I was the gunner on the long bird at a trial where a similar situation happened. The judges took the interference into account and scored the dog accordingly (if I remember correctly, the dog got a yellow ribbon :) ).
I had almost the same thing happen. I was interfered with by whistles from another stake. My dog had picked up the flyer and was hunting the second bird, in the AOF, when she sat on a whistle from the Open blind. Thankfully the judges heard it and had me pick her up before she retrieved the bird. The AM stake was halted until the Open finished the blind, and I got a rerun at the end and an AM 3rd.
I agree with Dennis.
What if the dog wasn't handled to the bird, but instead went on it's own? After watching 70 other dogs, you are almost certain that the dog would have retrieved the bird cleanly had it not been interfered with causing the pop. Yet it was too close to the bird to get stopped and called in before it picked up the bird.
It is called "Judging" not scorekeeping there is always an element of speculation involved. Making an "Intereference" call itself is speculation.
If the dog went on it's own and went to and found the mark there was no handler influence and if indeed the so called pop was in response to a whistle from another stake there is no problem and no need for a rerun.
The question is how can you score a mark on a rerun when the dog has already retrieved that mark?
In a perfect world, the judges would have the dog picked up the moment the unfairness happened and before it retrieved the mark. As we don't live in a perfect world and are mere humans, we try to do the best we can, as the rule states, "If there is an occurrence which makes for a relatively unfair test for a dog, the Judges shall exercise their discretion in determining how to form a judgment of the quality of the work of the dog in the series notwithstanding the unfairness."
I completely agree with Dennis's comment:
What about a runner that nobody knew left the area until the dog picked it up well out of the fall area?
So if the judges weren't able to stop the dog at the moment of unfairness, they should allow that 1 dog a re run on a mark that they have already picked up? How is that fair to all the other dogs that have already completed that mark without a re run. Lets use the 80 dog open example and that is dog 70. It wouldn't be fair to the other dogs to allow one dog to re run a mark that it had already completed for a score. While it wouldn't be fair to the one dog to let a distraction affect his performance. That's why it is so important that the judges be on their toes and ready for a situation just as this.
If the judges allow the dog to pick up a mark on the initial run it should be scored on that run. To allow that dog a second chance at a mark it has already picked up is an injustice to the other 79 dogs in the event.
The rule of treat each contestant as if they had driven 500 miles with one dog to compete should come in play. Do your best as a judge to make it as fair as possible to all.
Your analysis is very good, Doug.
Judging is an imprfect art form. Judges' responsibilities include common sense, fairness & following the rule book.
Of ciurse, in the scenario between the point of bing sent and "the pop" it is important what line the dog had as that should be part of scoring on any re-run.
Things are not set in cement.
I saw the judges at the '99 Ardmore national carelessley allow Lean Mack hunt deep in the AOF's of all previous flyers (after a very short shot duck) extensively before finally calling him in and awarding a re-run. The damage had been done as that extensive hunt impacted his performance on the blind that followed.
Yes, there may well be unexpected situations that impact/change the protocol of a test ...
we must presume in this instance it was judges' error, yet they did their best for that dog and handler notwithstanding seeing the "test" twice ... which often happens.
No one can or should predict how any particular dog will react on a re-run of any kind.
How can you evaluate a mark that the dog has previously retrieved?
Please correct me if I am wrong but you seem to imply that the dog would have completed the mark successfully except for the unfairness. To complicate that you introduced 70 dogs having run which was not presented in the initial scenario. It is much more likely for the event to have occurred after the 7th dog than the 70th dog but even given that scenario can we wildly speculate that the mark was a very well placed middle distance retired gun that only that only 1 in 5 dogs found without handling and only 1 in 10 dogs did it well. Are we to reward a dog who admittedly had bad luck by judging him on a rerun on that bird that he has already retrieved?