RetrieverTraining.Net - the RTF banner

Field Trial Judging

22K views 96 replies 37 participants last post by  roseberry 
#1 ·
Can some of the many FT Judges on here explain to me how marks are judged. I'm familiar with how Hunt Test marks are judged, but I'm just starting to run in Q's and am curious in the differences. Are they judged with a numerical scoring like HT's? Thanks.
 
#4 · (Edited)
#6 ·
Study the 2 docs I posted for a few days. Then come back with questions.
 
#7 ·
Breck two icons. I'm glad you posted. I'm downloading right now. I do judge but I only allow myself to judge the qual and derby. These two books will be invaluable. I wish Cavanaugh would give a seminar like in the old days. Even though he has been out of the game for awhile everything he says will not be outdated. I didn't know Mitch was his partner in crime. I had a great time at the chessie specialty with Mitch and Linda.
 
#9 ·
Their is no standard to judge marks. There are as many systems and opinions on this as there are judges.

If I were you I would begin keeping a book and noting the tests that a particular judge sets up. There will be a pattern to most. When you get this judge again, it may provide some information on what to train on. It may also give you information on which judges you want to run from!
 
#10 ·
I draw pretty detailed diagrams with notes in my judging book. I notice some folks are able to be more streamlined but I don't trust my memory very well.

I do use a tally sheet, where I lump each dog in each series into a one of 5 group from "Excellent" to basically failing. I tried using a number from 1-10 for each early on but found that what looks like a 6 for the first dog may turn out to be a 9 as things get going--too much precision lead to inconsistency, so I go with my 'buckets'. This is just a short hand though. At the end of the series, it saves me time since I know which dogs are sure call backs and which are not and which I need to take a deeper look at and perhaps discuss with my co-judge. It is pretty wholistic based on my gut, but seems to work pretty well and every minute you can save on callbacks is helpful.

On the last series, I try to take advantage of the time during the swim back to start looking at my diagrams and come up with, hopefully, a rough order of placements for the dogs that are left. Some times things are fairly obvious and I can review it all again and pretty quickly come up with my placements. Some times it is closer and more review needs to be done. So far, I have been lucky and never had any major disagreements with my co-judge. We may not have the same order and have to talk about them and discuss the whys of one dog vs another--this is when I find that detailed drawings are very helpful, for me. Like I said, though, some excellent judges seem to do very well with a lot less drawing.
 
#11 ·
I am curious as to why there is not a standard set forth. Is there no judges committee to look at and determine "best practice"? Do judges have to get re-qualified on a regular basis? There is subjectivity within any event when human judging is involved, but it seems a level playing field is best established when there is at least an effort to establish a recognized and agreed upon standard, along with some accountability as to placements.

In reining horses (which I am very familiar), each judge must submit a score card for each class judged, that is available to be viewed by all. Also from an accountability standpoint all classes must be videoed and any complaints can be filed with the judges committee along with a $100 filing fee(this happens less than one would imagine because of all the checks and balances in place). On top of that judges must go to a judges school at least once every two (2) years and re-test for their judges card.

I have seen on this site, FT judges vehemently disagreeing about the application of the rules. That seems troubling. I realize that a judges personal perspective and opinion will inevitably be injected into subjective critiques of performance, but it seems that at the very least the application of rules should be agreed upon by some governing body and adhered to uniformly.
 
#13 ·
The comparison of judging video recorded equine arena events with prize money to judging retriever field trials is so preposterous that it scarcely rates a cursory reply, so my cursory reply is that there is no comparison.
 
#16 ·
I generally save the ones for the finishers for a month or so in the event that there is a clerical error. The score sheets are just a way to recall what we have seen and would bear no particular significance to someone just looking at them not having viewed the performances of the dogs.
 
#23 ·
I find it odd that you have so much interest in judging yet you have never run a field trial nor do you have a prospect at this point. I think it should be obvious that field trial events do not lend themselves to accurate video recording. To support what you think (based on an equine arena event) might improve judging would require huge sums of money and manpower which is not available. Every field trial in the country (8-10 every weekend) would require a video crew with multiple cameras recording 7-10 hours daily and that for just one stake. Then a qualified person would spend hours reviewing those videos. Retriever field trials are generally a sport of gentlemanly men and women and we have done fairly well with the current system for almost 75 years. Are there bad judges, certainly, are there dishonest judges, occasionally but the general population tends to identify and weed those out given time.
 
#25 ·
Ed thanks for the response.

To clarify a few a things, I do in fact have a prospect and do in fact plan on trying to run some FTs in the near future. I have purchased a fine dog that has a derby win and a RJ and several Jams in the Q(has run all age and is not a wash out). So my interest is not fleeting. I have an affliction of trying to learn as much as possible about any endeavor I involve myself in.

For further clarity, I certainly was not suggesting that FTs need to be videoed. I am not sure why you are hanging up on the videoing portion of my original post. I also think your lack of knowledge of equine events and their judging protocols caused for some miscommunication in to what I was speaking to. No one reviews the videos from an equine event. They are just used as back up in some instances should a complaint be filed. I realize that this wouldn't work for FTs, again it was just an example of some controls put in place, not a suggestion of something that should be done.

My main point was that it seems that there is not a general consensus on the application of certain rules/standards from what I have seen here and gathered from those I have spoken with actively involved in the sport. My curiosity begged the question as to why that was, and were there any controls in place to create such a consensus. I readily admit to my lack of knowledge and that this observation could be misguided. That is why I asked.
 
