 |
|
|
|
|
JUDGES CORNER
June - July, 2004 - by
Tim Gibson I’d like to start by thanking everyone who e-mailed me your responses on the survey question I posed in the last issue about the diversion scenario involving the three Finished dogs and who should pass or fail. As you might have guessed, the answers I got ran the gamut from “pass all three dogs” to “all three should fail”, and every combination thereof. Several respondents whose answers did not agree with one another were judges I personally know to be competent, knowledgeable, and highly experienced. Is it any wonder handlers get confused when they pass one weekend, and then fail the next under different judges for essentially the same performance? I don’t believe in judging by polls any more than I believe politicians should govern by them, but I promised to report the results of my survey and hopefully we’ll learn something from it. We’ll go through the scenario and I’ll give you my opinion on how each dog should have been judged. I asked another question in the last magazine. Why do you suppose it’s okay for Seasoned judges to throw a diversion (on the return) during any portion of their test? I’ll try to answer that question, as well as one I got a while back from a Seasoned judge who asked, “Why do we test for switching at Seasoned, yet don’t fail dogs for committing it”? Finally, we’ll take a look at a scenario where a Started judge seemed to have some attitude problems (and you thought judges just got the big head syndrome when they got to Finished)! Let’s get started. Here is the diversion scenario I
presented for your consideration in the last issue: 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 3 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. I asked, “Which dog (s) should pass, and/or which dog (s) should fail, and why”? While you might think this scenario is about diversions, it’s really about the broader subject of control, and more specifically, delivery. Retrievers are valuable hunting partners because they find and deliver birds to us that we might otherwise loose. Most would agree there’s a basic premise in our testing and evaluation program that says in effect every bird is a potential cripple that might be lost if a dog either fails to find it, or pick it up and hold on to it until the delivery is completed. This was easier to understand and accept for those of us who remember when the majority of birds used in HRC tests were shackled. With the use of all dead game today (except for the Upland Test and shot flyers), it’s an easy premise to forget. We say we use diversion birds to test for “switching”, which the rulebook defines as dropping one bird and picking up another. Their real purpose is to test how well a dog will deliver the bird it has in its mouth when the diversion is thrown. Dropping the original bird and going for the diversion may result in the loss of the “cripple”. If this were not true, there would be no point in requiring that the diversion be thrown as the dog returns. To answer the question of which dog should pass or which should fail, we need to understand what the rulebook says about delivery and diversions, what is the intent behind the rules where the wording is not specific, and what standards of performance should be expected at the Finished level. According to our rulebook,
delivery is a trained attribute, part of control, which is considered with
increased importance at each testing level.
The rulebook is very specific about delivery, stating on page 27, “A
retriever should promptly return to the Handler (Handler area in Started) with
the bird and deliver it in such a manner as not to risk losing it if it were a
cripple”. It goes on to say
that a retriever can be failed for failure to deliver to hand (to the area of
the Handler in Started), excessive dropping and mouthing of the bird.
It should be marked down for repeated dropping or mouthing of the bird,
or failure to return promptly to the line with the bird.
Our rulebook also says consistent failure to deliver, or consistent
reluctance to deliver can result in failure.
Except at the Started level, we can say delivery is not complete until
the bird is delivered into the handler’s hand.
In our scenario, all three dogs dropped the bird they had in their
mouth at some point before completing delivery.
A close look at each dogs performance, will tell us a lot about judging
diversions, delivery, and control. Dog one dropped the bird it was
bringing in, ran over to the diversion, but did not pick it up.
My judging poll showed 20 % of respondents failed the dog.
The reason given was by dropping the mark and going toward the
diversion, the mark could be lost if it were a cripple (see the wording on
rulebook page 27 I quoted above). I
can’t agree with failing the dog, for a couple of reasons.
First, the dog stopped short of actually switching.
Granted, it moved toward the diversion, but the handler would likely
argue it could have re-caught the cripple.
Secondly, there is no other evidence of delivery problems.
I could not agree with failing a dog whose only delivery issue was that
it dropped a bird when the diversion was thrown and I don’t think the
rulebook supports it either. Would we then fail any dog that dropped any bird
in the test, and how far would we let them get from the dropped bird before we
determined it could escape? All
other respondents said this dog should be marked down and I agree. Dog two is another matter.
