 |
|
|
|
|
JUDGES CORNER
April -
May, 2003 -
By the time you receive this magazine, the new “Rules and Guidelines
for Hunting Retriever Tests” (HRC rulebook) will be published and in the
hands of our judges. The three
running rule changes voted on at the 2002 HRC Board of Directors meeting that
were to become effective Jan. 1, 2003 (which I covered in this column in the
August-September 2002 HR magazine) have of course been included in the new
rulebook, along with some extensive editing which added to the delay in
publication. In conjunction with
UKC, several dedicated HRC members, including the running rules committee,
field reps, executive committee, and our administrative secretary have been
working diligently to give the booklet a substantial facelift, which had not
been done in a number of years. This
project was started months ago with the goal being to review and revise the
current book to eliminate redundant and repetitive language, correct spelling
and grammatical errors, and update information about HRC/UKC policies and
procedures such the AA judges requirements.
Judges will discover the revised rulebook is more organized, and
structured to make it easier to find the information they need.
As this new rulebook will be effective until Jan. 1, 2005 the editing
effort should prove to be time well spent.
We should thank everyone involved for a job well done and for helping
HRC continue to have a rulebook our organization can be proud of.
On a similar note, HRC is in the process of making some improvements in
the accessibility of key forms found on the HRC website such as the Purina
Support Order Form, Judge Approval Form, Club Hunt Report, etc.
Currently available only in HTML format, these forms and others will
soon be available in the popular Adobe PDF file format, the benefit of which
is the form will print exactly as it looks on your screen and no information
will be lost or omitted. Also, we
soon hope to be able to allow a number of these forms to be filled out online,
including the new Judges Test. I’d also like to report that a substantial
effort is underway to develop a comprehensive “guide” to judging the
Upland Hunt Test that will help judges with both test setup and evaluation of
the retrievers’ performance. I’m
very excited about this, as I believe it will bring more consistency to Upland
tests and help clubs and judges alleviate apprehensions they might have about
holding an Upland event. I’ll
report more about this in the next issue.
Speaking about the Upland, I received an e-mail note recently asking
about the “orange” requirements in our Upland Hunt Tests, specifically; if
blaze orange hats and/or vests were “absolutely necessary”.
We know that for safety’s sake, it would certainly be prudent to wear
orange, but what if the club didn’t get their orange hats or vests from
Purina and no one brought any to the hunt test? What do you think?
I posed the following hypothetical question to our local conservation
police officer: “You see a
field full of judges, handlers, and gunners conducting an Upland Hunt Test and
some are not wearing blaze orange. Would
this be a problem?” He replied
that in Illinois, while “in the field attempting to take upland game”,
blaze orange hats are a minimum requirement (more orange is required for
anyone a-field during our firearms deer hunting season).
He noted that his regulation book (the one that costs you lots of money
when you don’t follow it) does not say orange hats are required only during
“hunting” season. So yes, he
indicated there would be a problem with folks being in the field, flushing and
shooting upland game without meeting the blaze orange requirements.
I’ll just bet the wording in your state regulations is similar.
Before we get into our familiar scenario format, there is something
I’ve been asked to mention. I’ve
received an unusual amount of e-mail in recent weeks (from more than one HRC
region) asking when I’m going to address a particular issue, and what am I
going to have to say about it. The
issue is how to handle what most of the folks contacting me are calling a
“problem” judge. I’m not
talking about a tough judge who sets a high standard of performance in their
tests. I’m not talking about a
judge who on occasion may show up late or leave the hunt early.
I’m not referring to a judge who won’t be swayed from their
interpretation of the rules or their evaluation of a dog’s performance.
I am talking about a judge with a generally poor attitude, one that is
uncooperative, argumentative, and disrespectful.
Yes, I hate to admit it, but someone ran into one of these judges at an
HRC hunt test! All kidding aside,
in the past few weeks I’ve received e-mail about judges who have made bird
boys cry, denigrated women handlers, and threatened to throw people off the
hunt grounds. I’ve heard of
some who have lost their temper and started yelling and shouting at handlers,
bird throwers, fellow judges, and committee members
(take your pick). Fortunately,
I can tell you that for the large number of judges we have in HRC, the true
problem individuals are few in number (although it does seem like they get
around a lot). To those judges, I
say this – if judging is that much of a strain or difficulty for you, please
find somewhere else to volunteer your time.
