 |
|
|
|
|
JUDGES CORNER
August-September, 2002 -
As many of you are aware, HRC
votes on running rule proposals once every two years (in off election years).
This process just concluded at the recent national meeting in Memphis.
As I had promised in my last article, in this issue of the Judge’s
Corner I’m going to report on those running rule changes that were approved.
We’ll take a detailed look at what each one says, why they’re
important to you, and how they might affect both judges and handlers running
our hunt tests. I’m also going
to review UKC’s policy regarding HRC clubs hosting memorial events.
In addition, I’ll tell you about a change in judging qualifications
and a new judging designation developed at the national meeting, and report on
how the board voted in regards to the type of poppers to be used at hunt
tests. Finally, I have a marking scenario I want to share with you that comes
directly from my “I can’t believe the judges said that” file.
For those unfamiliar with how the HRC membership makes decisions on our
running rules, perhaps a quick primer on the voting process is in order.
Clubs and/or individuals in their respective regions submit proposals
to our elected running rules committee, who in turn collect, organize, mail
them to the clubs for their votes, and in due course, tally the results.
Proposals must pass/fail by a 2/3-percentage majority by the clubs
voting. In other words, the clubs must be overwhelming either for or against
the proposals. Proposals not
having the required 2/3 total (either for or against) are taken to the
national meeting to be voted on by the Board of Directors. There they pass or
fail by a simple majority. Those
running rule proposals just approved will become effective on January 1, 2003.
A total of three running rule changes made it through the voting process and were passed out of seventeen proposed this year. Each of the three passed at the club voting level. Eight of the seventeen proposals submitted needed to be voted on by the Board of Directors, and all eight failed. Interestingly, this tells me that the membership, particularly the Board of Directors is pretty satisfied with our running rules as they presently stand, feeling the need to make only a few small changes. I think this is a positive indication of the strength of our rulebook and of how our organization and our testing program have matured. It shows the faith we place in our well-trained and knowledgeable judges by allowing them the continued flexibility to make decisions without the need or burden of more rules to follow. The seminar training material is being updated to familiarize judges and handlers with the three rule changes that passed. Two apply to Finished and one to Seasoned and I’ll briefly review them for you here. 1.
A proposal modifying the
way the Finished diversion must be thrown passed.
It reads as follows. “During
the test, a diversionary bird will be thrown as the hunting retriever returns
to the retrieving line. If the hunting retriever switches to the diversionary
bird on the return, it shall fail the test.”
It replaces current wording under the Finished Test Rules on page 36 of
our rulebook that says, “a diversionary bird may be thrown as the hunting
retriever is cast from or returns to the retrieving line”.
This
change makes a lot of sense. The
purpose of a diversion bird is to test if a dog will switch, i.e., drop one
bird and pick up another. For
some time now in the Judges/Handlers Seminars, we’ve tried to discourage
Finished judges from using diversions on the way out to marks.
If a dog has nothing in it’s mouth to drop when it goes after a bird
thrown as it is cast from the retrieving line, how can we judge if the
dog switched? Judges might still
decide to throw a bird as a dog is cast from the line for any number of
reasons, but effective Jan. 1, 2003 such birds will not qualify as diversions.
2.
Current wording in the
Finished test rules, item II regarding steadiness on page 35 of our
rulebook states: “If
a Finished Hunting Retriever leaves the line before being signaled to do so,
it must stop and return immediately to heel.”
Effective Jan. 01, 2003 this will change to read:
“If a Finished Hunting Retriever leaves the retrieving line before
signaled to do so, it must be stopped and return to heel. Failure to stop and
return to heel upon command will be considered an uncontrolled break.”
3.
Current
wording in the Seasoned test rules, item II regarding steadiness on
page 30 of our rulebook states: “The
Judge will also give a lower score to the Seasoned Hunting Retriever for a
“controlled break.” If a Seasoned Hunting Retriever leaves the retrieving
line before signaled to do so, it must stop and return immediately to heel.
Any hesitation to return will be considered an uncontrolled break.
Any creeping by a Seasoned Hunting Retriever will be treated as a
“controlled break” and the retriever must be brought to heel on the
Judge’s command.” Effective
Jan. 01, 2003 this will change to read: “If
a Seasoned Hunting Retriever leaves the retrieving line before being signaled
to do so, it must be stopped and return to heel. Failure to stop and return to
heel upon command will be considered an uncontrolled break. Excessive or
consistent creeping by a Seasoned Hunting Retriever will be treated as a
controlled break and the retriever must be brought to heel on the Judge’s
command. The judges will give a lower score to the Seasoned Hunting Retriever
for a controlled break.” Proposals
I’ve numbered 2 and 3 that passed were both submitted by the
same club who had some concerns about our present Seasoned and Finished test
rules wording. In their rule
change justification, the club stated they felt the current wording was such
that when a dog leaves the line before being signaled to do so, there is no
provision for the handler to "stop" the dog, and “How can we
expect the dog to stop on it's own” when creeping or breaking? As respects
their Seasoned proposal, they were also concerned that the current wording of
“any hesitation” gives the judges no leeway in accessing an uncontrolled
break. While I applaud the
intent, I personally have some minor reservations about both these proposals
passing, (more so about the Seasoned, which I’ll explain shortly) although
it’s clear that over two-thirds of our clubs bought into the submitting
club’s reasoning. In all the
tests I've judged, I've not seen many handlers at either level not understand
that they need to command the dog to stop it from going when it was breaking
on a mark, i.e. “leaving before it was signaled to do so”.
