 |
|
|
|
|
JUDGES CORNER - June/July 1996 - Hunting Retriever magazine by Tim Gibson
I received a very nice letter recently complimenting the “Judge’s
Corner” from a gentleman whose name you will all recognize.
Mr. Jim Spencer, noted author and acknowledged dog training/testing
expert wrote in his first paragraph, “I like your Judges Corner column.
It fulfills a definite need in the program, and it does it very well.”
I must admit that some of the wind came out of my sails when he went on
to say in his second paragraph that “I must challenge one statement in the
first situation in the April-May issue (the one about a controlled break by
the honoring dog).” If you will remember, as the last bird fell, the honor
dog left on his own, went 10 to 15 feet and was stopped by the handler with a
“no, heel,” and promptly returned. Mr.
Spencer wrote that up to that point, he had no serious problems with the
scenario as stated. (Except that in most cases it takes a “NO!!!, HEEEL!!!”
to bring the dog back.) What he
is taking issue with was my next statement which said:
Note – the honor dog did not interfere with the working dog.
Mr. Spencer made the statement that the dog ran out some distance,
thereby distracting the working dog visually, and the handler yelled “no,
heel,” thereby distracting the working dog, and that anytime an honor dog
forces a rerun for the working dog, the honoring dog should not pass.
I considered responding personally top Mr. Spencer, but elected to do
so via this column instead.
First, I’d like to say that it’s an honor for the first challenge
to the “Judge’s Corner” to come from such a distinguished expert as Mr.
Spencer. Second, while I have
personally seen situations where there was no apparent interference, I think
Mr. Spencer is probably 99.9 percent correct in everything he states.
I can’t argue with failing the honor dog when he causes interference
with the working dog. For the
purpose of illustrating the point that a controlled break is allowed for the
honor dog under our UKC/HRC Rulebook, I plead guilty in using my discretion
(poetic license?) to shape the scenario accordingly.
Let me ask this: under our
rulebook, may a judge fail an honor dog for a controlled break if that is
their judgmental decision? Yes. The
judges may elect to fail an honor dog for a controlled break for several
reasons. Some judges might feel
that when they are testing the dog’s ability to sit quietly and watch
another retriever work, the controlled break should be considered with
increased importance; or for a particular dog, a controlled break on the honor
was the final straw to fail them for control.
Some judges might feel that any controlled break by the honor dog would
interfere with the working dog and should result in failure.
The important thing to remember is that our rulebook gives the judges
the flexibility to make this call as they see it, or as they feel it should be
judged based on their experiences and philosophies, and it is their decision
to make. I would expect that if
my dog had a controlled break on the honor running under Mr. Spencer, I’d be
in a lot of trouble. But in the
last paragraph of his letter, Mr. Spencer inadvertently confirmed my
suspicions that, like all good judges, he’s wise enough to leave the door
open for an exception. He stated
“It would be a rare situation in which a controlled break by an honoring dog
would not interfere with the working dog and thereby justify elimination.”
I would just hope my dog was that rare situation.
Thanks again for your support of the Judge’s Corner, Mr. Spencer, and
write anytime.
For
this issue of the "Judge's Corner," I polled several Field Reps on
the scenarios presented. Not all agreed on a single answer to some of the
questions asked. Some felt the scenarios required more information to answer
properly. One said you'd have to "be there" to judge the situation.
This more than anything illustrates why we have those dedicated folks out
there judging for us. Remember, we don't ask much of our U.K.C./HRC judges do
we? They only have to be knowledgeable of our Rules and Guidelines,
experienced dog trainers and handlers, experienced hunters, able to set- up
good tests with sometimes limited time and resources, get along with, both the
hunt committee and fellow judges. They
need to treat the handlers with courtesy and respect, attend seminars, take
tests, give up their time to judge, run huge fields of entries in the
allotted, time, be fair and consistent, be able to recognize changes in test
conditions and deal with problems as they develop, and maintain their
composure in the handlers conference. Our very best judges recognize there is
always room to improve their judging skills. It, of course, helps to be able
to leap tall buildings with a single bound (or at the very least leap all the
vehicles in the parking lot at the conclusion of the hunt). Let's get to our
first scenario.
Situation:
At
the Started land test, the handler signals ready. The dog looks up at the
attention-getting device and appears to see the throw. The dog is sent for the
retrieve, goes to the area of the fall and begins to hunt but cannot find the
bird. The judge asks the handler to call the dog in. The judge states he will
re-throw the bird because the dog apparently did not see the fall. The second
time it was thrown, the dog picked it up.
Question:
Was
it proper to re-throw the bird, and is this considered a re-cast?