Only 10% of those answering the poll said the dog should pass.
The reason given for a pass was it dropped the diversion when commanded
and completed delivery of the original mark.
I, along with 90% of you say sorry – nice try, but too late.
The Finished rules on page 39 are clear;
“If the hunting retriever switches to the diversionary bird on the
return, it shall fail the test”. When
it picked up the diversion, it switched. One respondent pointed out to me that
this dog actually switched twice. Once
when it picked up the diversion, then again when it dropped the diversion and
picked the mark back up. This is probably a good time to mention the dog that
brings both birds back together. We
have always said in our seminars that a dog that picks up the diversion
without dropping the original bird is still okay.
It did not commit a “switch” in the technical sense, unless it
dropped the first bird in its effort to collect both. Dog three elicited the most interesting responses. About 30% said fail the dog, 50% said pass it, and the rest were undecided (lack of information) or unsure how to judge it. Proponents of passing the dog said the bird on the ground at the retrieving line was “no longer part of the test”, or “what difference would picking a bird off the ground at the line make in hunting”. Others said it was not a switch because the dog did not go for the diversion. Most indicated they would give the dog a major markdown for a variety of reasons, including switching, improper delivery, etc., but would stop short of failing the dog and would want to see if it had other problems that would fail it. So okay, what would I do? First of all, I would have made sure I had a good test set up, the handlers understood the test objectives, and had been given proper instructions. In other words, no birds left around the retrieving line for any dog, other than the ones it’s handler put there as the dog was making the retrieves. Also, although they should know it by the time they are running Finished, I remind handlers that I’m looking for proper delivery of each bird. That being said and done, I’d have failed dog three for “lack of control/delivery/switching”. Dog three did two things that I
believe in combination warrants a failure.
First, regardless of whether you consider birds on the ground at the
line part of the test or not, the bird it dropped was in play.
It did not deliver this bird properly (to hand) and if it were a
cripple it could have been lost. Secondly,
it “switched”, which in my opinion can occur at any point in the test
where a dog intentionally drops a bird because it wants to pick up a different
bird, and it does just that. Remember, in our scenario, dog three “spit out
the mark” to pick up a bird on the line. While the rulebook specifically
mentions switching on the diversion as a failure, I think it’s a stretch to
in effect say it’s okay to switch on any other birds in the test.
I also feel the Finished handler must take the responsibility to pay
attention to their dog until the retrieve is completed. Before you think I’ve lost my
sense of compassion or fairness, let me say a few other things about judging
delivery. I am not talking
about dinging dogs with soft mouths who inadvertently drop a bird as they
stumble, come up a bank, onto a platform, or into a blind or boat.
These dogs will almost always pick up the birds and continue.
I’m also not talking about marking dogs down who drop the bird as the
handler reaches to take it out of their mouth.
Good judges recognize these things and judge them properly.
Conversely, to allow dogs with delivery problems such as dropping
multiple birds, refusing to pick up birds, etc., to slide is like allowing
poor manners and obedience or lack of steadiness to carry because a dog picks
up the marks cleanly and runs a good blind.
Solid Finished level work in all areas of testing is the standard we
are striving for. I
feel it would be appropriate to say a few things about setting up the
diversion. The dog needs to clearly see it, but remember that a diversion is
not judged as a mark.
I advise judges a good diversion is one thrown such that dogs have to
go out of their way to “switch” to it, not deviate from their return path
to avoid it. Be
fair. If the diversion bird does not land where it’s supposed to, perhaps
even hits the dog, you can declare a no-bird if necessary and re-run that part
of the test. In
Seasoned, it’s not a bad idea to strive to throw it on the opposite side of
the handler from where the dog is returning.
This makes the dog have to cross in front of the handler if it is
tempted by the diversion.
Although it’s not a fail if the dog switches, this gives the Seasoned
handler a little better opportunity to control the dog.
I said earlier I’d give you my opinion about why we throw a diversion
at Seasoned yet don’t fail dogs for switching to it.
