 |
|
|
|
|
JUDGES CORNER
- June / July, 2001 - Hunting
Retriever magazine I want to give everyone a quick update on the Judge’s Corner “Slogan Contest” I mentioned in my April-May 2001 Judge’s Corner article. Worthy entries are still coming in, so I’ve decided to extend the contest entry deadline for a few weeks. Also, a couple of issues ago, I gave you some examples of statements I heard about judging, test set-up, and our testing program from various judges, field reps, and handlers. Having received some nice comments about how interesting these quotes were, I’ve decided to ask the readers of this column to send me a statement, phrase, quote, comment, instruction, etc. that you might have heard judges make at our hunt tests (no names, please). I’ll try to feature a worthy one in each issue of this column. They can be serious, funny, on or off the mark, make a lot or very little sense. They can be good or bad, but not ugly. What they need to be is something we can all think about, and learn from. I’ll give you an example to get the ball rolling. An experienced handler/judge overheard this actual exchange (and sent it to me) between a judge and a Finished handler who was asking about the honor at a recent hunt test:
Handler:
“Can we use a down-stay command while on the honor”? Judge:
“Yes, but if the dog sits up that will be considered a break! Interesting,
don’t you think? If I overheard
this, I would probably refer these judges to the Judge’s Corner column in
the February-March, 1998 HR magazine (available on the JC website), where I
discussed this subject in detail. For those of you taking your valuable time
to send this material to me, all I can offer is my thanks, and the
satisfaction of knowing that in some small way, you’ve helped to educate,
inform, and/or entertain your fellow judges.
Some
handlers and judges in at least two of our regions might have noticed your
field rep taking a more active interest in your test set-ups this past spring.
The executive committee had asked the field reps to become more
involved at the hunts they attended in helping judges set up good tests, be
fair and consistent, recognize problems in the testing environment, and
properly evaluate the retrievers in the class they are judging.
To that end, rather than becoming involved only when a test is illegal,
or there is a complaint being considered or filed, in at least two regions, as
an experiment of sorts, field reps have been actively reviewing tests,
speaking with judges, and offering suggestions to improve their tests. I’m
told that for the most part, judges have been very receptive of this input.
The reps involved in this effort report that judges seem to appreciate
them wanting to help the judges do a quality job and welcome an impartial and
on-the-spot critique and evaluation of their tests.
Rather than thinking the reps are present to flex the muscles of their
authority, these wise judges realize that there is someone at the hunt that is
available to answer questions, offer advice, and who is willing to step
forward and correct problems in a testing situation.
I’m very pleased to hear that. We all need a helping hand from time
to time, especially when we’re faced with having to use marginal test
grounds, encounter unforeseen circumstances, or we simply make a mistake in
our testing procedures. For a lot
of us who have been judging a long time, much of the experience we gained was
through, as Bill Rath aptly put it, the “I’ll never do that again”
method. While you might have
learned something as a judge with that method, some handlers and dogs probably
paid the price for your education! Before
we get to our first scenario, I want to mention an e-mail note I received from
a judge about a subject, which the judge states:
“has come up in at least three regions I’ve judged in this past
spring”. The issue concerns the
use of a personal gun in a hunt test. We
spend some seminar time discussing this, and I addressed it in only the second
Judge’s Corner column I wrote, in October-November 1995.
Rather than repeat that column (which is also available on the JC
website), I’ll briefly summarize it. The
rulebook states that no “unauthorized” guns are allowed at the test site.
An authorized gun is generally one that the club provides, has been
inspected for good working order, and limited to a capacity of 3 shots.
The HRC rulebook says very little else on the subject.
As one of those unwritten HRC policies, the use of personal guns has
always been authorized in our tests when there have been legitimate reasons to
do so. The most obvious is a short handler needing a short stocked gun to be
able to properly shoulder the gun and shoot the birds.
I stated in 1995 that it is preferable that a handler wanting to use a
special gun gets it inspected and authorized before a test begins so as to
avoid causing disruptions and delays in the test.
Judges should be willing to accommodate these handlers.
