by Kerry Webster » Mon 19 May 2003 8:49 pm
I quite agree Maureen. It seems that sometimes, the judge of an All Age trial suddenly becomes hell bent on creating runs designed purely to put as many dogs out of the trial as possible, rather than determining which dog did it in the best and most efficient manner. I must admit I have seen this occur mostly on my trips to the Eastern States, but there have been occasional episodes even in W.A. trials.
You would be aware from the 2001 Nationals, where I put in a protest on one of the "illegal" runs, that, judges have now officially been instructed that a doublefall cannot be put up on a blind. From what you have said, there are judges skirting around this ruling by having a diversionary bird. This to me is drawing a very fine line, and just another attempt to do whatever the judge wants, rather that follow the rules.
A triple blind (double blind,single blind), is contradictory. Three blinds on the one run constitute a triple in my arithmetics, just as three marks on a run constitute a triple mark, not a double mark and a single mark.
There are several judges who obviously have no regard for the rules, and treat themselves as little "gods", to which the lowly competitors should bow and scrape to. Sorry, guys, not this person. I am not backward in coming forward, as quite a few triallers have discovered. I consider all competitors have paid for their entries and deserve a good and fair innings, and that the rules are there for the good of the sport, to be adhered to by competitors and judges. And I mean ALL.
Face judging is obviously rife in the sport, all over the nation, probably.
I even had a judge tell me to my face, that a well known and successful competitor would be given more time on the block than he would give me.
I was lost for words at the time, which is a rare occurence, but later, at a trial where this other competitor and myself were up against each other, and this particular judge presided, he certainly received leniency in several runs, where I and others were penalised.
As I see it, one of the problems with All Age judges is there is no assessment done of their trials/judging, once they pass the initial three trial assessment. Some judges may go out of the sport for several years, and on their return may be out of touch with how the sport has progressed. Others consider that making runs so difficult, and often unrealistic, for dogs to achieve, is the correct procedure. An example of a statement by a qualified judge, heard whilst sitting around at the Nationals last year, is, that he would judge a blind as a mark. The moment the handler spoke or whistled a command, he would deduct points, regardless of whether it was obeyed or not. He also stated he would expect a dog to run the blind exactly like a mark.
Well, it isn't often I see a blind run like a mark by any dog, and I thought this was a ridiculous statement to be made, but is the way this judge thinks.
Unfortunately, the consequences of this rule bending will probably be the exit of dogs/handlers, permanently. But, yes, maybe non entry for the trials with judges who constantly are blatant in their deviation from the rules, may get the message across, but I doubt it. I would suggest that more people write to the club holding the event, then to their Retrieving Sub Committee, protesting and asking for an investigation. If the representatives are worth their salt, and there are several protests, then it cannot be ignored.