I
believe it’s a matter of the degree of control we expect from a Seasoned
dog, which is much less than a Finished dog. I would guess our founders
looked at Seasoned switching much like control on the blind where more whistle
and cast refusals are acceptable than at Finished. While it was
important to introduce the concept, switching was likely seen as not as great
an infraction as for example, breaking, or hard-mouth.
While we do not fail Seasoned dogs for switching, we are judging it
because it's a markdown, enough of which can add up to failure. A few short years ago, the Seasoned
Test Description read: “Either or both the double land retrieve or the
double water retrieve must include a diversion”.
At the 1998 annual meeting, the Seasoned rules were changed to read:
“A diversionary bird
can be thrown after the walk-up, blind, or last retrieve of a double mark.”
The test Description was amended to read: Part
of the test must include a diversion. I
suspect the authors of this change wanted to give the Seasoned judges some
more flexibility in placement of the diversion.
This change helps keep the diversion, or scent from previous diversions
from having an adverse effect on the marking test.
It might otherwise be difficult to due accomplish this due to
constraints with grounds or terrain.
I’m more curious why the diversion was a required part of the marking
test at both Seasoned and Finished to begin with. If I ever find that out,
I’ll let you know. We made some changes to the Finished diversion
requirements in the most recent rulebook, and I suspect that one day the
Finished judges will have the same latitude as Seasoned judges enjoy.
Whether you’re a handler or judge, I hope this discussion has at
least given you some food for thought. If
you have more questions about judging delivery or diversions in particular,
I’d welcome your comments or suggestions. Now let’s take a look at a
Started test scenario I think you’ll find interesting. Scenario: The
licensed Started judge got off on the wrong foot with the hunt committee by
getting into an argument about what types of leads would be acceptable in the
test. The judge was adamant that
he was not going to allow slip leads on the retrieving line.
A calm and patient explanation that HRC rules allow this type of lead
was getting the committee nowhere with the judge.
The matter was resolved only when a committee member finally advised
the judge it was time to start running the dogs or step aside.
This judge then re-directed what many told me was an obviously poor
attitude at the handlers. The
judge reprimanded a Started handler running their first HRC test for wearing a
pager to the line and for using a hand on the dog’s rear end to simply
reposition it for a mark. Question: Am
I making all this up? Answer:
Folks,
I assure you I don’t have to make this stuff up. I don’t seek the scenario
- the scenario finds me! Of
course the real questions concern the judge’s knowledge and more
importantly, attitude. The
committee was correct about the use of slip leads.
Someone told me they aren’t allowed in some of the other retriever
testing programs. I don’t know
about that and didn’t care to bother to find out.
What’s pertinent to this scenario is what’s allowed in an HRC test.
All judges should be knowledgeable about our HRC rules at the level they are
judging at and realize they don’t have a license to change those rules, only
to make judging decisions within them. I’d
caution judges to at least think twice about believing they are correct about
an issue when everybody around them is saying they aren’t.
I would suggest the judge in this scenario might also want to review
what our rulebook says about touching and holding the dog.
Our rulebook allows the Started handler to continue to touch the dog
after signaling ready, and allows it to be “hand held” to assist in
achieving steadiness. Do I need
to explain that the term hand held really means it’s okay to use both hands?
Re-positioning a Started dog is not intimidation. Clubs
need to choose their Started judges wisely.
For many handlers, the Started judge is their first contact with the
club and with our HRC program. There
is no excuse, especially at the entry level, for any judge to be short, gruff,
unfriendly, intimidating or disrespectful to any participant.
I understand that any judge can have a bad day and make some mistakes.
My purpose in presenting this scenario is to remind judges of the
responsibilities they have when they undertake a judging assignment, and how
what they do and how they act can reverberate throughout the handlers,
gallery, and hunt test participants. Our
national meeting will likely be over by the time you get this issue of the
magazine (unless you’re on the preferred subscriber list).
Mentioning this list will probably get me in trouble with UKC,
especially since I just made it up. For
those who won’t be attending, rest assured that in my next column you’ll
get a full report. I’ll bring
you up to speed on seminar updates, pertinent judging information, policy or
procedure changes, maybe what those pesky field reps are up to, and perhaps
some juicy gossip. 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 |