what your opinion?? how to judge handling on marks

Post questions about training here to draw on the collective knowledge of the bulletin board members!

Moderator: Peter Butterfield

what your opinion?? how to judge handling on marks

Postby Peter Betteridge » Wed 06 Sep 2006 2:19 pm

we all know that handling on marks is an admission that you have failed the primary objective of the exercise but even the best markers will need to be handled from time to time for a variety of reasons.My philosophy is that once you decide to handle then you should do exactly that.HANDLE!! by that I mean do not allow your dog to gain negative momentum on the mark .A creditable score is still possible for a dog that is handled crisply and maintains positive momentum .Many handlers attempt to push their dog s back into the AOF and let them resume their hunt. This often results in lenghty and futile hunts out of area with extended peroids of negative momentum.In my opinion you either let the dog mark until you are satisfied that your dog has not adequately marked the AOF or is leaving the AOF and is unlikely to promptly return.Or you handle, one or the other not a combination.I wonder how the rest of you see it??
Peter Betteridge
 
Posts: 436
Joined: Fri 20 Sep 2002 2:36 pm
Location: east lindfield sydney

Handling on marks

Postby Garrick Bridges » Wed 06 Sep 2006 3:10 pm

Hi Peter,
Interesting post. I agree with your sentiments here. I have a question for you - who would you score higher - the dog that was given one or two casts and found the bird promptly and returned to the handler, or the dog which wasn't handled at all but hunted a huge area and took a long while to find the bird?
Garrick
Garrick Bridges
 
Posts: 101
Joined: Thu 20 Feb 2003 10:06 am
Location: Albury, New South Wales

Postby Peter Betteridge » Wed 06 Sep 2006 4:09 pm

good question Garrick
.it would all come down to how you defined the AOF.if a dog remained in the AOF for a lenghty time and didn't potter or cover old ground then he would outscore a dog that didn't recognize the AOF but handled with only positive momentun and did the run in half the time.The other scenerio is the dog that goes directly to the AOF and fails to locate the bird and leaves the AOF only to be pushed back in .to my way of thinking all other things being equal this dog has done the second best run.Thats the way I see it I'm sure others will disagree
Peter Betteridge
 
Posts: 436
Joined: Fri 20 Sep 2002 2:36 pm
Location: east lindfield sydney

Postby Jason Ferris » Wed 06 Sep 2006 4:16 pm

Hi Peter

Definitely an interesting post, particularly with the fine balance between marking and handling in our tests.

Can you elaborate on what you mean by negative and positive momentum? They are not terms I'm familar with.

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

Postby Peter Betteridge » Wed 06 Sep 2006 6:17 pm

jason
positive momentun is when the dog with each caste moves closer to the bird.practically speaking in most situations a literal caste that is held would generate positive momentum.negative momentun is simply allowing your dog to go away from the bird in the hope that it will eventually turn and move in the right direction.Another way of looking at it is the amount of time and distance you allow your dog to get a literal caste wrong
Peter Betteridge
 
Posts: 436
Joined: Fri 20 Sep 2002 2:36 pm
Location: east lindfield sydney

Postby Tony Rowland » Wed 06 Sep 2006 8:32 pm

Hi Peter

Would another factor be the sequence of the marks?
How many more birds are to be retrieved?
Do you need to cast to stay in or will you bomb out?
Is the dog going past a point that makes the save too costly ?

I think that with experience handlers can do the maths in their head and can make a percentage call (more experienced than I). This would only come from years of making good/bad calls and knowing how to read your dog.

How do you think the above factors would influence the decision on whether or not to handle? and the points awarded?
Tony Rowland
 
Posts: 145
Joined: Tue 04 Apr 2006 9:35 pm
Location: NEWCASTLE

Postby Peter Betteridge » Thu 07 Sep 2006 9:22 am

tony
i dont believe that the sequence of marks has alot to do with your decision making.Normally in a multilpe marking sequence there will be a key bird which will hold the key to your success on that test.Having said that many of the legs that appear to hold no terrors can be deceptive.I try and pick up one bird at a time.the fine line between deciding to handle and trusting your dog will depend on any number of factors.With the tighter tests now in all age switching can be a factor.As you get to know your dog better you can ask yourself
1 does my dog understand where the AOF is
2 is it likely to stay in the AOF
3 what other factors can potentially cause your dog to fail this test
4 will one quick handle at an opportune time save you many handles later when your dog gets into trouble
then use good judgement
the difficulty from the judges perspective is to evauate the points spread from the dog what has one quick handle as he goes thru the AOF and is therefore not given ther opportunity to mark as opposed to the dog that picks up clean but has along labourious hunt
Peter Betteridge
 
Posts: 436
Joined: Fri 20 Sep 2002 2:36 pm
Location: east lindfield sydney

Postby Diane McCann » Thu 07 Sep 2006 9:59 am

I would have thought that a dog that runs to the AOF and hunts in a relatively tight pattern has indicated that it has 'marked' the fall and would be given points accordingly.

Dogs A & B may both mark the fall well but dog A may have a bird sitting high that it retrieves immediately and dog B may have a bird sitting low in cover that if does not locate so quickly. If they both remain in the AOF then I would expect their 'marking' points to be similar. Would others agree?