A
question some judges are still confused about is:
“Does the gun have to remain on the line?”
The answer is NO! If
you carefully read my 1995 column, you might think you’re going to be the
first to tell me that’s not what I said - you’re not.
It’s already been pointed out to me that I made the statement:
“Some judges may legitimately ask that a handler leave their
gun available at the test site for any other handlers who wish to use the
gun.” Remember what I said earlier about judges learning by the “I’ll
never do that again” method? It
goes for inexperienced writers as well. It was an offhand statement,
reflecting a common practice at the time.
I was also a rookie writer with training wheels still on my word
processor, not speaking up as strongly as I do now about using common sense in
our tests. I think I know where the practice of asking handlers to leave their
guns on the line began, but rather than bore you with more HRC history,
let’s look at why it makes no sense to do this.
It’s more common now for handlers to run multiple dogs in different
classes. It makes little sense to
ask a handler to leave a gun who might need it shortly (no pun intended) at
another test. Also, as a judge, I
don’t want to be responsible for the gun all day, nor do I think it’s fair
to ask a site marshal or club to be. I
do think, in some circumstances, it might be reasonable to ask a handler not
to carry said gun if they have their dog on lead, or must come through the
gallery area. Judges could ask a
marshal or assistant to bring the gun up and take it back, or require that it
be cased coming to the line if that would make them more comfortable. In the
scenarios we’ll be discussing, we’ll take a look at an issue involving the
new rule about the Seasoned dog not being allowed to compete with a collar on.
We’re also going to get back to some judging basics with an in-depth
discussion of decisions judges face in determining when to call a
“no-bird”. While I usually am
quick to talk about other judges, the no-bird scenario involves a test I
recently judged with a new apprentice. Scenario:
At the Seasoned test, the handler brought the dog to the
retrieving line on a leash, which was attached to a flat, one-inch snap
buckled collar. In preparing to
unbuckle the collar, one of the judges admonished the handler for bringing the
dog to the line wearing the collar. The
handlers had been briefed about Seasoned dogs not being allowed to run with
collars, and the fact that all dogs should be brought to the line on lead. Question: What is the proper procedure for complying with the new rule about no collars allowed on the Seasoned dog, considering Seasoned dogs are required to come to the line on lead? Also, should the judges have given more complete instructions? Answer:
This scenario came to me by e-mail from an individual I know
personally, and who happens to also be a Seasoned level judge.
This person stated that as they understood the rules, it should be no
problem for the handler to remove the collar, placing it and the leash out of
sight prior to beginning the test. They
wondered if I was in agreement with that interpretation.
I’ll have to admit, that I had not thought much about this
“conundrum” as it applies to Seasoned level handlers, and I told my friend
this was a very good question. I’m
also not sure I’ve done a lot of thinking about where the Seasoned test
begins. If it starts at the last
holding blind, then there is a problem with a handler using a leash and collar
and removing it at the retrieving line. If
it does not begin until the handler reaches the retrieving line, then I’ve
wasted a lot of good judging ink noting the control the retriever is or is not
exhibiting on lead coming to the line! Rather than focusing on where the test
starts, I think there is an easier answer. Finished and Grand handlers have
long ago solved the problem of maintaining control of their retrievers in the
holding blind, yet coming to the line and running without collars. Most use
the common “slip” lead. The
Seasoned judges at this test demonstrated a good understanding of the new no
collar rule, but perhaps could have expanded their briefing by mentioning the
use of a slip lead, or short check cord, minus collar.
Not being specific, I would think the judges would feel some
responsibility to handlers for any coming to the line with a leash/collar
combination, and not make a big deal of it.
In my e-mail reply, I also said that to be fair to the judges, I
thought one or more of the handlers could have asked about this.
I want to again thank the handler who sent this scenario in, giving us
the opportunity to discuss it in this column.
Our next scenario happened at a recent hunt test where the licensed
judge was your humble writer, working with a new Started apprentice judge. Scenario:
At the Started land test, the dog was focused in the direction of the
impending throw and the handler signaled ready.
