 |
|
|
|
|
JUDGES CORNER
October - November,
2003 - by
Tim Gibson
I noted in my last article that in
this issue of the Judge’s Corner I would say a few more things about both
the current Judges Test, and some of the wording in the new rulebook.
The scenarios we’ll be covering all have a common theme – giving
dogs and handlers the best opportunity to succeed in a test. Before
proceeding, a very special thank you is in order to a great HRC couple.
Those of you who have taken the Judges Test online know that HRC
members Bill and Cleo Watson are grading the tests and reporting the results
back to the judges. The test
results also get entered into the judge’s database.
It’s a lot of work for Bill and Cleo, but it is taking a big load
from Claudene. I’ve been asked
to remind those of you who have not taken your test (or think you did but did
not receive an e-mail with your score) to please do so at your earliest
convenience. In addition to their
grading duties, Bill and Cleo have also kept track of how many times each
question is being missed and I want to share some of that information with you
now.
The most missed question (by 31% of respondents) is question No. 12,
which addresses the additional $5 fee, charged at a hunt test for any dog
whose owner is not an HRC member. Only
one question on the test has not been missed by anyone (yet) - No. 18, about
the Started “Re-cast Rule”. A
couple of questions concerning judging issues at the Seasoned level, No. 11
and No. 20, are being missed frequently (by about 15% of respondents).
Two more that seem especially challenging (missed about 13% of the
time) are No. 3, about inspecting all birds before re-birding (one of our
national officers admitted missing this one), and No. 24 about making sure
there is “duct tape” on hand for the hunt.
No. 25 (my personal favorite) has been missed by five judges (I’d
hate to look in their freezers). Congratulations
go to approximately 30 percent of our judges who got a perfect 100% on the
test. To date, only a couple
judges have failed the test (yea - they had to be the two judges you ran under
last weekend). This review might have helped some of you who have yet to take
the test, but then again, it may not have.
You didn’t expect the answers, did you?
Earlier, I mentioned wording changes in the new rulebook. A handful of
folks seemed certain that these changes were a roundabout, even subversive
attempt to re-write the rules, rather than to eliminate redundant wording and
fix grammatical errors. The
fervor over all this seems to have subsided somewhat with the realization that
nothing was really changed that would cause judges to substantially alter the
way they set up tests or evaluate dogs. It
also helps that many of these almost inconsolable people are now focusing
their attention on the new Judges Policy recently mandated by the Executive
Committee (more on that in a future column).
While I don’t think it’s necessary to get into specifics about the
rulebook wording corrections, I would like to address it like this: I’d like
to share part of a short letter I sent to a judge after they missed a question
on the Judges Test. This person
(with an English degree) interpreted punctuation in a rulebook sentence on
page 36, item II, Seasoned Guidelines as indicating a dog needed controlled
breaks, plus poor obedience, plus poor manners (all three) for there to be
grounds for failure. I hope
you find it interesting. I think it might help to show that at times we all
have a tendency to make more of something than what is there.
I wrote in part: Dear
Judge: “The primary purpose behind the concept of judges taking a test every couple of years is to get our judges to pick up the rulebook and read it (you would be surprised how many, especially experienced judges rarely do so). It might surprise you to learn that some of our best judges don’t do real well on the test because they simply don’t read or “test” well. They do understand dogs and judging. For what it’s worth, let me give you my thoughts about the grammar in the Seasoned Guidelines that states, "Controlled breaks, poor obedience and poor manners should be noted and when excessive or repeated, should be cause for failure." No doubt you’ve heard of the word hypercorrection (and I don’t mean getting your finger stuck on the high five button on your e-collar). In grammar, I’m told it means being so concerned with getting the grammar right that you get it wrong. While it might not be the best analogy, one could say quibbling about how this sentence, or others is worded sort of misses the point about how the dogs are to be judged. You have to remember that our organization was founded (and our rulebook written) by a bunch of duck hunters and dog enthusiasts who most likely missed a lot of first period English classes when the ducks were flying well. I was trying to remember my college English, and what I studied about subordinating conjunctions, and descriptive (how we actually speak and write) versus prescriptive writing (how the rules of grammar say we should write) to explain how I interpreted the punctuation of the sentence, but I decided I probably missed as many classes as our founders! I’m sure I could not successfully debate you on the punctuation in the sentence you reference, but I do believe I understand the intent of its wording. This sentence means judges should “note” (write on their judges sheets) controlled breaks, poor obedience and poor manners. When any of these are noted as excessive, (in the judges experienced opinion – given the level of and circumstances of the test) it should be cause for failure. To become the best judge you can, don’t focus only on a given sentence in our rulebook, or it’s punctuation. You can’t set up an effective test without understanding the intent behind the sentence, rule or guideline”.
I’d like to briefly cover one more item before presenting the first
scenario. I recently received a
note via e-mail from an experienced Finished licensed judge who had a question
about judging the diversion at Seasoned.
