 |
|
|
|
|
JUDGES CORNER - April / May 2000 - Hunting Retriever magazine by Tim
Gibson
In
the last issue of the Judge’s Corner, we reviewed a Started test in which
the judges did not have the required ninety degrees of separation between the
“lines to the falls” of the thrown birds.
We concluded this was not a legal test.
A few days after the magazine came out; I received an e-mail note
discussing this scenario from an experienced, respected judge who I have known
for a long time. While licensed at all levels, this judge has a particular
passion for our young Started dogs and their handlers.
I wanted to share some of the judge’s comments that I found very
interesting, honest, and to the point about this particular test, and judging
in general. I want to thank her
for writing to me, and providing some serious food for thought for all of
us.
The judge starts out by stating: “I
must have read this scenario 15 times by now, and I’m embarrassed by several
things. Where was the hunt
committee that approved this test? You
very correctly pointed out the illegalities of the test, but you did not
address the solution to the problem. Is
it not the hunt committee’s duty to approve a test?
Judges are sometimes quite arrogant, sometimes just don’t know any
better, and sometimes just plain make a mistake. The committee can’t make a judge change a test just because
they want to, but they do have absolute power to force a judge to make a test
legal. My next embarrassing
moment was that the handler who sent the scenario to you was a licensed
finished judge! This finished
judge who was running their Started dog had a responsibility to the Started
judges, to the club, to the other Started handlers and dogs, to his own dog,
and to HRC to have taken those two judges aside and ask that the hunt
committee be called to approve a LEGAL test.
Some of the Started people could have failed the test because of the
placement of the throws, and HRC may never see them again.
The judge goes on to say: “There
is often very little emphasis placed on the Started test, and having judged a
goodly number of them, I know first hand that sometimes you can not even get a
hunt committee to come and approve your test on set up day. Also, most judges
chastise anyone who complains that a test may not be legal.
That is the real shame. As
a judge, you have learned nothing if you cannot analyze and differentiate
between real concern, intimidation and constructive criticism”.
What
do you think? I would have to
agree that many times our hunt committees spend too little time reviewing
tests for legality, particularly at the Started level since there is the
perception that a Started test is simply two short single marks.
Often, the hunt committee has a heavy workload and time is short.
Still, there is no excuse for not allocating sufficient time and
manpower to ensure the tests are adequately reviewed. I’d also have to agree with the letter writer that
many of our judges take offense at anyone questioning their authority or
competence. We all know that
there are a lot of gray areas in our HRC rulebook.
When a question of test legality surfaces, my advice to judges is
rather than getting your hackles up, if you cannot without question prove that
you have a legal test, change it! It’s
far more enjoyable and productive to cooperate with a hunt committee than to
buck them, and at the end of the day, the small compromises you made will make
no difference in your ability to adequately test the dogs performances.
In all likelihood, the committee will have a greater respect for you,
and be more willing to stand firmly behind you in your judgmental decisions!
In fairness to the gentleman who sent the Started scenario to me, I
believe he was running other dogs and probably got to the Started test well
after it had begun. I know he did
his best to point out the illegality of the test to both the judges and later,
the hunt test committee. If the
judges had already run a number of dogs, I’m sure the last thing they wanted
to hear was they didn’t have a legal test.
Speaking about working together, our first scenario is about two judges
who disagree whether a particular dog should pass or fail their test.
But before we get to that, I was asked to pass along some information
to our judges and hunt test secretaries about completing the UKC official
points receipt form properly.
Michelle Morgan at UKC advises me that they are having trouble
interpreting the “shorthand” and “coding” and other chicken scratching
(my words) they are seeing on some points receipts being sent to UKC.
Points receipts not filled out correctly can cause confusion, error, or
delays in processing. First, they
should be printed legibly. Many
clubs are using computer printed mailing labels placed on the points receipt
form indicating the club name, hunt date, and dog and handler information.
