 |
|
|
|
|
JUDGES CORNER - December 1995 - January 1996 - Hunting Retriever magazine by Tim Gibson
As much as we
have attempted to improve and refine our HRC Rulebook and develop a
comprehensive and complete set of rules and guidelines to judge our retrievers
by, we all understand our rulebook is not a perfect document. Some say it's
not as specific as it should be and contains vague and contradictory material.
I'm not sure our HRC Rulebook was intended to give us the answers to every
judging scenario. We place a lot of faith in HRC judges' abilities to look at
our retrievers and make good judgmental decisions about the retriever's
performance based on our philosophy of judging retrievers in
"hunting" tests and evaluating them as useful "hunting"
companions. A good judge will look at the intent of the rule or guideline as
it applies to a hunt test scenario for help in evaluating the retriever's
performance and making those tough decisions in the field. With these thoughts
in mind, let's look at our first situation.
Situation:
The retriever
at the Finished Test was steady at the line, swung with the gun and appeared
to have marked the triple well. The retriever picked up the short left hand
bird, came back to beet and lined itself up on the two birds to the right (an
in-line double). The dog went for the deep bird first, picked it up clean and
started back. On the return, the retriever ran right over the short mark,
stopped and clearly switched birds, then completed the delivery. The dog then
went right back and got the deep mark it had just dropped.
Question:
Should this
retriever be failed for switching?
Answer:
Surprisingly,
our HRC Rulebook makes no mention of switching on "marks." All the
discussion of switching in the Rulebook occurs when discussing diversion
birds. The dog's handler attempted to make the case that it was okay for the
retriever to switch on a mark as the Rulebook did not specifically say it was
a failure. Hey, you have to give the handler credit for reading the rulebook.
Judges
specifically test for a switch with the diversion bird, but sometimes
inadvertently test for it with the marks as in the above example, or in the
case of a mark that did not land where it was supposed to, or a dog that takes
an indirect return path. The Rulebook defines switching as "the
dog dropping one bird and picking up the other bird" (Rulebook
page 18). The dog can be marked down for "repeated
dropping of the bird" (Rulebook page 9). The switch is a markdown
at the Seasoned level and a failure at Finished when it occurs on the return.
From a hunting perspective, it's very desirable that hunting dogs keep the
bird in its mouth and complete the delivery. The intent of the Rulebook is
clear - that the Finished dog not "switch," whether it be to a
diversion or another mark. The Rulebook section-discussing switching could be
worded a little better. The judges were correct in failing the dog for
switching on the mark. We discuss the subject of switching in detail in the
Judges/Handlers Seminar. Our next scenario occurs at the Seasoned Land Test.
Situation:
The Seasoned
retriever was coming in with its second bird of the double when the diversion
was thrown. The dog saw the diversion. it was properly thrown well to the side
of the retriever and not across its return path. When sent for the diversion,
the dog had difficulty locating the bird. After a few passes close to the
bird, the handler elected to blow the whistle and help the dog pick it up. The
judges failed the dog for not marking the diversion.
Question:
Were the
judges correct?
Answer:
The real
question here is: Should a diversion be judged as a mark? For the answer,
let's again look to the intent of the rulebook. As we discussed in the first
question, the purpose of a diversion is to test for the switch. In this case,
will the Seasoned retriever coming in with a bird drop it and pick up another?
The judges specifically test for marking by having the handler shoot at thrown
birds while the retriever is at heel (did the retriever swing with, the gun,
see the birds and proceed toward the area of the fall)? While most retrievers
seem capable of marking diversions quite well, asking a retriever to mark a
fall from one position and then retrieve it from another can be difficult. If
we were to judge diversions as marks, should we not ask our judges to go out
into the field, get down on their knees and look at the diversion from the
retriever's point of view? To truly judge if the dog marked the diversion,
should we not take the dog out to the spot where it was when the diversion was
thrown and send it from there?
The judges
should not have failed the retriever for not "marking" the
diversion. This is not to say the retriever should not be in control, etc.,
when being handled to the bird. That's a different area of judgement. By the
way, our HRC Rulebook specifically requires the Seasoned retriever to retrieve
the diversion (HRC Rulebook, page 17)., There is no mention in the Finished
rules about the Finished dog having to retrieve the diversion (another
Rulebook oddity). Our last question concerns a situation that occurred at the
Finished level, although this scenario could happen at any level of testing.
Situation:
The retriever
had been doing a pretty good job on the marking test and had only one more
bird to pick up. The dog seemed to have marked the bird when it was thrown and
proceeded toward the area of the fall when cast from the line. The dog began
to hunt for the bird. After a couple of unproductive passes through the fall,
the handler elected to handle the dog. The only problem was, the handler
didn't know exactly where the bird was. After a couple of minutes, the handler
sat the dog down, turned to the judges and asked if they knew where the bird
was. One judge commented that be thought the bird was about 20 yards to the
right. The handler had actually been handling the dog away from the fall. Sure
enough, when sent back to the right, the dog completed the retrieve. The
judges failed the dog. When asked why at the conclusion of the hunt, the
judges stated. "Because the dog had to be helped to pick up the bird.
Question:
Should the
dog have been failed?
Answer:
Our judges
did a couple of things wrong in this situation. First, it is almost never a
good idea to attempt to tell a handler where a bird has fallen. If it's not
where you tell the handler it is, you know who will get the blame for the dog
not picking it up. We discuss this detail in the judges/Handlers Seminar. In
this scenario, it appears the dog did everything right, and if any aid was
given, it was to the handler, not the dog. Second, the judges need to review what the Rulebook says about assisting a retriever. The only mention of this is in the Started guidelines, page 14, where it is suggested that a Started dog who is unproductive after a second attempt be assisted by the bird boys in completing the retrieve., And then, the judges are required to inform the handler that dog has failed the test. This retriever should not have been failed.
We hope the Judge's Corner will both entertain and inform you.
Answers to your questions will come from the HRC Rulebook, the
Judges/Handlers Seminar, and the consensus opinion of your Regional Field
Representatives.
|
|
The Judges Corner - copyright
2006 All Rights Reserved Last modified: February 18, 2008 |