The bird boy fired an attention getting shot, then pulled the release
on the automatic winger, launching the pigeon.
The bird caught a gust of wind and fell short of where the majority of
the other throws had been landing. The
judges did not call a “no-bird”. While
the dog appeared to have seen it, the retriever had some difficulty locating
the bird before eventually completing the retrieve. Questions:
Should the judges have declared a no-bird? What are some factors judges should consider when deciding to call a no-bird? Also, what should the judges have done had the dog not found the bird? Answers: Deciding to call a no bird is for many judges one of most difficult decisions they face during a test. For readers unfamiliar with the term no-bird, this means a throw is unacceptable for one reason or another. The judge is in effect stopping the test by loudly declaring, “no-bird”. The term is also used to apply to poor flushes, shot flyers, walk-ups, or anytime a judge is presenting a bird that does not appear as it should. Unacceptable throws for the Started dog can at worst lead to failure to complete a retrieve, and effectively prohibit the judge from accessing the dog’s marking abilities. These same poor throws at Seasoned, Finished or Grand levels can also lead to extended hunts, excessive handling, and problems on the remaining birds.
For the purpose of this discussion, let’s assume we’re talking about
marks. I’ve often said in this column that judges must be good observers,
keep on top of what is happening in their tests, and learn to make good
decisions. When the subject of
calling no-birds comes up, I would amend the latter part of my last sentence
to say, “learn to make good, quick decisions.”
The quick decision to call a no-bird is perhaps the second most
important “instant” decision a judge must make on the line.
What do you suppose the most important is?
How about gun safety, and the need to quickly yell “don’t shoot”
in certain circumstances.
The decision to declare a no-bird is best made before the retriever is
cast from the line, and before successive birds are thrown in a multiple
marking test. Since most judges
correctly don’t verbally call for the release of the dog, but allow handlers
to send their retrievers when the bird is on the ground, and the dog has
“shown it is steady”, you can see how the no-bird decision, especially on
a single mark, must be made promptly. Even
with multiple marks, the decision should be swift so as to not unnecessarily
throw any remaining birds, presenting even more of the test you’re not going
to let the dog complete at that time. While the above scenario deals with a
Started level test, the principles involved with making good decisions about
calling no-birds apply to all levels, and I hope even veteran judges can
benefit from this discussion.
There seems to be two schools of thought about declaring no birds.
Some judges will call a no-bird when the throw does not come out
exactly when they want it to, or when the bird lands in an area different from
all the other throws. Other
judges take the approach of letting the dog go on these throws, feeling they
will judge accordingly. Which is
right? Probably neither if the
judges try to make it that black and white.
Experienced judges understand there are several factors to consider
when declaring a no-bird. I’ll
explain some, and then tell you how I applied these to the Started scenario
above. First, let me say this.
Faced with a questionable throw, if you are not completely sure what
your training and experience is telling you, BE SAFE AND DECLARE A NO BIRD!
I think the first obligation judges have is to try their best to
eliminate the possibility of no-birds to begin with. Make sure equipment is
adequate to get the bird where it is required, bird boys are well trained and
instructed, and you’re not asking that birds be thrown where they cannot
consistently land in the proper spot. Without
going into a long discussion of how to set up a good marking test (or ducks
versus pigeons), let’s assume an decent throw will yield a visible bird at
an appropriate distance, landing in acceptable cover for the level being
tested. Judges should discuss
between themselves (especially with an apprentice) what I call a “target
area”, where you will accept a throw. Understand
that birds landing outside the target area can be possible no-birds.
By the way, this target area is not necessarily the same as the area of
the fall, which is the area around a thrown bird that we expect the dog to
reach on its own and initiate a hunt in. Don’t ask the bird throwers to hit
too small a target area, or you’ll have a bunch of no-birds.
Discuss how short throws can be too close to the bird boy hide,
especially for young dogs, and how long throws (far side of the target) might
get to close to other parts of the test, especially at Seasoned or Finished
levels. The throw might have been
long, high, and very visible, but if it hit outside the target, landing too
close to another mark, a hot blind, or in line with a pending diversion, it
could cause difficulty for the dog. Judges
should consider the height of the bird as it affects the bird’s visibility.
