 |
|
|
|
|
JUDGES CORNER
-April-May 2002 -
After a rather short column in the
last magazine, we’re back up to full speed with this issue.
I have a scenario where we talk about a decision a judge had to make
when faced with an unusual request after the hunt. Also, in keeping with the
Upland theme of this issue of HR magazine, we’ll take a look at an Upland
Hunt test where there was a question whether the judges provided the same test
for every dog. Gee, I’ve never
heard that about an Upland test before, have you?
And for those of you tough enough to hang on to the end of the column,
I’m going to respond to some charges that I was wrong about the popping
issues I talked about in the last two magazines.
Before getting to all that I want to say something about “standards of performance”. I’ve heard folks talking recently about keeping the standard high. That’s fine and dandy, and I think and hope everyone is all for it, but consider this. The first “standard” a judge should strive to meet is to be the best judge possible (I’ll call it the standard of performance for judges). Learn to be fair and consistent. Grow, improve, learn from your mistakes and from the experience of others, and learn when to leave the door open for a dog, if even a small amount. Understanding these things comes first, and goes hand in hand with understanding where the standard of performance for the dog needs to be. Let’s look at a recent situation where a newer judge found himself being asked to do something he wasn’t sure he should. Scenario:
After apprenticing a Seasoned hunt, the judge got an e-mail at home
from one of the handlers (a friend and also a judge) asking if the judge would
scan the handler’s dog’s judging sheets and send them by a return e-mail.
The handler in fact passed, but had to leave the hunt early.
The judge told me that while he would not hesitate to discuss the
dog’s performance, he was not sure about sending a copy of the judging
sheets on the dog. He asked me
the following: Question:
Is sending a copy of their judging
sheets to a handler something judges should do if they can? Answer:
I predict this apprentice Seasoned
judge will go far and do well. He’s
showed some good thinking by asking what is the generally acceptable practice
regarding judges’ sheets, and what he should do about this handler’s
request. The short answer to this judge’s
question is a simple no. In
discussing this with one of our most senior reps (because as he’ll admit, he
has a lot of senior moments), said rep relayed a story about receiving an HRCH
title on his first dog, many years ago. Elated,
he asked the judges (one a former HRC national president, the other a field
rep at the time) for a copy of his dog’s sheets so he could “frame”
them. His request was politely
denied for the same reasons I gave to the apprentice judge who contacted me,
which are as follows. Judges fill out the sheets so they can record the dog’s performance. The sheet should be accurate, complete, and legible enough so that at the end of the day they can review what they’ve written and re-create the dog’s run for themselves, a co-judge, handler, field rep, or hunt test committee when required. When working with apprentices in particular, licensed judges should check to see that the apprentice is at minimum recording the basic information needed to evaluate the dogs. The ability to add more details comes with practice and learning to develop a personal “shorthand” when completing judging sheets. Judges who never develop this skill seem to be the ones with very little on their sheets. I've seen hundreds of judges sheets, and I can tell you I've had a hard time "reading" some very complete sheets from very good judges. My
point in all this is to say that giving someone a copy of a judging sheet,
without being there to explain what you've written, could possibly lead to
misinterpretation of the information. If you do this for a friend who
passed, what will you say to someone who is angry at not passing and wants a
copy of his or her sheet? Our HRC rulebook says very little about
judging sheets except that “Judges notebooks shall be open for review by any
Handler, and Judges are to keep the score sheets for one (1) year (page 46,
item 30). By “any handler”,
the rulebook means only the handler of a dog may look at that dog’s specific
sheets (no others) immediately at the conclusion of the hunt.