While
I’m not implying these judges are not knowledgeable about our rules,
guidelines and testing procedures, I feel strongly that many of them need to
do some serious work on their people skills.
I read an article recently about a large computer company that was
continually getting unfavorable ratings for their technical support department
despite making an effort to find and hire the smartest technicians available.
Their ratings didn’t improve until they decided to focus on new hires
with good people skills that they then trained on the technology.
When the judge has an attitude, everyone’s day gets a lot longer.
Handlers, especially new ones will perform better when they’re made
to feel comfortable. No one at the hunt site should have to suffer a moody
judge with a negative demeanor. As
one handler remarked, “If I wanted to be treated like that, I’d have just
stayed home today”! Whether
looking for judges for your hunt, or recommending a club member to become an
HRC judge, clubs might want to consider whether someone has the disposition to
remain cool and collected when situations become tense, someone who won’t
rise to take the bait when they are pushed, questioned, or challenged, and
someone who understands they should treat folks the way they’d like to be
treated. In other words, someone
who according to our HRC Rulebook Judges Code of Ethics; “Sets an example
for which future Judges and participants will seek to aspire”.
Enough sermonizing, let’s look at our first scenario. Scenario: The
new Seasoned handler at the land series had no problem with the walkup portion
of the test. He did have some
difficulties controlling the dog on the blind, with the dog eventually
“stumbling” on the bird in what was clearly a failing performance.
When the handler moved to the bucket to run the marks, the judged
indicated his test was over because he had failed the blind.
The handler responded that he knew he had failed the blind, but it was
his understanding he could run the other portion of the test.
The judges said no, he could not and asked him to leave the line. Question:
Were the judges correct? Answer:
In this case, the judges were
wrong, and I’ll explain why. It’s
pretty clear to everyone that a dog who has “failed” in the morning series
can come back and run in the afternoon (unless of course it was disqualified).
One of our founding principles, as spelled out in the Preamble of our rulebook
is: “Except for the Grand, a hunting retriever will be able to compete in
all tests at each level of competition without being eliminated”. There
has, however, always been some confusion about when a dog should or should not
be allowed to continue the test after failing part of it, and when or if the
judge must allow the dog to continue if the handler so requests.
Who decides, and what considerations should be factored into the
decision? Should this decision
depend on the testing level or the circumstances? I’ll try to answer these
questions.
The Guidelines for Conducting Events states, “The reason for
limiting the number of entries is to give each dog an opportunity to run all
tests even if they failed a portion of a test”.
The rulebook is more specific at each testing level.
The Started test Description states:
“The Started Hunting Retriever can participate in all four tests
regardless of whether or not it passes each test.” That being said,
Started judges should encourage and allow Started dogs to run all birds.
The test Descriptions at Seasoned, and Finished both say, “Failure
of the hunting retriever to pass any of the hunting tests will not prevent the
hunting retriever from participating in a subsequent test…”.
It’s pretty clear then, that the Seasoned judges should have allowed
the dog to continue after failing the blind. What if the dog is picked up? Can it (or should it be allowed to) run another part of the test? The rulebook Guidelines for Conducting Events says, “Judges should ask a Handler to pick up their dog if that dog has, in the Judge’s mind, already failed and is creating bad habits or endangering itself”. Most bad habits are created when a handler looses control of their dog during the test (because there is no opportunity for a correction). When the dog’s performance has deteriorated to that point, I recommend judges first strongly “suggest” to the handler the dog be picked up, then require it if necessary. Most handlers who pick their dogs up on a test won’t ask to run any other parts of it. It they do, the judges have a decision to make: to balance “giving each dog an opportunity to run all tests even if they failed a portion of a test” against their obligation not to let “bad habits” continue. I suggest judges might use the following parameter to help decide to allow a dog to continue a test: If requested, always lean toward allowing a dog to keep running unless you feel that by continuing, the control problems you observed will almost certainly reoccur (i.e., a bad habit will continue to build). Here are some examples: 1) A Seasoned dog breaks on the walkup, which is a clear failure. Immediately following the break, do the judges yell, “pick up the dog”? No, the damage is done, and not letting the dog get the bird is the handler’s decision. The handler may not want the dog to continue, which is fine. Absent the handler pulling the dog, do the judges allow the dog to run the remainder of the test? Yes. Just because it broke on a walkup does not mean it won’t be steady sitting at the bucket for the marks or perform well on a blind. 