Pre-printed labels need to be put on all three copies of the points
receipts (UKC copy, club copy, and handler copy), but this is still probably
faster than hand writing each one. I
asked Michelle about the possibility of clubs generating their points receipts
entirely by computer. The problem
is doing this without a judge having to sign three copies.
With the carbonless three-part form now in use, the judge only has to
sign the top copy. If anyone has
an idea about how to solve this please contact Michelle or Claudene. A few things to remember when filling out points receipts
are:
1. Don’t combine test categories on a sheet, or different days hunts on one sheet. 2. Do not put an “x”, or arrow, or star, or any other symbol thru any of the six points receipts on the form, or otherwise scratch out any of the receipts. 3. Use the boxes on the forms only. If you make a mistake on the information on the form, simply put an “x” in the Void box at the bottom of the points receipt and use the next available points receipt. 4. If the U.K.C. number of the dog is unknown, leave it blank. Do not write Pending, Applied For, etc., in this space. 5. Use the Scratch box only for dogs who have entered the hunt but withdrew. 6. The Void box should be marked on each points receipt remaining on the form that is not used. It should not be used for dogs that have scratched, failed, or been disqualified. 7. Judges – if you have disqualified a dog or handler you should write, “Disqualified” at the bottom of the form and the reason why. 8. If a box is marked incorrectly, the incorrect box should be crossed out, the correct box checked, then the judge must circle the correct box and place their initials by the box.
9.
Although there is a place for two judge’s signatures, only one is required.
If there is one licensed and one apprentice judge, the signature of the
licensed judge is preferred.
Judges, remember when passing
out points receipts, please ask handlers to verify the accuracy of the
information and keep their copy. Let’s
get to our first scenario.
Situation:
At the conclusion of the Finished test, the two licensed judges sat
down to consider the performance of the dogs.
They found they disagreed on only one retriever.
One judge felt the dog did not exhibit adequate control on the final
few yards of the water blind while the other wanted to pass the dog.
They could not agree.
Question:
What should two licensed judges do when they disagree about whether
to pass or fail a dog?
Answer:
A judge called me with this scenario, which happened at a recent
hunt. He and his co-judge could
not agree on a decision about a particular dog.
He explained what the dog did on the blind and why he wanted to fail
the dog. He thought his co-judge
wanted to make excuses for the dog’s performance.
I’ve purposely left out much of the details of what the dog did
because they are not relevant to our discussion of the issue of two judges
finding common ground (or lack of it) about judgmental decisions.
He asked if there was some sort of procedure to follow when a judging
disagreement occurs. I thought
this might be a worthwhile subject to explore since it happens to all judges
sooner or later. I decided to
poll the field reps for their thoughts. I
got some interesting responses.
One of the field reps advised that me that without question, the
biggest judge should win. Another
said if one judge is a woman, she should always be considered correct. Gee,
can you guess who that was? Perhaps
the best answer I received about how to resolve this sort of problem was “be
the judge who gets to sign the points receipt!”
After they all had some fun with this one, I was eventually able to get
some straight answers and helpful suggestions.
I guess I don’t have to say
that if there is a disagreement between judges, and one is an apprentice, the
final pass/fail decision should rest with the licensed judge for obvious
reasons. In the scenario
described this would not apply because both were licensed. To obtain a judging license in our program, potential judges
have a comprehensive licensing procedure they must go through. This includes
recommendations from their club, testing and seminar requirements, and of
course the requirement that a judge own, train, and pass a dog at the level
they are seeking a license. In
HRC, once a judge has obtained his/her license at a particular level, we
consider all judges equal at that testing level.
We don’t make distinctions regarding the number of years a judge has
held his/her license, or how many hunt tests per year they judge, how many
dogs the judge has trained, etc. While
licensed equally, we all know there are big differences between judges in
their philosophy, ability to set up tests, how they understand dogs, and how
they interact with co-judges and the hunt committee. Without a doubt, judges usually earn the reputations they
eventually acquire, both good and bad.
When working together, there
are steps judges can take to minimize the possibility that they might have a
conflict with each other. Never
judge with another licensed judge (I’m just kidding). Seriously, the judges in our scenario could have practiced
what I’ll call “preventive maintenance for judging decisions”.
