 |
|
|
|
|
JUDGES CORNER
April - May, 2004 - If I’m not mistaken, in
this issue’s Presidents Message, Rod Smith mentions a recent trip to the
East Coast to promote HRC to the Maryland-Virginia Retriever group, a
collection of several experienced clubs affiliated with another retriever
testing program. Region 3 Field
Rep David Cooper had been in communication with these folks for some time.
His hard work was beginning to bear fruit as at least one of these
clubs had just become an official HRC club, another’s HRC club application
was being processed, and the remaining were all anxious to take a closer look
at us. I had the pleasure of
accompanying Rod, and along with David, we showed them the nuts and bolts of
our testing program by presenting our Judges/Handlers Seminar to them.
I thought it may be of interest to give you a couple of observations I
made and thoughts I had over the course of the weekend regarding our HRC
testing versus the testing these clubs were used to. This was not the first time I’d traveled to help
introduce HRC in an area. The
weekend with the Maryland-Virginia Retriever group once again confirmed
something I’d known for a long time. Retriever
people and their dogs are essentially alike everywhere.
In fact, Rod mentioned this same thing to me as we were parting,
adding, “We all just test dogs a little differently”.
During the course of the seminar I learned that many of the people in
attendance were experienced trainers and handlers, and several were qualified
judges. They just did not use the
gun at the line during testing - something our program has been built on.
Many said they were avid hunters.
As expected, David and I fielded a number of questions about handlers
shooting the gun and gun safety procedures during an HRC hunt test.
Several people asked some very astute questions about specifics in the
rulebook on a number of topics but not once did I hear, “We don’t agree
with that”, or “We don’t want to do it like that”.
I wish I could say the same about some of the comments I’ve gotten
about these areas of testing from our own judges in seminars I’ve done. I’m reporting all this to you to make the following
point: While we might do it a
little differently, we evaluate dogs on the same traits in every organization.
The tenants of good testing don’t change from program to program.
Good judges make fair, and common sense decisions while judging and do
their best to follow the rules and guidelines in whatever rulebook they have
in their hand. Where the book is
not clear, they look to follow it’s intent as best as possible.
One other quick point: These
folks were surprised at how “thin” our rulebook really is, in the sense of
it’s lack of specifics and the broad discretion we give our judges in
testing. Who was it that said,
“With great power comes great responsibility”? In this issue, I’ve got two scenarios about
“diversions”. From the number
of questions we received about diversions in the seminar I referenced above,
it must be a topic where there are some differences in testing between ours
and the various other programs. I
hope further discussion might help clarify this subject and help our new
friends as well as our present HRC judges better understand the role of
diversions in HRC testing. Scenario: The two Finished judges had a good land test set up
with solid marks and a nice blind. They
decided it would be best to throw the required diversion bird on this test
because the water site was all swimming water and the flight was full. Judge A
wanted to throw the diversion when the dog was coming back from the blind.
Judge B argued that it had to be while the dog was returning from a
marked retrieve. Question: Who was right? Answer: Judge Alpha was making the case that the Finished test rules on page 39, item VII, which reads; “During the test, a diversionary bird will be thrown as the hunting retriever returns to the retrieving line”, gave them the okay to throw the bird anywhere during the test as long as the dog was coming back from a retrieve. What he was doing was picking out a part of the rulebook that backed up what he wanted to do and was ignoring the rest. There happens to be two other distinct references to diversion birds in the Finished Hunt Tests portion of the rulebook. The Guidelines, item V. on page 40 reads; “The diversionary bird can be thrown as the dog returns from any marked retrieve”. The reference to “marked retrieve” in that wording is pretty strong evidence that the founders wanted the Finished diversion to be associated with the marks. Of course Judge Alpha quickly pointed out that the wording said, “can”, not “must”. That brings us to a piece of the rulebook that Judge Alpha cannot ignore – the Test Description, which clearly states; “…(either or both the multiple marked water retrieve or the multiple marked land retrieve must include an honor, and a diversion retrieve), …”. The Field Reps have discussed this issue at length and support the Test Description. We say in the Judges seminar that the Test Description tells us when a diversion is to be thrown (as part of the marking test) while the Test Rules tell us how (on the return). I suspect the reason most Finished judges who insist it should be okay to throw the diversion on the return from the blind do so for two reasons, neither of which have much to do with rulebook wording. First, the Seasoned judges can do it, and secondly, because many of them have done it before and nobody has said anything to them about it. I have an interesting question for you. Why do you suppose it’s okay for Seasoned judges to throw a diversion (on the return) during any portion of their test? I believe I know but I’ll save my answer for another article. By the way, I was asked at the seminar if a Finished diversion could be used as a “poison” bird for say, the blind retrieve. It was a good question and I answered, “I suppose it could”. I have a question for any good dog trainers who might read this article; “Do you think a diversion is a good poison bird, considering the dog has been by it once, and most already have a general understanding that they are not to pick it up?” Let’s look at the second diversion scenario, which I promise will be very interesting. Scenario: At the end of the day, the Finished judges
were in the truck trying to make a decision on three dogs.
The land test mechanics involved a diversion coming on the return of
the last marked retrieve. When
dog 1 saw the diversion, it dropped the mark and ran over to it.
