by Jason Ferris » Thu 29 Jan 2004 11:00 am
Hi all
As mentioned in the Rule Review thread, here are my ideas for amendments to the rules. I am posting them to try to encourage constructive national discussion, and to encourage people to think about the big picture of where the sport is heading. I have tried to take into consideration many of the themes raised in discussion on the bulletin board.
Regards, Jason.
The rules in their current form (effective from 1 January 2000) are showing their age. They have been subject to eight reviews over their 35 year life and require a comprehensive review. I believe that we should use the opportunity of this review to think carefully about the future of the sport and adjust the rules to provide for that future. Such big picture thinking is also needed to address the issues raised by Joe Law and others in the recent discussions on the bulletin board.
My view is that, with this big picture in mind, there are only a limited number of significant changes required to the content of the rules to refocus them and provide a foundation which, in combination with a carefully drafted Judges Guide, will set the framework for the sport of retrieving trialling for the next five years and beyond. There is also a number of changes to presentation which, while they do not alter the intent or content significantly, are needed to clarify the rules.
Some of the key points which I believe need to be addressed are:
1) I would simplify the rules by deleting outdated and unused stakes and tests. This would include deletion of all rules and references to puppy stakes, derby stakes, brace stakes, team stakes and water tests. Puppy and derby stakes rely on age-based criteria, which I believe are unworkable with the fields competing today. Similarly brace and team stakes would require much larger fields to be workable. Water tests only address part of the range of abilities which make up a good retriever. I would contend that these stakes and tests are no longer relevant to the sport. The fact that these stakes and tests are not currently run anywhere in Australia (as far as I am aware) supports this argument.
2) In deleting puppy stakes, I would recognise the important role that beginners tests have in providing an entry point to trialling for new dogs and handlers in some states. I believe that the beginners test (as currently described in rule 45) should be elevated to the status of a stake to replace the puppy stake but without the age restriction. This should be recognised as the starting level of trialling.
3) I would provide for a dog to progress through the levels of trialling by making some small changes to the novice stake. These would be aimed at reducing the number of new concepts required to progress from novice to restricted and would include giving novice judges the option of including a walk up (with limitations on the angle from the line) and/or a simple double mark (with limitations on separation, timing and distance) in novice runs.
4) In both beginners and novice, I would give the handler the option of having the gun steward handle and fire the gun, as suggested by Peter. This would negate any impact that firearm licensing and handling requirements may be having on newcomers to the sport. Most handlers who are intending to go further in competition would not take up the option, and there is, in my opinion no advantage, provided the gun is fired in close proximity to the dog.
5) I would require a restricted run to include at least one blind retrieve - at present it is possible to win restricted without picking up a blind. It also provides for a very wide variation in the degree of difficulty of restricted runs. I would also include Julies suggestion and make it mandatory for the judge to subtly mark the location of the blinds in restricted, so the handler (who is contending with a whole host of new concepts themselves) doesnt have to test their own memory recalling where the blind is located. I would also take relocations out of restricted stakes.
6) At the All Age level I would adopt the suggestion Gareth made about limiting the distance of a relocation to not more than 20m. I would either remove wounded game retrieves altogether or redefine them to make them more equitable (if this is possible).
7) I would provide for dogs to continue to compete in any stake, even when they have titled, until they have placed in a higher stake. These dogs would be ineligible for awards or places. This allows for handlers/dogs who have no interest or capacity to progress past a particular stake to continue to participate.
8 ) I would also do away with rules 12, 13, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22 which describe some, but not all, of the permutations and combinations of multiple marks and blinds. These seem unnecessary and overcomplicated. Why not just have a definition of a mark (as per rule 24 but presented earlier at rule 8 ), a walk up (rule 9), relocation (new rule required), wounded game (rule 10), a blind (rules 11 and 28 ), double rise (rule 14), two bird (rule 15) and double fall (rule 16), then provide for the judge to combine these elements (as in the second sentence of rule 22) with some limitations such as timing of casts and separation (lifted from the deleted rules).
9) I would introduce a rule requiring judges to consider the safety of the dogs in setting runs.
10) I would also include a rule relating to the spectators (incorporating the second sentence of rule 57) and requiring the judge to consider their view of the run if at all possible.
11) I would update and clarify the roles of the officials at the trial. From my experience each trial has a trial manager (not a chief steward - a term I have never seen used outside the rules). Each stake has a judge, a gun steward and several game stewards. I would update the rules to reflect these roles. I would also introduce the role of stake manager to provide recognition for an official who is overseeing the operation and assisting the judge at each stake. As a novice/restricted competitor, I have often seen the trial manager go to help out/run in All Age, leaving the judge in Novice and/or Restricted to their own devices. In the event of a protest or conflict situation this can be difficult as there is no third party to arbitrate. I suggest that each stake should have a stake manager who is responsible for the conduct of the stake and who is made known to the competitors (and may in fact be competing) and the judge.
12) I would provide for the game stewards to advise the judge if the game is not cast as directed (following on from rule 80, and incorporating rule 93b) as suggested by Julie.
13) In reviewing the rules I would give serious consideration to the way they are presented. At the moment related rules are not necessarily presented together. I would suggest that the rules be reorganised as follows:
Purpose (rule 1, 5, 27, 4, and 6)
Definition of Terms (rule 7)
Retrieves (rule 8/24, 9/28, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 30, 22, 26, 29, 23, 25, 26, 31)
Stakes and Eligibility (rule 2, 3, 32, 45, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 43, 44)
Required entries (rule 51, notes 38, and 40)
Judges (rule 111, 71, 72, 73,)
Duties of Trial manager and stake managers (rule 92)
Duties of Gun steward (rule 93f)
Duties of Game stewards (rule 93a-e,g)
General regulations for Conduct of the trial (rule 52, 60, 58, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 59, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 68, 67, 69, 70, 74, 75)
Procedure for conducting trials (rule 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91), Method of scoring (rules 112, 113, 114)
Awards (rules 110b, 110a, 97, 98, 99, 110, 101, 102, 94, 95, 104, 105, 106)
Titles (rules 103, 107, 108, 109).
14) I would make most of the notes in the current rules into numbered rules. The notes are confusing as their status is not clear. I would also split the rules which cover more than one topic or issue into separate rules. I would then allocate these to the appropriate heading above.
15) The rules should also be modernised in several places. The reference to shooting laws in rule 6 for example should more correctly termed firearms laws. Rule 11 which refers to hides being constructed of natural materials could be interpreted as encouraging officials to cut branches from trees to construct a hide - this is inappropriate on properties we dont own or manage. The gender biased references to the judge and handler should be edited to his/her, he/she etc. We have a large number of women competing and officiating in this sport and such language is inappropriate.