During test set up, the judges should have discussed (between
themselves only) some “what if” scenarios for different segments of the
test. For instance, what if the
dog touches the point of land we are running them past on the way to the water
blind. How are we going to look
at it? What problems might the
dogs encounter on the way to our blinds, and how are we going to view these or
other distractions? Where do we
think the areas of the fall of each mark will be?
What will we do if the dog is starting to leave the hunt area?
Will one of us advise the handler to keep the dog in the hunt area?
Are we in agreement about the difference between handling to the area
of the fall and handling in the area of the fall?
Discussing these and other possibilities gives each judge a better
understanding of how the other feels about performance standards and judging
issues and serves as a good review of the test objectives.
When talking about a
questionable dog, begin by each of you reviewing the mechanics of the dog’s
performance. Make sure one of you
didn’t see something the other did not have recorded. From there, review the applicable rules and guidelines, and
judging seminar recommendations if they apply. A very important factor that
will help in working through any disagreements is to remember to treat your
co-judge with the respect they deserve. Listen
carefully to the reasoning behind their decision.
You’ll find that they’ll be more willing to hear what you have to
say. Argue for your point of view
calmly, using common sense, fairness and good judgment.
What about calling in a third party such as the field
rep, hunt committee, or another licensed judge to act as “arbitrator” of
your disagreement? While
there is nothing wrong with seeking advice from a third party, I believe Bill
Rath said it best when he stated: “I
think that if I were asked (as a field rep) to mediate, I would try to help
the judges make their own decisions by asking questions and walking them
through the rulebook or seminar”. Note that Bill wisely didn’t say that he would listen to the judges
describe the situation then merely offer his own opinion about passing or
failing the dog. While talking
with a third party might reveal something you missed or a point you should
consider, don’t expect or rely on them to make a pass/fail decision for you.
Two licensed judges willing to make the effort can usually find some common
ground on which to come to a decision. Our next scenario once again involves
two licensed Finished judges making a tough decision.
It’s perhaps one of the most interesting we’ve covered in the Judge’s
Corner in a long time. Bear with
me as I attempt to describe, as completely as I can, exactly what happened.
Scenario:
Early
in the morning, at the Finished land test, the honor dog (who just ran the
test) is sitting with his handler at the retrieving line.
The working dog and handler come up and sit in their designated
positions. The retrievers and their respective handlers are pretty close
together. A short single is thrown from the honor dog’s side of the line,
which the honor dog is required to retrieve while the working dog
"honors". The bird was
supposed to land in front of the honor dog, but the throw was long, and it
landed directly in front of both dogs. The
honor dog handler said "back". Both dogs leave at the same time (working dog handler tells
judges later that his dog always is sent on "back" also).
About halfway to the bird, the working dog handler hits his whistle,
and the dog immediately sits. So
does the honor dog. Both dogs are
now sitting side by side, with the bird about 10 feet behind them.
The honor dog handler yells "back" very loudly. Both dogs turn and the race is on to the bird.
The working dog picks it up.
Remember, it was supposed to be picked up by the honor dog.
When the
working dog returns, it’s handler puts his lead on the dog and leaves the
line. The judges do not say
anything to him at this time. A
couple of dogs later this handler comes up to the judges between dogs and asks
them to consider giving him a re-run. He says he didn't have time to call his
dog back to heel since the honor handler yelled, "back" again almost
immediately after he stopped his working dog.
Question:
How should the judges have handled this situation?
Does the working dog deserve a re-run?
Remember, it all happened in about 3-4 seconds!
Answer:
I appreciate the fact that one of the judges involved took the time to
phone me and talk about this scenario, giving me both permission and the
opportunity to share it with you.
While both judges agreed at the time that the working dog should be
failed for the “break”, the judge who phoned me obviously had some
reservations about this being the correct decision.
He wanted my opinion about the possibility of there being some “interference”
caused by the honor dog handler, and the fact that both dogs went on the same
command.
