Browsing the RT rule proposals I was surprised to read some of the rationale citing common scoring practices, such as this argument for increasing control area point allowance: “Discussions amongst many judges acknowledge that... ...judges are deducting misdemeanours for steadiness, obedience and walking to heel from other areas of the score sheet as the misdemeanours exceed the 5 points available for deduction.” Here’s another one regarding pooping in the field “Currently the rules do not mention it but everyone penalises for it.”
I’ve often heard remarks like these but to see them actually documented is concerning. So my question is this: At what point do the Rules simply become guidelines, and when is it ok to change formal scales or introduce penalties to suit certain situations or personal beliefs?
Don’t get me wrong, I understand subjectivity and latitude in interpretation and opinion when it comes to assessment of performance, but the above examples cross a line for me. As a competitor I expect a level playing field. If I suspect that I am possibly losing more points in the field than the last team because I supposedly did not lose enough to begin with, I am not going to be happy.
I realise judges have a job to do and it can be hard to separate dogs, but I want to have faith in the system too.