I would appreciate it, as I don't have their email addresses.

Cheers,

Jason Ferris

Australian Working Retriever Central Bulletin Board Moderator
http://www.australianworkingretrievercentral.org.au/bb/
Jason Ferris
Board Admin
 
Posts: 989
Joined: Mon 05 May 2003 1:04 pm
Location: Canberra region, New South Wales

Joe Law Paper

Postby Glenice McClure » Tue 18 Nov 2003 2:15 pm

goldy wrote:
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


NEVER, at any stage was I questioning the quality of our dogs, only the ability of a number of our Juges in being capable of allowing our dogs to show that quality.
Quote: "so as the numbers decline (Judges) - so does the quality - (Judges)" unquote.
One reason I never entered into any such discussions previously, is that so many people choose to put their own interpretation into one's comments. Glenice McClure.
Glenice McClure
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue 18 Nov 2003 10:48 am
Location: Perth, Western Australia

Postby Pat Thorn » Tue 18 Nov 2003 2:34 pm

pruew wrote: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.

Hi Prue
I do tend to agree with Bob on this one. If you notice that at the GSP trial on 15/4/80 you will find the following results I found in my archives:

Novice Stake - Judge: Mrs P Dune
1st - Mr J Thomson's Dunfrui Larry GSP
2nd - Mr A Goby's Siberjager Picker WEI
3rd - Mr M Park's Ch Deddick Tarshish GSP

Restricted Stake - Judge: Mr J Montasell
1st - Mr J McCrory's Braunfarbe Blitzen GSP
2nd - Mr B Lindsay's Dunfrui Godiva GSP
3rd - Mr B Lindsay's Bruntik Earl GSP

All Age - Judge: Mr D Murray
1st - Mr J Thomson's Dunfrui Larry GSP
2nd - Mr J Thomson's Dundrui Nicholas GSP
3rd - Mr B Lindsay's Bruntik Earl GSP

As you see the minority breeds can do it. The big difference between then and now is the handlers, how many top handlers have we got now in the GSP club of Vic (to single out the minor breed). If you count the top handlers in those days they would number at least 10 in the AA stake alone ( and here in Victoria). Bob would know who they were, he was one of them.
Pat
Pat Thorn
 
Posts: 44
Joined: Wed 12 Feb 2003 2:58 pm
Location: Victoria

Postby Jason Ferris » Tue 18 Nov 2003 2:45 pm

Hi Glenice

Thanks for your post. I apologise that I misinterpreted your comments about quality. Please don't let such misinterpretation discourage you from contributing to the debate. Overall I think this discussion has been positive and constructive so far.

Cheers, Jason.
Last edited by Jason Ferris on Tue 18 Nov 2003 4:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Jason Ferris
Board Admin
 
Posts: 989
Joined: Mon 05 May 2003 1:04 pm
Location: Canberra region, New South Wales

Postby Kerry » Tue 18 Nov 2003 3:04 pm

Kirsty, I think you may have missed the point of Glenice's post. It should be made hard for a person to become a Retrieving judge, so that the quality of these judges is maintained.

I am sure the majority of us wish to have to best qualified, best informed judge testing our dogs. A person who will judge objectively.

The quality of the dogs competing in trials today, I dare to say, are of a very high standard, and I don't believe that Glen was saying otherwise, just that the standard of judging is deteriorating.

I don't envy any judge, particularly an All Age judge, but, you can't please all of the people all the time, and those going into the judging side of retrieving have already been on the other side as competitors, and would know this.

I also don't see this as judge bashing, hopefully as constructive comment for our judges and for the RAFT committee. Obviously, there is some unrest within the sport and dissatisfaction with some rules and some judges interpretation of rules. Prompting action is the aim, and just maybe, we will get it.

Kerry
Kerry
 

Joe Law Paper

Postby Alan Donovan » Tue 18 Nov 2003 6:43 pm

Hi All

"Gareth wrote:

What do people think if the idea of general petition to RAFT asking for a national review of the rules and development of a judges guide. This would mean people around the country drumming up the neccessary support"


Note that back in August the bulletin board had "Judges' Guide" as a topic - and as Qld already has one it was offered to anyone interested. Response so far is zero........

and on another topic:

"pruew wrote:
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. "


Here in sunny Qld we have about 8 GSP's running in All Age, 5 currently with RT CH. In recent years we have had a GSP as "Retrieving Dog of the Year" and another was winner of the State Retrieving Championship. Sometimes GSP's outnumbering the labs at All Age. We call the labs the "minority breed".

"Compete and Finish" - no worries!

Cheers - Alan
Alan Donovan
 
Posts: 276
Joined: Sun 27 Jul 2003 10:27 pm
Location: Qld Aust

Retrieving Trial Rules Review

Postby Bambillay - Marg Hall » Tue 18 Nov 2003 9:11 pm

Hi everybody,
I have been reading with interest the recent comments regarding Retrieving Trials and thought I might add a few thoughts.

Gareth: the Spaniel & Retreiver Rules were reviewed in 2003 and that is why there was a meeting held recently, this was to finalise any changes or alterations to the Rules. The review timetable was sent out late last year for the S&R trial rules, and Victoria participated in the review and all competitors in this sport in Victoria were invited to attend meetings. It is unfrotunate if this does not happen in other states.