The handler saw what was happing and blew a quick whistle.
The dog stopped and was cast back to the mark.
It picked up the mark and completed the retrieve.
Dog 2 also dropped the mark and went for the diversion.
It picked up the diversion just as the handler yelled “no” and blew
his whistle. The handler yelled,
“Leave it”. The dog dropped
the diversion, went back over to the mark, picked it up and came in.
Dog three ignored the diversion, but as it returned with it’s final
mark, it came in around behind the handler, and for some reason decided to
spit out the bird it had in it’s mouth, grab one it had already retrieved,
and came to heel with the “wrong” bird.
The handler took the bird, told the dog to pick up the mark it had
dropped, and then accepted the delivery.
Question: You be the judge. Which dog (s) should pass, and/or which dog (s) should fail. Why? Answer: I told you this would be a very interesting scenario. Here’s why. I’m not going to give you my answer at this time! What I’d like to invite each of you to do, whether you’re a judge or not, is answer the questions and send those answers to me via e-mail at: timg@midwest.net. Have you noted all the television and radio shows polling their viewers and listeners with a “Question of the Day”? I thought; why not have a Judges Corner poll? To paraphrase Arsenio, “Hit me with those letters”. I’ll poll the field reps as well, and report all the results in the next issue. It should be loads of fun. By the way, feel free to use the rulebook or seminar manual, or ask your friends when you’re making your decisions. Answer the first question with a simple P or F for each dog and if you wish, add an explanation of why you think you’re correct. Those of you who read this column in the last issue will remember that I said I wanted to devote a portion of the next Judges Corner to a further discussion on building a hunt test to the proper standard. I hope judges will find this helpful (or at least give them some food for thought) when setting up their next test. To begin, let’s look at what we mean by the term standard. This is how the dictionary defines it: Standard: A degree or level of requirement, excellence, or attainment. Our rulebook first mentions standards under, surprise, Test Standards, on page 7. We learn that clubs are to conduct tests “consistent with an actual day’s hunt”, and “retrievers in all categories will not compete against each other for placements, but instead will run and be judged against a set test standard”. So exactly what comprises the hunt test standard and where is it defined? I know most of you have heard the following, or similar sage words; “For every testing level, there is one standard and it should not vary from region to region or weekend to weekend”. Hearing that, most of us are thinking “standard” in terms of the dog’s performance, i.e., what a dog must do to pass the test. An example would be at the Seasoned level, where the dog must deliver to hand. In addition to performance, some of you will think of the word “evaluation”; i.e., both what the judge looks for and how the judge looks at the performance. Examples of what judges should look for abound in the Purpose and Philosophy paragraph at each testing level such as Seasoned where the rulebook says; “Judges will look for style and natural ability and evidence that the Seasoned Hunting Retriever exhibits a reasonable degree of control”. It’s also not hard for us to understand that a large part of what makes up our test standard comes from the required testing elements at each level, most of which can be found within the test description. When we say, “It wasn’t a very good test”, don’t we usually mean it was one of the following: A test 1) that was either easier or more difficult than what we thought it should be, 2) where we weren’t sure what the judges wanted (from either handler or retriever), 3) where too much emphasis was put on one part of the dog’s performance (such as the blind) or 4) where there were problems with the test site. Some of these difficulties can be mitigated by a proper understanding of the final two elements that help comprise the test standard. Test mechanics and grounds. Let’s first look at the role of mechanics in the standard. Test Mechanics Under “Tests” on page 25 of our rulebook we learn that; “The test must be designed, laid out, and executed in such a manner as to enable the Judge to evaluate certain hunting qualities”. Specific goals and purposes must, therefore, be incorporated into each test and the test must be planned to demonstrate those qualities”. The hunting qualities mentioned on page 25 are embodied in the five desirable traits listed beginning on page 26. We test Started dogs for the most part on their desire and marking. Beyond Started, probably 90% of each test a judge sets up (how, when, and where they throw the birds or plant blinds) is designed to test control and marking (including memory). Poor mechanics in a test make it difficult for judges to test to the proper standard. An example would be scent from marks causing interference with the Seasoned blind. Another might be a Finished test where the handlers are told to leave two of three marks and pick up a blind. Does this test allow them to properly test marking? In my opinion, no. To be fair, there may be a reason we’re seeing judges set up tests with complex mechanics and it has to do with the following: Test Grounds We go to great lengths in our seminars to teach judges how to pick a good test site (proper terrain and cover for the level being tested) and how to figure out where to put the retrieving line (where would I hunt in this field, etc.). In reality, a club usually has already picked the site for the judges. There’s nothing at all wrong with that if the grounds are adequate. The problem lies with trying to run Started and Seasoned dogs in cover and terrain puppies can run on (short and flat). We ask judges to use ponds with no vegetation in the water. I could go on. Judges end up using maximum distances and mixing up the shooting and/or retrieving sequences in an attempt to get something they feel tests the dog. Without belaboring the point let me ask club members to consider this simple rule of thumb, “If a field or pond is either inadequate or marginal for training your retriever, don’t ask judges to use it for testing.” I’ll save a discussion of what standard a retriever’s performance should meet in areas such as control, and marking, for another article. Don’t forget your homework. I look forward to hearing from you. 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 |