Before I reveal to you what I told this judge regarding my opinion of
the scenario, let me say this. This
is a great situation to discuss because it forces us to think about all of the
factors that can come into play in a judgmental decision.
Some that apply here in particular are our rules and procedures,
definitions and terminology, test set up, judge-handler relationship, and the
importance of our powers of observation.
The first thought I had when the situation was explained to me was the
judges made a couple of initial mistakes.
I thought there probably should have been more separation between the
honor and working dog. The judge
I talked to agreed with that. Secondly,
I told him that because of the unusual circumstances, I think they probably
should not have allowed the handler to leave the retrieving line without
clearly understanding that he was either failed, or was to come back in a
couple of dogs. In fairness to the judges, they assumed he thought he was
failed because he simply put the lead on the dog and walked away, which was a
reasonable assumption. Hindsight
being twenty-twenty, it’s easy to say it would have been better to take a
few moments to discuss the situation between themselves and speak to the
handler before he left the line. Also,
the handler is somewhat culpable here as well.
I guess the lesson for handlers would be to never walk away from the
retrieving line (if the test is disrupted) until you either hear the judges
say the magic word “rerun”, or the words “thank you for your donation to
the club today”!
Did I tell you I polled some of the field reps for their thoughts about
this scenario? The responses I received ran about 70% to 30% in favor of
failing the working retriever. Since
the field reps are usually more correct than even the audience of “Who Wants
To Be A Millionaire”, I began to question my own opinion. Based on what I
was told, I advised the judge that I would be inclined to consider a re-run
for the working dog! Maybe this
is a good example of what Bill Rath meant when he said when asked for advice,
he’d rather help the judges make their own decision by asking questions and
discussing the rulebook and seminar, rather than offering his own opinion!
Maybe something was lost in my translation of what happened.
Maybe it just means I’m getting soft. Let’s look at some of the
factors the judges had to consider.
During the test execution, the bird for the honor dog was thrown long
and fell between the working and honor dog.
Should the judges have considered this a “no-bird”?
I apologize, but I don’t remember if I was told if only the honor dog
handler shot at the bird, or if both handlers shot.
Would this make a difference to you?
As far as leaving on the command “back”, some of the field reps
said the working dog should not have left regardless, since its handler did
not issue the command. I suppose
this is reasonable, but would a judge be more inclined to give a dog a break
(no pun intended) if they both happened to go on the same call name and it was
used? What’s the difference between a call name and the word “back”
if that’s what releases both dogs on marks.
I supposed the lesson here (which one field rep mentioned) is don’t
send your dog on the word “back” on marks.
Since this was the first bird of the day for the working dog, the
judges had no way of knowing if the dog was really sent on “back” on its
marks. I was wondering about the
“focus” of the working dog when he broke.
Was he looking at the bird, expecting to hear a command to be sent, or
looking at the honor dog with a “you’re not getting my bird” look? You wouldn’t know this if you weren’t there.
Consider for a moment that the working dog legitimately thought it was
to be sent. It stopped on its
handlers whistle command (controlled break).
Before the handler could call the dog back to heel, it heard another
loud “back”. Did the honor
handler take the opportunity to turn a break into a controlled break away from
the working handler? Could this be considered “interference”?
Or do we disregard any thoughts of interference since the working dog
should not have been out of position to start with? All interesting questions,
but should any of them be considered in the judges’ decision?
I want to think that if I were judging and saw this happen, I’d know
what I would do, and I could make my “final decision”.
On the other hand, could it be as simple as one field rep said, “The
working dog would not have been in trouble if it had not left the handler to
start with. Fail the dog.”
You tell me.
This scenario illustrates how fast things can happen in a hunt test.
It shows how observant the judges need to be, and how quickly they need
to process information and make tough calls.
I believe it also proves that many times there are no right or wrong,
black or white calls, but lots of shades of gray in the decision making
process. I’m thankful HRC
judges care enough to step up to the plate and take their best swing at making
the best decisions they can, weekend after weekend.
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 |