2) A Seasoned dog runs amok on the blind and the judges reach the point where they ask the handler to pick up the dog (remember the criteria above – it is being picked up because it has clearly failed and is creating bad habits). Should it be allowed to run the marking test if requested? Yes. The dog may do a great job on the marks and the lack of control on the blind will not necessarily be repeated (especially if the dog is not handled). 3) A handler looses control of their Seasoned dog when handling to pick up the second mark of the double and the judges ask the handler to pick up the dog. The handler wants to “try” the blind. The judges should probably first make an effort to guide the handler toward voluntarily taking the dog off the line. Then if necessary, advise the handler that their test is over because the control problems will more than likely continue on the blind. 4) The dog broke on the first flush at the Upland Hunt Test. Should it be allowed to continue? No. The dog has clearly failed, and to give it a second flush to potentially break on again would be perpetuating a really bad habit. Life would be much easier for judges if every handler who failed a portion of an advanced test would simply pick up their dog and head to the truck. When they don’t make the right decision, judges must make it for them. I hope this discussion will help you do that. Next, we’ll look at something one of your hard working field reps specifically asked me to cover. Scenario: The Seasoned dog did not clearly see the second mark of the double. It retrieves the first thrown bird. The handler sends the dog on its name for the second bird and it does not go. It leaves when its name is repeated, and of course heads toward the old fall. The handler turns to the judges and asks if he can recall and recast the dog. The licensed judge says he cannot because, “having to say the dogs name twice to get it to leave was the recast”. Question:
Was the licensed judge correct? Answer:
No.
The rep that send this to me explained, “As a field rep, I know I
spend so much time on the recast issue in the seminar that I cannot believe
that we still have judges who do not understand that a dog must leave the line
and come back and be sent again before it is considered a recast. What
is concerning is that this licensed judge had an apprentice with him who now
thinks that is a recast too”. I’ve
covered this subject before in this column.
Since it seems like a rather simple concept, yet it appears some judges
still don’t get it, I’m wondering, is it more of a situation where those
judges disagree with our definition of a recast versus not understanding it?
They must believe the dog has been “cast” although it has not
really gone anywhere. With that
in mind, let’s look at this from another angle.
At Started and Seasoned, the rulebook says the retriever can be cast from
the retrieving line a maximum of two
times, and at Finished, it can be cast once from the
retrieving line. To me, this
implies the dog is not “cast” until it leaves the line.
The rulebook talks about the retriever being failed if it is unproductive
after two attempts at Started and Seasoned and a single attempt in Finished. I
would offer that if a definition of productive means getting the bird, how
would a retriever have a shot at being unproductive if it does not leave the
line? Finally, there is the
Finished Guideline that states, “After a dog leaves the line on a retrieve,
he cannot return and be re-cast”. The
rulebook can hardly spell it out in clearer terms.
We cannot say the dog has been “cast” until it moves off the line. I
was speaking with a handler a few days ago, who told me about running into a
licensed judge who seemed especially proud of the tests he had been
constructing lately and his efforts at evaluating the retrievers.
This judge indicated that he knew he was doing a good job since,
“I’ve not made the Judges Corner in quite a while”!
Some of our judges do not set such a lofty goal, as evidenced by some
of the following occurrences, which were reported to have transpired at hunt
tests recently. I won’t devote
the full scenario/question/answer format to them at this time, but I of course
reserve the right to do so at a later date. For now, I’ll briefly describe
these incidents (and give you some time for the shock to wear off). I’ve got
them temporarily filed respectively, in my “Let’s Not Get This Started”,
“I Can’t Believe They Really Said That”, and “From Way Out in Left
Field” folders. 1)
At a recent Finished test, it was reported that the judges asked the
assembled handlers to line up and
run the blind first. Those that
were successful could come back and try the rest of the test! 2)
The Upland Hunt Test judges at a licensed event determined that
conditions existed where they would need to use box bird launchers.
They explained how this could still closely simulate a natural flush by
telling the assembled handlers, “We want your dogs noses to touch the
launcher” then we’ll set it off! 3)
A Finished judge recently took the marking test to a new standard by
informing the assembled handlers that he did not want to see handlers
repositioning, lining or using their hands to influence the dog when sending
the retriever on marks! I
want to thank the readers for your support of this column.
Thanks also to those who send me your scenarios and comments.
I hope in some small way we are making a difference in the quality of
judging in our program. To you
handlers, remember this; At the end of the day, pass or fail, let’s hope we
can say we had as much fun as our dogs did.
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 |