If a dog indicates that it has marked the fall as described above but leaves the area after a fruitless hunt, should it be penalised for lack of marking or for lack of persistance, lack of nose, etc. Does there need to be a distinction or will it all come out on the score sheet either way?

As Peter questions, if the dog A leaves the area, goes for a gallop then returns to the area and finds the bird is it entitled to be marked higher than the dog that leaves the area and is quickly stopped and handled back in?

Just a matter of interest to me to hear what others think is most appropriate. Any judges willing to share?
Diane McCann
 
Posts: 652
Joined: Mon 01 Mar 2004 1:55 pm
Location: Pearcecdale Vic

Postby Gareth Tawton » Thu 07 Sep 2006 2:01 pm

Peter,

Interesting post with know easy answer. There are just so many variables that the judge realy needs to be able to have some flexibility in their method of scoring to allow for a variety of scenarios.

Take for instance a tight double mark. The dog misreads the handlers cue and heads for the wrong bird. One quick handle reaffirms which bird and the dog nails it. Now you have a dog with a handle but did not fail the mark he failed the selection. Is this better or worse than one handle of a dog out of the area of all?

Another example is a handle to make the dog cut a body of water rather than run around. The dog nails the bird clearly but needed to be forced to take the straight line rather than cheat the water. Is this better or worse than the dog who runs the bank and has no handles.

In simple terms I think as a judge you need to decided. Did the dog.

A Fail the mark totally
B Get handled in order to get the bird on the desired line
C Miss marked either the line or depth as distinct from totally failing the mark.
D Fail to correctly select

Once you have reached this decision penalize accordingly and then judge how the dog actually handled. I personally would rate total failure the worst, miss marked line or depth second and with B and C the least penalty depending on the scenario.



Gareth
Last edited by Gareth Tawton on Thu 07 Sep 2006 2:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Gareth Tawton
 
Posts: 673
Joined: Thu 06 Mar 2003 8:24 pm
Location: Bendigo

Postby Diane McCann » Thu 07 Sep 2006 2:09 pm

Gareth,

I have heard some handlers say that they prefer to let thier dog run the paddock on a mark and eventually come up with the bird rather than handle and keep them tight to the area. They explain that this is becuase they will lose all marking points as soon as they handle and end up with a better score if they don't.

Would you agree with that based on if you were judging?

Thanks for offering your opinion.
Diane McCann
 
Posts: 652
Joined: Mon 01 Mar 2004 1:55 pm
Location: Pearcecdale Vic

Postby Gareth Tawton » Thu 07 Sep 2006 2:22 pm

As I said you have to look at each case individually. But as a general rule I would prefer one or two tidy handles once the handler has decided the dog has failed or missed the mark than just covering acreage. Dogs "should not unduly disturb game" hence they shouldn't cover acres of ground for nothing.
As a competitor I would generally give a quick handle so my dog doesn't learn bad habits of running wild (especially with ranging breeds like a GSP) Having said that If I think I am competitive and the judge hates handling on marks I might bite my tongue a little longer and pray to the trialling gods. As Tony said sometimes you do the math in your head on the run :?

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

Postby Diane McCann » Thu 07 Sep 2006 2:39 pm

Gareth Tawton wrote:
As a competitor I would generally give a quick handle so my dog doesn't learn bad habits of running wild (especially with ranging breeds like a GSP) Gareth


I do believe that I have noticed a certain black Lab with a wave to its coat that covers ground at a very rapid rate. :) However you do make a very good point.
Diane McCann
 
Posts: 652
Joined: Mon 01 Mar 2004 1:55 pm
Location: Pearcecdale Vic

Postby Gareth Tawton » Thu 07 Sep 2006 3:08 pm

Diane,

Over the years I have handled a bitch and dogs, shorthairs and Labs but never a sheep. I am yet to decide how they should be handled, sometimes they pull the wool over your eyes and do the totally unexpected.

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

Postby Peter Betteridge » Fri 08 Sep 2006 3:08 pm

gareth wrote
As I said you have to look at each case individually. But as a general rule I would prefer one or two tidy handles once the handler has decided the dog has failed or missed the mark than just covering acreage. Dogs "should not unduly disturb game" hence they shouldn't cover acres of ground

what about the difference between handling with positive momentun onto the bird once you have deemed that your dog has not marked the AOF as opposed to handling back into the AOF and allowing your dog to resume his hunt.What i am suggesting is when a dog fails to recognize the AOF the appropriate response should be handle as you would a blind right on to the bird rather than handle into AOF, hunt, handle into AOF ,hunt etc.Even given that he hunt handle option may result in fewer handles and less time.what do you think gareth and others??
Peter Betteridge
 
Posts: 436
Joined: Fri 20 Sep 2002 2:36 pm
Location: east lindfield sydney

Postby Gareth Tawton » Fri 08 Sep 2006 5:37 pm

Peter,

Now you are realy talking about personal preferences and at the end of the day your are looking for the judges opinion.

Mine for what its worth is that I would prefer a dog put into the area and told to resume his hunt eg "over" and "find it" when the dog is in the area. This way we are not removing the dogs natural abilities just assissting them. I would hate our trials to become as unnatural as the US Pro trials.

Another down side of handling right onto the bird is that the judge may be left to assume the dog has no natural hunting ability and is not capable of systematically hunting an area.

I am sure other peoples opinions will differ to mine but thats why we have different judges.

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

Next

Return to Training Q&A

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests

cron