Sending out copies of your judge’s sheets means loosing control of
who sees them. HRC has always, as
a matter of policy, agreed that field reps may review sheets for completeness,
and in the event of a protest or problem, hunt committees may ask to look at
the them. After leaving the hunt
grounds, judges are under no obligation to even discuss a sheet or dog’s
performance with a handler. While
it is laudable that the judge in this case agreed to speak with the handler,
my personal recommendation is rather than send a copy of the sheet, simply
explain it by phone. As one of our most knowledgeable field reps stated:
“After the hunt, consider the judges sheets “sealed” and to be
the exclusive property of the judge”. With the emphasis on our Upland Hunt testing program in this issue of the HR magazine, I was specifically asked to add a scenario about upland judging to this column. I sent word out that I was looking for a good one and “lo and behold” (I got that phrase from the King), it appeared. The following may or may not have actually occurred at a recent hunt. If it did, the judges are to be commended for the fine test they constructed and the good job they did in evaluating the retrievers. The answers to the questions posed in the scenario and the information presented here is a compilation of thoughts from some of the best “Upland” minds in our organization. I wish I could take credit for it, but in fairness the majority goes to (in particular) one of our humble field reps that wanted no special recognition. It’s our hope that this scenario helps gives you a better understanding of the challenges faced by both judges and handlers regarding judging and running the Upland Hunt Test. Scenario:
During their test
briefing, the judges at the Upland Test had instructed each handler to fire a
popper load at each flushing bird to receive credit for the bird during the
flushing part of this test. They had also instructed the gunners not to shoot
at any flushed bird until the handler had shot a popper. The intent of these
instructions was to avoid having any gunners shooting too close to the dog.
Once the handler shot their popper, the bird would be well ahead of the dog
thus making for a safer test.
During the test some dogs were quick
to be steady, allowing the handler to get off a quick popper shot which in
turn allowed the gunners to shoot and kill the bird well within gun range.
Other handlers had trouble steadying their dogs or fumbled with the gun, not
getting off a timely popper shot, which put the bird well out of gun range
before the gunners could then shoot. During these flushes the gunners would
empty their guns in an attempt to kill the bird. The excitement for the dog
was heightened by the amount of shots and the ever-escaping bird. These
handlers would then have their dog watch as the bird usually flew off down the
field to land some distance ahead. As
these birds landed many dogs that were steady to the flush and shot
would then take chase and be assessed a controlled break at best.
Handlers had contested that
their dogs were not all receiving the same test.
Their contention was that the excitement level of the multiple guns
shooting was far more for a bird that was missed than one that was killed
quickly. Questions: Did
the Judges in this case present the same test to each handler? Should these
Judges compromise their test from a safety standpoint and allow the
gunners to shoot as soon as the bird is flushed, even though their intent was
to not allow shots too close to a breaking dog? Answer:
Without repeating all the rules
and guidelines for judging Upland Hunt Tests, we should remember some basics
about the Upland. During this
test, retrievers are expected to find and flush game for the hunter to shoot,
and stay in reasonable control at all times while doing it. While hunting away
from the handler’s side, retrievers that understand the game still are
hunting “for” the handler. The Upland dog is required to flush two birds,
and the handler must shoot the gun (popper) on each flush.
While the gunners may kill the bird, our rulebook states (page 44) that
“Judges should instruct gunners to let the bird fly off a short distance
(i.e. 10 to 20 yards) before shooting and to make every effort not to
drop the bird at the dogs feet. Perhaps
most importantly, we should remember that, as one field rep put it:
“Just about anything can happen as the bird flushes”.
There
were some differences of opinion between the experts I consulted about the
judge’s instructions regarding shooting to the gunners. There is some merit
to the school of thought that says we should let the gunners shoot (whether
the handler has fired or not). It’s certainly more like we hunt”, and the
gunners are more likely to drop the bird with a minimum of shots fired and
cripples flying away. There are also good reasons why the judges issued the
instructions they did, safety being a primary one, which should be foremost in
any testing situation, and never compromised. Remember that the Upland is, as
one rep put it, “played by Finished rules”.
The judges knew that some participants had Seasoned level dogs, or it
was their first time running an Upland Hunt Test. Understanding that these
handlers were concerned with their dog’s steadiness, the judges gave them an
opportunity to steady the dog on the flush and fire the first shot.
To
answer the question about giving the same test to every handler (which some
say is nearly impossible in the Upland), let’s consider where the
inconsistencies in the test were, and why they most likely occurred.
In the scenario as written, the majority of handlers complaining about
the inconsistencies were in fact complaining that some birds were being killed
quickly while others had multiple shots fired at them and were flying off. Did
they consider that the delay by not firing their poppers in a timely manner
might have caused this? In some
cases, handlers concentrating on keeping their dogs steady and/or forgetting
to shoot were their own worst enemy. The
Upland Test is by nature more prone to inconsistencies partly because of the
differences in training and ability among the retrievers.