Given the background, distance, and type of bird, agree on a minimum
acceptable height. Finally,
discuss timing of the throws. I’ve
seen a lot of judges call a no bird because the bird does not come out of the
winger when they signal or call for it, even on the first bird of a multiple
mark test! This never made a lot
of sense to me. I give specific
instructions to bird throwers that if the bird falls out of the pouch, they
have forgotten to put one in, or they weren’t ready, they should make every
effort to still try to throw a bird, unless I tell them to stop.
Those instructions go to all throwers in my tests, including numbers 2
and 3 on multiple marks. Although
some will want to disagree with me, it has been my experience that a reasonable
delay on a mark has little to no effect on the dogs marking or memory and is
preferable to a re-run. Besides target area, height, and timing, are there any
other factors that might affect a judge’s decision to declare a no-bird?
Yes, and here is where it gets more interesting.
I believe a judge should consider how well the mark is working in the
test. A lower throw, delayed
throw, or one slightly missing the target area will have less effect on a mark
that dogs are being successful with than it will on a mark that is marginal to
start with. Also, consider the
individual dog running the test. Was
the dog attentive? Did it seem to
see the bird well? Had you seen
the dog perform on other marks that day?
Finally, as the judge, were you adequately positioned to get a clear
view of the throw in question? The
Guidelines for Conducting Events on page 45 (Item 13) of our rulebook says:
“Before a test begins, it should be decided which Judge shall
signal for birds and watch for fly-aways while the other Judge watches the dog
for manners, marking, etc.” I
have to admit, I always cheat this a little.
I try to position myself where I can see both the dog and the throw,
especially when I’m working with an apprentice.
It’s not hard to do with single marks.
In the Started scenario I judged, the questionable throw was the second
bird of the afternoon land test (fourth mark of the day). The center of my
target area was 53 yards from the line. The
dogs ran through moderate cover, but most of the target area was short cover.
We had seen several dogs run, and they were handling the mark well.
The throw in question was high, but slightly short, landing on the very
edge of my target. Since the
winger was throwing in, the bird probably landed at 60 plus yards.
The bird spun in the air, and from my position behind, the dog appeared
to lock in on the bird. Out of an
old habit, I had already looked at how the dog ran its water marks while the
handler was getting ready to run the first land mark.
I knew I had a strong dog. Nevertheless,
after electing not to call a no-bird, both my apprentice and I had our fingers
crossed as the dog left the line. My
experience, and the factors I’ve outlined in this response, told me the dog
could handle the throw. While it
did fine, picking up the bird after an extended hunt, you might ask what would
I have done if the retriever had not found the bird?
Comparing this retrieve to a NASA shuttle launch (for some dogs it is),
all indicators appeared in the green to me.
While the gauges were not all perfectly centered, all factors appeared
within acceptable limits, and the dog was successful. If the dog were having
difficulty, I’d try to consider why? I’d
ask myself if the marginal throw could be the reason.
I’d turn to my co-judge and ask if he or she saw something I missed
on the throw. In some cases, each
judge is waiting for the other to call the no-bird and the dog gets sent
before anybody does. While I feel
in general it’s best to make a decision and stick to it, I won’t say I
don’t think a judge should re-consider stopping a dog and offering a re-run
if it is warranted. This goes
back to fairness, common sense, and the reasonable expectation of handlers
that the throws should at least meet a minimum level of visibility,
timeliness, accuracy and consistency. I
have a challenge of sorts for those of you who think they know our rulebook
well. Find out what it says about no-birds, and drop me a note. We hope
the “Judge’s Corner” will both entertain and inform you.
Answers to your questions will come from the UKC/HRC Rulebook, the Judges/Handlers Seminar and the consensus of your Regional Field Representatives. |
|
The Judges Corner - copyright
2006 All Rights Reserved Last modified: February 18, 2008 |