Answer:
Let's answer the second part of this question first. The dog is allowed a
re-cast on each bird in Started. However, this was not a re-cast because by
definition, a re-cast is when the dog is sent for a second attempt on the same
bird. This might be one of those times where "you had to be there,"
but given the situations as presented, the judges were in error for throwing
the bird a second time. Generally, one judge is assigned to watch the fall,
and the other watches the retriever to see if the dog "marked" the
bird. We correctly teach judges not to signal for the throw if they don't
think the dog is ready. Until the dog is sent, it may be hard for a judge to
confirm that the dog saw the bird. The judge merely makes the determination at
the line that the dog was looking in the direction of the throw and
"appeared" to see it. Confirmation comes to the judge when the dog
proceeds to the area of the fall and begins a hunt. Most Started dogs that
have not seen a bird will not go directly to the area of the fall. In this
scenario, the dog appeared to see the bird, and did indeed go to the area of
the fall and began a hunt. When the dog couldn't find the bird (started to
wander from the area), the first thing the judges should have suggested to the
handler is to call the dog in and re-cast it. If the dog was unsuccessful
after a second cast, the judges should walk out, pick up the bird (possibly
with the handler along) and look for a reason the dog couldn't find it.
Perhaps then a re-run would be in order.
Situation:
At
the Seasoned water test, the Judges briefed the handlers to shoot the blind
and run it. on the way back from the blind, a diversion is thrown. A double
mark follows the diversion.
Question:
Is
this a legal test?
Answer:
For something that's supposed to be so simple, there sure seem to be a lot of
questions out there about the diversion. The Seasoned guidelines on page 18 of
the Rulebook, item VI, state: "if a diversionary bird is used, it must be
thrown as the dog returns from the retrieve." The Seasoned test rules on
page 17 of our Rulebook, item VI, state: "a diversionary bird can be
thrown only as the Hunting Retriever returns from its last retrieve."
Running the blind first means the dog still has more retrieves to make during
the test. So, is it okay to throw the diversion in conjunction with the blind
if the marks are run first and the blind last? Digging a little deeper into
the Rulebook gives us the answer we are seeking. The Seasoned rules on page
15, description, state: "Either or both the double land retrieve or the
double water retrieve must include a diversion." Clearly, our founding
fathers meant for us to throw the Seasoned diversion on the last
"marked" retrieve. There are several reasons for this. Although the
diversion is a test for switching, we are asking the dog to retrieve it as a
bird visually seen (remember, the Seasoned dog shall retrieve the diversion).
The blind is a separate test (for control), and should if at all possible, be
run well away from the marks. When this is not possible, most judges on the
Seasoned water test run the blind first so that it won't interfere with the
marking test. In the above scenario, a diversion following the blind would
probably cause some problems with the marks, and is not what the rulebook
intended.
Situation:
The
Finished land test consisted of a triple marked retrieve, a diversion on the
way in from the first mark, and a blind. There was no specific order of
retrieves. The dog picked up all three marks well and did not switch on the
diversion. However, after the last mark was delivered, the handler forgot
about the diversion bird, lined the dog up on the blind and sent it. The blind
was accomplished with four whistles and no refusals. After taking the blind
from the dog the handler and dog moved ten feet to the right to the honor
stool. The handler overheard one judge ask the other if the diversion bad been
picked up. The judges counted the birds on the ground and realized it bad not
been. Upon hearing this, the handler immediately sent the dog for the
diversion (only ten yards away) and the dog picked it up cleanly. The judges
declared the test a failure. The handler then sat down and honored for the
next dog.
Question:
Did
the judges make the correct decision?
Answer:
The answer to this question can't be found in our Rulebook. Given the facts as
presented, there are no rules or guidelines specifically covering the judges’
decision to fail the dog. Although no order was given for the marked
retrieves, the judges clearly forgot the diversion as well, and should
shoulder some responsibility for it. The real question, however, is what
difference did it make in testing this dog if the dog picked the diversion up
after the blind? These Judges should be reminded that the purpose of the
diversion is to test for a "switch" The dog did not switch. Was it
not perhaps more difficult for the dog to run the control test with a bird
laying close to the line to the blind? The dog showed good control in ignoring
the diversion and concentrating on the blind, then good memory is going back
to the diversion. The judges could have been more "flexible" when
this situation developed. They definitely made a poor decision by telling the
handler the test was a failure before the handler honored. Delaying their
decision until they had time to review the dog's performance and think a
little more about the situation would have been the prudent course to take.
Would this not be a case where the judges could be reminded to judge the dog,
not the handler?
I hesitated at first to use this scenario because this really happened at one
of our hunts. It is not the intent of this column to impugn the integrity of
any judges or others involved in this event. This was again one of those
situations were you probably "had to be there." The situation is
used merely to illustrate that the answers to tough judgement decisions are
not always found in the Rulebook. I will again state that regarding judgmental
decisions, although we don't always like the call made, we should continue to
stand behind our judges when they make those calls.
I've been getting some questions regarding blind retrieves, particularly at the Finished level. In the next issue of the "Judge's Corner" we'll try to answer some of these. We hope the "Judge's Corner" will both entertain and inform you. |
|
The Judges Corner - copyright
2006 All Rights Reserved Last modified: February 18, 2008 |