Regarding a request for a review of the Rules for Retrieving Trials, this is supposed to be scheduled for 2004 and all triallers should be lobbying their respective RAFT members to conduct some open forum meetings and start the process, so there is ample time for discussion within the trial fraternity. Victoria has request from the ANKC a timetable for the review process for 2004 so we can get started and make sure we submit any rule changes in time and that there is enough time for discussion amongst our triallers.
Regarding training of judges, Victoria does train their judges according to the National Judges Training Scheme which Victoria implemented in 1999 and we have recently had new Novice judges come through that scheme and are now working towards their upgrades to Restricted Level. The scheme works very well and allows for practical and theoretical training which is a must for new judges.

Steve and I have had the pleasure of trialling dogs for 30 years and during that time we have seen the same type of discussion take place regarding judges interpretation of the rules. I believe we have to be careful that we do not make the judges so constricted in what they can do that the whole process become much too structured and controlled. Judges do interpret the rules differently that's what makes the sport interesting, and they do have the ability to set runs in various ways.
There will always be problems with marked birds in trials and I believe that sometimes it is difficult to get a really good marked bird and this can be because of the terrain and site the judge has to work with, maybe competitors need to be a bit more vocal about the marks when the judge shows them the run before they compete, if it is hard to see.

A workshop of all judges to discuss the technicalities of different types of runs eg double rise, two bird, relocations etc would be a great idea and I bet that out of that workshop you would probably get a dozen varying ideas.......I doubt you would get every judge to attend. Regards Margaret Hall 8)
Bambillay - Marg Hall
 

Postby Kirsty Blair » Tue 18 Nov 2003 11:49 pm

Hi Glenice,

:oops: Please accept my apologies for the misinterpretation of your post. As you say, it does happen sometimes. I hope you will continue to put forward your ideas and perspectives on this board as I think we all find them extremely valuable.

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

Postby Jason Ferris » Wed 19 Nov 2003 9:38 am

Note that back in August the bulletin board had "Judges' Guide" as a topic - and as Qld already has one it was offered to anyone interested. Response so far is zero........


Hi Alan

Do you have an electronic version of the Qld judges guide that could be posted on the articles page for others to see?

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 » Wed 19 Nov 2003 9:45 am

Hi Al - I think everything here relates to the South Eastern States -not the North and West! Prue
Prue Winkfield
 
Posts: 705
Joined: Fri 14 Feb 2003 9:17 am
Location: victoria

Joe Law Paper

Postby Glenice McClure » Wed 19 Nov 2003 10:07 am

If any interested persons would go to the ANKC web site:
http://www.ankc.aust.com
Look under Rules and Regulations - Part 3A - Regulations for the conduct of Retrieving Trials - Judges Training Scheme - adopted October 1999.
We do have a National Scheme and many people went to a lot of trouble, and time to present this document to the National RAFT Committee as per our instructions from the ANKC.
Glenice McClure
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue 18 Nov 2003 10:48 am
Location: Perth, Western Australia

where to from here

Postby Annie Warner » Wed 19 Nov 2003 9:39 pm

Thanks Jason for letting me know about this thread.
I have been trialling for quite a few years now, started back in SA at the time of Homer's National win.
A few comments - Joe has put in a lot of thought and I believe what he is suggesting with regard a more uniform approach is crucial, as is Fair Play for all triallers.
It is pleasing to see Maureen and Gareth and Glenice a few other Ch level judges add their comments too - possibly some of the other judges are still thinking...? or do they not care?...some I suppose do not use the 'net, but a workshop or something needs to happen.
I think something that stands out most in my mind is how the atmosphere at trials has changed so much since I started out, and I am sorry to say, not for the better.
Although I now don't run a dog in trials,my youngster is not that keen, I have been to a few this year (and will continue to go to a few to help out and catch up with friends) and cannot help but note that at the end of the day or week-end a lot of the triallers are gone - the work in Vic. at least is being done by a very small band of people....what's this to do with the subject? a great deal I think. In the 'old days' everyone would sit around after a trial together - judges,managers,stewards and competitors alike....a lot of stuff got sorted around a lot of campfires! A lot of rubbish too, no doubt! Quite often now after the presentation is over it's all smallish 'private parties', or triallers just go home.
People will not keep coming back if they see inequality and less than fair practices, it is not fair to the handlers or the dogs.
I have seen runs put on that almost 'cheat' the dogs, nothing robs a dog of natural confidence and ability than when it is 'cheated' by the way a run has been set up.
There are some runs that are very difficult to put on in such a way that they are fair to all, certainly drags are one of them. If any run cannot be put on in such a way that it will be fair to all then it really shouldn't be put on at all as it is then impossible to judge fairly, surely.
There are 3 levels of retrieving trial stakes, of late I have wondered if some Judges have been trying to do away with a level or two. There was a lot of discussion re the 'sights' for the Nationals and AA stakes...how much more important is it that raw novice dogs (and handlers) get good clear sights? Novice is where the team learn the ropes (of trusting each other) and the dog should be learning to 'work it out'.
I'd like to think that Judges become Judges because they want to judge dogs, not because they want to eliminate them, where is the fun in that?
...and this is a hobby/sport, we are meant to be having FUN, with our 'best mate' (that is to say our dog) or did I get that bit wrong too?

annie
Annie Warner
 
Posts: 78
Joined: Sun 01 Jun 2003 2:09 pm
Location: moe, victoria

PreviousNext

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 25 guests

cron