Printable View
I'm sure I presented a scoring challenge once under this PIL scenario. The dog went exactly where I lined him up - 30 degrees off the line to the blind. He then carried the cast 90 yards (angle back!) from 30 yards out directly to the bird. Tough to fault the dog - what category gets dinged for handler astigmatism?
How can you assume to read the dog's mind of why the poor IL? I could see if you pointed the dog at water and launched the dog ran down to the water then veered off to avoid water you could ascribe it to that, but that would be a good IL then a veer. As an owner and handler I can read my dogs fairly well and even then I am surprised upon occasion. Some causes I have notced for bad lines with my dogs over the years are:Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas D
1) A scary picture; maybe a line too tight to an old fall, or some similar situation where the dog fears he is being set up.
2) A strong diversion, poison bird for example where he wants it but you are trying to talk him off the PB and on to the blind you want to run.
3) A buggy dog that is hard to line up confidently, but once underway will handle well and cast where you want him to go.
4) Just flat miss-lining the dog, we have all (I assume) been surprised at the IL only to complete the blind, then have everyone from the judges to your wife in gallery say he ran right where you had him pointed.
My point is, if the bad IL is corrected smoothly and swiftly, it probably won't even show up in the score, if it isn't, that would all be a trainablity issue regardless of what guess the judge made regarding the dog's motovation.
John
Good question for you hunt test judges.Quote:
Originally Posted by knash3
I actually did something like this at my first AKC Hunt Test judging seminar back in the early ninties. It was a simulated Senior water test with a blind angled across a narrow slough of water. Being naive, and treating as I would hunting I sent my dog straight across the water, probably a thirty yard swim, then gave him a twenty yard "over" to the bird. My training buddy who was more advanced than me, kept is dog on line the whole way to the bird, probably five cast in the water. After we were done there was a lively discussion about why Jim's job was better than mine, but the AKC rep pointed out that in this scenario, my job was faster and smoother than Jim's and he would have a hard time scoring me down on it.
I think hunt test judges are judging more by field trial standards now than they did back then.
John
I judge from behind the handler on blinds. Seeing YOU lined up wrong, unless it was clear you were trying to avoid our test, I would weigh heavily the cast carried 90yds and tend to minimize the PIL. Blinds are a team sport and the work you show as a team is, IMO, far more important than a perfect first cast.Quote:
Originally Posted by knash3
7 is good enough Regards
Claimsadj post was tagged onto another post. that mentioned categorys or abilities.Quote:
Originally Posted by John Robinson
I didn't necessariy say I would ding the dog, but if it were dinged I thought the proper category would be Trainability rather than perseverence (subject to the water/cover mentioned in the rulebook).
I think I'm on your side on this. This is one of those things that if we were all sitting there watching such and such run the blind we would probably be in agreement on a scale of one to ten what the overall blind was, but when you have to separate out categories such as trainability and perserverance, it gets more difficult. In that regard juging field trials, dog against dog is easier than scoring the performance, category by category against a standard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas D
I had that conversation with a field trial person today. She said the exact same thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by John Robinson
You didn't challange the blind so the score suffers for your poor handling decision. In another thread someone said only the dog's work can be scored. Not so, it's a dog/handler team sport.Quote:
Originally Posted by knash3