The judge and his co-judge were wondering why we test for switching
(dropping one bird and picking up another) at Seasoned, but don’t fail for
committing it. He said, “It
seemed to us contradictory”. I
thought it was a valid question and I suspected he knew how I was going to
answer it. I thought it might be
appropriate to share my response with the readers, especially those of you
climbing up through the judging levels. I
responded as follows:
“We've
marked down the dog in Seasoned for switching, and failed the Finished dogs
(for switching on return) as long as I've been in HRC, and I'm not exactly
sure the reasoning behind the rule but I can probably make a good guess.
I would
suspect it's a matter of degree of control we expect from a Seasoned dog.
Switching falls under "Delivery", which falls under the broader
category of "Control". We just expect less control from a
Seasoned dog. I would guess the founders looked at switching much like
control on the blind - more whistle and cast refusals are acceptable than at
Finished. Switching was likely seen as not as great an infraction as
say, breaking, or hard-mouth for example. Remember, we don't throw the
diversion across the Seasoned dog's return path, so in effect we're taking
"baby steps" in our testing by marking down for it at Seasoned, much
like we start to begin testing for control with 40 yard blinds, not blinds at
100 or 150 yards. We're not failing Seasoned dogs for switching, but
they do pay a penalty in that it's a markdown, enough of which can add up to
failure”. Let’s look at our first scenario, in which by the way, just once I’m going to break my rule about revealing judges’ names and test locations! It concerns a Started water test set up in early September at the Yankee Waterfowlers HRC’s first licensed hunt. Scenario:
The Started judges decided that they’d run the dogs out of a boat at the
water test. Enough said! Question:
Can you really do that?
Answer: You
no doubt remember the classic movie, “A Connecticut Yankee in King
Author’s Court”. How
about, “A Southern Illinois Judge Holds Court at Yankee Waterfowlers in
Connecticut”? Yes, the licensed
judge was yours truly. And when
informed that my co-judge and I decided it would be great fun to run the
Started retrievers out of a nifty little “sneak” boat, a high-ranking HRC
official in attendance (who will naturally remain anonymous) actually did say,
“can you really do that?” In
all seriousness, I personally believe we don’t give our Started dogs the
challenges they need, nor the credit they deserve at many of our hunt tests.
The Started Rules and Guidelines, Purpose and Philosophy on page 29
states, “A Started Hunting Retriever should be able to do a simple dove
or waterfowl hunt…” On page 30, under Hunting Equipment, it says, “Hunting
equipment such as boats, decoys, duck blinds, calls, etc. will be used in
these tests”. As
judges, especially at the lower levels, we have a responsibility to construct
fair tests, and be careful our setups do not hinder the dogs’ performance or
cause training problems for young dogs. My
apprentice judge showed me a beautiful little cove that I agreed would make an
ideal Started water test site. He
indicated that despite several retriever clubs using the property, none had
ever run from that location due to the difficulty in accessing it because of
the muddy conditions. I asked if
the sneak boat I’d seen was available for our use and he said it was.
Here is what we did to make the dogs successful.
The boat was not floating, but set on firm, albeit very wet ground and
anchored with stout, well-camouflaged posts to make it essentially a very
secure and stable “platform”. It
had very low sides. Carpet was put in the boat bottom for firm footing.
Handlers could get in the boat, and kneel or sit on a stool or the boat
gunwale. By the way, another boat
was set on dry ground in the Started parking area and handlers were encouraged
to let their dogs practice getting in and out of it (and retrieve from it if
they wanted). The dogs were sent
from the boat, but of course only had to deliver in close proximity to it.
The marks were very visible, one thrown essentially off each end of the
boat to give good separation. The
dogs ran from the boat, breaking through light cover for the ducks that landed
in fairly open water. To our delight, but not surprise, not one handler said a
word about having to run their Started dogs from a boat and better still –
not one single dog had a bit of trouble doing it!
By the way, I can’t close this scenario without saying something about Yankee Waterfowlers HRC. They’re a great bunch of folks, despite many having difficulties pronouncing the word “dawg” properly. Enthusiastic, well organized, and with great dogs, they have wholeheartedly embraced HRC and our Purpose and Philosophy. They will provide a solid anchor and strong support to other clubs joining us from the New England area. Is there such a thing as judges going overboard to make a dog successful? Take a look at this Seasoned land scenario I was sent a while back and you tell me. Scenario:
The dog seemed to see both birds of the Seasoned land double, but had a
controlled break on the second mark. It
was handled (with several whistle and cast refusals) to the area of the fall
on this bird, getting out of sight several times in the process.