Retrievers who are not trained well, or don’t understand the game are
more likely to be hunting for themselves, hunting out of gun range, or need to
be constantly called back in. The
handler who is barely hanging on to control of the dog often has a dog that is
prone to bolt after a bird. These
handlers are just hoping that the dog will be close enough to stop when a
flush occurs. A good day of
actual Upland hunting will hopefully mean lots of birds flushed, lots of
excitement, and lots of shooting. Participants
in our Upland Hunt Tests should ask themselves if they are training to have a
well-rounded, solid Upland dog, or training only enough to get their dog to
stop on the flush when the whistle is blown? We’ll take a closer look at
some other aspects of the Upland Hunt Test in future Judges Corner and try to
answer questions about dogs chasing birds, catching birds on the flush, or how
to deal with a handler that forgets to shoot. We’ll discuss making the
Upland test as consistent and fair as possible while keeping it exciting, and
safe. I’d welcome comments, tips, advice and suggestions from our
experienced HRC Upland judges, handlers and hunters. Finally, (and I promise,
for the last time) let me take just a few minutes of your time to revisit the
popping issue discussed in the last two Judge’s Corners.
Popping discussion continued:
Shortly after the last issue of HR
magazine was out, a post appeared on both the UKC and HRC message boards
“challenging” some of my statements in the last Judges Corner about
popping. I didn’t respond to the post at the time for a couple of reasons.
I was asked to do so via this column, and taking a close look at what
was said and who was saying it, I was curious as to what sort of reaction or
additional responses the post might generate.
I would expect that as sharp as most of the readers of this column are,
if I said something totally outrageous, or totally wrong, my head might soon
be on a platter somewhere. Given
that the momentum quickly faded, I must really not have, as the post stated,
“opened a big can of worms” or “given the green light to a bunch of
problems”. Rather than
repeating what I said (which you can re-read if it will be helpful), let me
try to clarify it with some simple examples containing something even great
judges find they need to rely on frequently – some good ole common sense.
The general discussion was about evaluating a dog’s marking and
memory skills. Specifically,
about a dog that “pops” on the way to a mark (could be the memory bird).
The handler gives a verbal “back”, at which point the dog turns,
proceeds directly to the area of the fall, and picks up the bird.
The question is not whether the dog should be marked down for this.
That question is decided by the evaluation the judges must make about
issues such as distractions (the dog may have heard a whistle, etc.) or
desire. The question is has this
dog earned a markdown for its marking and memory (or lack thereof)? I said in
essence in my last column, not necessarily, and I thought I explained why.
The gist of the post disagreeing with me was “the dog was handled, so
it deserves a markdown for marking and memory”.
After quoting various parts of the rulebook about what is required of
the dog to show good marking and memory, the post contained this sentence:
“In our judges seminar we are taught the requirements of a mark are
to l) go to the area of the fall, and 2) initiate a hunt, not go towards a
mark then stop and wait for another command to retrieve the mark”.
While I’ll agree with 1) and 2), if the last part of that sentence is
in the seminar manual, I can’t find it.
As the post suggested, let’s look closely at what the rulebook says.
Page 22, Marking and Memory state: “A retriever that must be handled to
a marked fall does not demonstrate marking ability.
Serious faults which would be grounds for failure include:
excessive handling to marks that the retriever should have
seen.” In our seminars, judges
are taught the difference between being handled to the area of the
fall, or in it. The operative
word here is “to”. In
evaluating the dog’s marking work, is it not logical to determine if the dog
was directed “to” the bird? Consider
this: Two dogs run your marking test. Dog 1 pops (for whatever reason) on a tough bird while on line to the fall. It’s given a verbal “back” and continues directly to the fall with no further contact from the handler and picks up the bird. On the same mark, Dog 2 never seems to swing with the gun or see the bird fall. When it comes time to pick it up, the handler puts his hand down to help “line” the dog toward the area of the fall. The dog is cast, lines to the AOF, hits scent, and hunts up the bird. I have several questions for you. Which dog did the better marking job? Which dog was “handled” to the area of the fall? Which dog has a marking problem that would warrant a penalty for its marking and memory skills? What does the seminar say about dog 2?
After a dog pops, sometimes a verbal command is nothing more than an
authorization to continue the retrieve, or verification to the dog that that
yes, you are to proceed. If the
dog has a problem with confidence or desire that warrants a markdown or
failure, that’s another matter. If
the dog has a problem getting to the area of the fall without aid or direction
from the handler, that’s another matter.
To simply note on the score sheet that the dog was given a command
after it was sent on a mark, and without further examination conclude that
this dog was “handled” and must be marked down is simply not
looking at the whole picture. It’s
unreasonable, and unsound. 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 |