Don’t good judges cover this in their test briefings? Regarding the
Seasoned creeping change, I have a concern this might be misinterpreted. I
hope that although we are changing from treating “any” to now treating
“excessive or consistent” creeping as a controlled break, judges don’t
hesitate to tell handlers that any time their dog creeps it should be brought
back to heel. After all, any
creeping (moving forward past the gun barrel) still puts the dog in an unsafe
position.
A new HRC/UKC Rules and Guidelines for Hunting Retriever Tests booklet
will be published later this year to reflect these changes.
In addition to running rules, our HRC “rulebook” also contains UKC
policy information as well as such things as hunt test licensing and
scheduling guidelines and judge and judging requirements.
Some of this has also changed slightly and will be updated with the new
printing. A couple of changes
that will be of interest to clubs and judges are an update from UKC on their
competitive events policy, and a new judging designation. UKC
Competitive Events Policy:
A concern about the proliferation
of certain types of competitive events hosted by HRC clubs surfaced at the
national meeting. Discussions
between the HRC executive committee and UKC centered around two major areas.
The first was UKC’s concern that testing that pitted dog against dog
was occurring in the name of and under the auspices
of HRC clubs on days UKC had licensed those clubs to host a
HRC/UKC hunt test. Of secondary
concern was the amount of time and energy it seemed that some clubs were
devoting to this testing which in some cases was detracting from their primary
duty of conducting the licensed hunt test.
Interesting, this issue had originally been addressed almost 10 years
ago at the 1993 HRC National meeting. The
minutes from that meeting state:
Statement of Policy and Procedure Re:
Competitive Events
“Together, we share a great concern over the proliferation of
“competitive events” by HRC clubs for dogs and people.
The HRC Executive Committee has been advised by Mr. Miller that the HRC
Rule Book is copyrighted and may only be used for a UKC licensed event, hosted
by an HRC and UKC approved club. UKC
and HRC names may not be used in association with any of these events.
UKC will not ever license any such event…”
In an update to this, UKC has announced the following Competitive
Events policy effective immediately:
“Competitive
Hunt Tests, dog and handler against dog and handler, will not be held on the
same day as a Licensed UKC/HRC event. Judges
sheets and any information recorded by a judge for the evaluation of a hunting
retriever during a UKC licensed HRC Hunt test may not be used to evaluate,
place, or score a dog in any non-UKC/HRC sponsored event.
Fund raising or entertainment side events such as, but not limited to,
super singles, bumper toss, pigeon scramble, are allowed so long as they do
not interfere with the licensed UKC/HRC event of that day.”
As a practical matter, this will only affect those few clubs who host
what is commonly referred to as “memorial” hunt tests on the same day as
they hold their UKC licensed tests. When
UKC licenses a hunt test for a particular day, that day ends at midnight.
HRC clubs are more than welcome and applauded for hosting memorial and
fund-raising events, but setting up a “test” where a few select
participants are chosen to compete and judging dog against dog to pick a
winner is not in keeping with the spirit or principles of our organization. I
should not have to explain that to you. I have a couple of personal thoughts
about this I’d like to share. I
believe there are plenty of competitive tests elsewhere for folks who want to
compete dog against dog and I have nothing against that if it’s what you
want to do. You can’t however,
convince me we need to do this at our licensed HRC tests to honor the memory
of some of the folks whose friendship and participation in our program meant
as much to us as HRC did to them. New “AA”
(Apprentice Approved) Judges Program:
There has been an ongoing
discussion in HRC for a number of years regarding how wise it is to license a
judge, then immediately expect them to take an apprentice under their wing.
It’s really not fair to the judge, the apprentice, a club trying to
get the best possible judges for their hunt, nor especially to the handlers
who must run under the combination of a newly licensed judge/apprentice team.
There is little doubt that most judges need a period of time to adjust
to being licensed at a level in order to do a good job teaching an apprentice.
In an effort to address this issue, HRC has developed the new AA Judges
Program. The
designation of “AA” judge has been created to recognize those individuals
to which apprentice judges can be assigned at licensed hunt tests. It is hoped
that this new designation will strengthen our judging program and build better
judges. The AA program does not
apply to the Upland Hunt Test category. I’ll
explain when it becomes effective, who can become an AA judge, and how the
designation process will work. It’s
really quite simple.
Beginning Jan 1st, 2003 an apprentice judge must judge under
a judge who carries the “AA” designation.
The program will have no impact on licensed hunt tests this fall.