It had some difficulties on the memory bird and while the handler
attempted to handle to the AOF on this bird, the dog got a bird from the bird
boy. On the way in with the wrong
bird, the judges told the handler to come back three dogs later as they
decided they’d better just re-run the dog. Question: Admit it. Until the last sentence in the scenario, you were wondering what the question could be. The dog was clearly having a failing performance. After being offered a re-run, the question is why? Answer: It
seemed when someone asked the handler the same question, the handler said
something about the judges indicating the first bird didn’t quite get high
enough, and then of course the bird boy allowed the dog to have a bird.
The person who sent this to me and witnessed the scenario indicated
both judges and the handler seemed to be close friends and wondered if a
little “home cooking” was going on. I
said I’d never heard of that at an HRC hunt, have you? Nevertheless, I was
asked to mention “ethics”, so I will.
Shame on the judges if they treated this handler and dog different from
any other. How bad can a handler need a pass to accept a re-run if it’s not
deserved? That being said,
let’s look at the dog’s performance objectively. If
the first bird was not high enough, the judges probably should have declared a
no-bird and stopped the test. Let
me correct myself, one of the judges (the one watching the throws) should have
declared a no-bird. I’ve written a lot in this column about a mark needing
to be visible, hit in what I call the “target area”, and not land where it
will cause problems on a retrieve. Anything
short of this and a no-bird should be called.
To do otherwise will not be giving the dog the same test as all the
others and force the judges to say, “We’ll judge it accordingly”.
Always take the “we’ll judge it accordingly” occurrences out of
your test at every opportunity. Of
course a decision to call a no-bird needs to be done in a split second, which
is why if I’m working with an apprentice I won’t usually put that burden
on them. Continuing our analysis
of the dog’s performance, let’s look at what happened when it got a bird
from the bird boy. I indicated
the dog had not reached the AOF on that bird.
If it did not wind the bird boy birds while taking a line toward the
fall, what was it doing there? This
performance would be another markdown for lack of memory to go along with the
markdown for the controlled break and markdown for lack of marking on the
go-bird. There’s a difference
between setting up a scenario where a dog is presented every opportunity to
succeed and one in which a judge makes excuses for the dog every step of the
way. Would
you stay with me for one more scenario? Three
scenarios an issue is all I ask – and I promise to give them to you fair and
balanced (hey - that might make somebody a good slogan).
I’m not sure this next scenario actually happened.
It might have just been a case of several Finished handlers
experiencing the phenomenon of mass hallucination.
I wanted to include it as an example of a tough test (nothing
especially wrong with that in and of itself) where whether they meant to or
not, the judges set up a marking test where the dogs were simply not given
every opportunity to pick up the birds cleanly. Scenario: The
judges at the Finished land series put the honor dog on the right and the
working dog on the left. They
required the first two marks to be shot at by the honor dog handler.
The first came from center right, almost at the maximum allowable
distance, and the second from the far right and not much closer, pinching in
tightly toward the first mark. The working dog handler was allowed to only
shoot at the third mark that landed in front and much closer to the line, but
of course the working dog was asked to pick all three up.
A lot of dogs were having difficulties with this marking test.
Question: What could or should the judges have done to help the dogs succeed at what the judges had to know would be a tough set of marks? Answer: I’m going to be uncharacteristically brief with this answer because I’m really at a loss for words as to the reasoning behind this test scenario. I don’t want to get into a long debate about whether a test like this is appropriate at the Finished level, or whether it’s more of a field trial type test than a hunting test. While these might be legitimate considerations, my purpose in discussing the scenario is to point out certain obligations I feel judges have to a dog and handler when presenting any set of challenging marks. To begin, what would have been wrong with switching the honor and working dog positions, and letting the working dog handler shoot at all the birds? Every time we speak of evaluating marking in HRC we talk about the dog marking off the gun. It’s simply unconscionable for judges to not allow the dogs that opportunity on a set of marks of this difficulty. At Started we require an attention-getting device to help the dogs focus on the bird. Did these judges forget we allow it at Finished as well when appropriate?
In fairness to the judges, I don’t know if they ran a set up dog, or
if they realized how much of a bear of a marking test they had.
It’s clear they missed something, and did not do much to give the
dogs a fair chance to do good work. Let’s
hope they learned from the experience and decide to give the next group of
dogs they judge a better shot at the marks (no pun intended). I’d like to close with something that happened recently involving one of our most experienced and respected field reps. I’m not going to name him, but suffice it to say he loves everybody, some of you a lot more than others. He was approached at a hunt test by two judges with a serious question. One of them had seen something a dog did that the other did not see. What the dog did could have caused failure, but the judge thought there might have been outside interference or the dog was confused. The judge felt that if he passed the dog, the gallery might have something to say about it and wondered what he should do. The field rep counseled the judge by saying this, "Are you going to loose more sleep tonight worrying about what the gallery thinks or by feeling you did the dog an injustice”? I guess that’s an example of “carte blanche” (whatever that is) that I hear has been going through the rep ranks lately. 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 |