All HRC judges who held a valid judging license for a particular
testing level on January 1, 2002 will be automatically designated AA judges
for that level and all lower levels. All
other individuals will be required to judge a minimum of two times as a
licensed judge at a particular level to earn the AA designation at that level
with one exception. In an effort to build a judging base at newly formed
clubs, and not impede the ability of clubs in remote areas to obtain judges,
HRC will give “AA” designation to those judges who are grand fathered as
licensed Started or Seasoned judges at preliminary hunt tests. The AA status
given to grand fathered Seasoned judges will apply to their Started status as
well. Presumably those judges
chosen to grandfather for clubs are the best and brightest and will be working
at the prelim under very experienced judges.
Let me clarify one thing you might be wondering about. Let’s say a
person finishes their dog and wants to become a judge.
That person can work through the judging ranks exactly as they do now.
In other words, a person does not have to earn the AA designation at a
level to move up. They can’t,
however have an apprentice put under them at any level until they have served
as a licensed judge at that level twice.
It’s our
hope (but it is not required) that individuals becoming licensed in a category
choose to stay in that category until they are AA approved before moving
upward. Having more judging
experience at each level will make them better judges when they continue to
the next. HRC (I should say Claudene) is in the process of modifying our existing database of judges to indicate those judges that will receive the AA designation automatically and at what level. Those members who were not licensed at some level in 2001 will be checked against judging records from the 2002 hunt tests and receive credit when they served as a licensed judge. Many will have already earned AA designation. Once our present records are updated, it will be easy to denote when a judge is the licensed judge at a hunt and mark their record accordingly. Clubs seeking judges in the future need only check the judges list to verify an individual is AA approved if the club wishes to place an apprentice with them. Since most clubs will begin recruiting their judges for next spring this fall, a list of AA approved judges should appear sometime in September on the HRC website and hopefully in the magazine as well. HRC
Board of Directors Vote on Poppers: Many of you are aware that there have been ongoing discussions over the past year regarding what types of poppers clubs can and/or should use at their licensed hunts. Two motions were made and passed by the Board about this issue: “ HRC Clubs have the option to decide whether they use factory loaded poppers or safety poppers at their licensed and preliminary tests. Safety poppers are defined as “primer only, shotgun shells”. And…“Factory loaded primer only shotgun shells will be used”. In other words clubs will continue to be able to decide if they want to use conventional factory poppers, or safety (primer only) poppers. If they choose safety poppers, they must be factory loaded. Information on where to obtain these is available on the HRC website. Let’s get to the scenario I wanted to share with you, which by the way, I’m told happened at a recent hunt test (perhaps near you). Scenario:
The
Finished land test consisted of a triple and ended with a blind. Birds came
right to left with the short right bird thrown first.
The second bird was inline with the first throw, but much longer.
The third bird came out to the left.
The dog picked up the go bird fine, and then retrieved the short bird
of the inline. On the last mark,
the long, second bird of the inline, the dog was released, started out towards
the mark and started heading towards the left about 25 yards out. Being clean
thus far, the handler decided to handle and picked up the far bird with two
clean whistles and casts. The dog lined the blind.
The dog was failed at the end of the day.
When the handler asked the judges why, their response was, “This was
a clean marking test and the dog showed no memory on the last bird picked
up”. Question:
Did
the judges make the right call? Answer:
Okay,
some of you are wondering, “How did the dog do on the water?”
What if I told you the dog ran a clean water series, picking up all
three marks with no whistles and two whistled a tough water blind.
And no, it did not break on the honor.
Others of you might be asking, “Exactly what is a clean
marking test?” The judges had told everyone in the handlers meeting (which
the handler in question missed) that they should not handle to the area of the
marked falls. In their thinking,
it appears that the judges believed if they told the handlers not to handle on
any marks, they should fail anyone who did.
Do you think they were right? Of
course not! If the dog performed
as I indicated, there is no way this could be considered a failure.
The judges should not have told the handlers not to handle, nor
indicate to the handlers how they were going to judge the marks.
How could they really know without seeing a fair amount of dogs run
them? A good rule for judges to
follow is, “Speak to the handlers about test mechanics and objectives, but
never tip your hand as to any judgmental decisions you might make during the
course of the day!” They were
also wrong for deciding they had a “clean” marking test.
Think of it this way if you will.
Given an average group of Finished level dogs, if you set up a marking
test where anything causes one or more of them to handle, you can’t claim
it’s a “clean” marking test, can you?
If then, in your effort to construct a “clean” test (probably the
holy grail of judging), you decide you’ll just throw three fairly short
marks in light cover for this same group of dogs, you really don’t have a
Finished level test, do you?
Finally, these judges were not fair in their assessment of the dog’s work in
that they were asking the dog to perform to a much higher standard than what
is expected of a Finished retriever. We
caution in the Judges/Handlers Seminar that when there are “distractions”
(and we specifically mention in-line marks) in the marking test, judges should
not use our marking recommendation that states, “if a retriever is scored
lower for lack of marking or memory on two or more birds, failure may
result”. These judges decided
one markdown (on an in-line no less) was too much.
By the way, one of the judges mentioned to the handler that they really
hated to fail the dog for doing so well, especially on the blinds.
I would suggest that the next time they feel this way about a
retriever’s performance, they might want to think twice about their
judgmental decisions. While even
the best of judges can make mistakes, good judges will learn from their
mistakes. 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 |