#29 ·
at the end of the day all I want is:

1. a fair test, where my dog's safety will never be in question

2. the test will not favor one style of training over another

3. my dog will be judged fairly against the work of others on that test

4. the test will not be devised to trick or fool the dog, and my dog will be given every opportunity to show that they are able to challenge the test and excel
 
#34 ·
When McGuillicuty shows up at the field trial and busts his butt the way I have for 40 years I will be the first to pat him on the back and ask him to come train with me. No one ever did that for me, I just forged along and made my own way. This is hard and the lifers do not need to have their backsides smooched, if you want to play step up, if you are timid or sensitive find another venue. If McGillicuty has been involved with high level horse sports he is neither timid or sensitive and if he wants to play he will look me up and not be put off.
 
#39 ·
In certain contests, the best example of which is track and field, there will be very little controversy as to determining winners in that event... who has the fastest time, longest throw, longest jump etc? In any competition where humans judge and the results are not determined by fastest time or precise measurement like field trials or gymnastics or boxing or whatever, there will be disagreement on the judges' decisions no matter how clearly we attempt to define the criteria by which the competition is being judged. Such is life. Big picture..... despite much consternation over week to week callbacks or placements in field trials.....certain dogs emerge over time as "special' animals as they seem to make it to the last series more than they don't and are in contention for a placement significantly more than the rest of the field with whom they regularly compete. This suggests to me that judging is more alike than it is different despite all the differences in opinion that might arise on any particular issue or set up. Given this reality, I don't see the current system as broken and I don't see a solution that will somehow magically eliminate the controversies that inevitably arise in every sport where judges judge as opposed to time or measure.

Greg Heier
 
#43 ·
In certain contests, the best example of which is track and field, there will be very little controversy as to determining winners in that event... who has the fastest time, longest throw, longest jump etc? In any competition where humans judge and the results are not determined by fastest time or precise measurement like field trials or gymnastics or boxing or whatever, there will be disagreement on the judges' decisions no matter how clearly we attempt to define the criteria by which the competition is being judged. Such is life. Big picture..... despite much consternation over week to week callbacks or placements in field trials.....certain dogs emerge over time as "special' animals as they seem to make it to the last series more than they don't and are in contention for a placement significantly more than the rest of the field with whom they regularly compete. This suggests to me that judging is more alike than it is different despite all the differences in opinion that might arise on any particular issue or set up. Given this reality, I don't see the current system as broken and I don't see a solution that will somehow magically eliminate the controversies that inevitably arise in every sport where judges judge as opposed to time or measure.

Greg Heier
For a judge that does not know what's happening they are called "Safe Dogs" - a dog that regardless of their performance
can be placed higher than deserved without damaging the judges reputation. Rarely will you see the dog that deserved
the ribbon get same in a trial where things go wrong if it does not come with reputation. That's an opinion voiced to me
by someone whose experience in this sport probably runs into the 5 figures in dogs entered & viewed.

Those special dogs you describe do exist, on some days they can be fairly common!!!!!!
 
#40 ·
Migillicutty, AKC and NRHA are apples and oranges. Start adding big money purses, like the reiners have, to field trials and the rules would change fast (never gonna happen).

NRHA evolved out of a need to provide accountability because there was starting to be substantial prize money involved and the judges were all over the place. One would score a 74 and the next would give a 68 for the same run. I've been around the horse business long enough (long before NRHA) to remember the days when reining judges didn't have scribes, scorecards and videos....and before there was really even a point system and judges would arbitrarily give out a score based on overall impression rather than a specific set of additions and deductions.

Judging a field trial can't be done in anything close to the same fashion because of the variables involved, not just from weekend to weekend on different grounds with different tests, but because so much is situational and in the moment.

The best way to learn is to not compare it to what you're already familiar with. Go, watch, help out, participate and keep a very open mind to figuring out the nuances. You'll learn as time goes by to recognize an outstanding performance when you see it, and figure out what made it so good. If people know you're honestly wanting to learn, you'll get lots of answers to your questions. But if you approach it in a "why don't they do it this way?" frame of mind, you'll likely get ignored. I have asked some really silly questions from time to time and gotten excellent and educational answers, from some of the "big guns" who were happy to educate. I didn't debate those answers, I digested them.
 
#46 ·
Marv, I edited my original post per your suggestion. Thanks for the clarification, I thought you might have meant something like that. I'm a noob so I can neither agree nor disagree with your statement, but I can see a bit of logic to it. Not good logic for the lesser-known little guy so not fair logic, but I can understand it happening nevertheless.

How would you suggest a noob go about understanding which judges might be so inclined and those who are not? I have heard it said often on this forum that not all 8 point judges are good judges & vice-versa, so counting assignments alone can't be the answer. I know long-timers have books on judges, not so for newcomers...and it seems the veterans seem to 'protect' other veterans by keeping mum on these judges.

And do you think FT committees know who these judges are and select them anyway?
 
#47 ·
Let's look at the situation from a different perspective, even if there are some questionable judges (not saying there are, and not saying there aren't) What are your choices ? Do you have the alternative circuit available or the resources to go and play at a different trial, miles away from those in your backyard...probably not..very few in the game have that kind of financial freedom to "pick their spots"

History has shown that the game has been somewhat self moderated and the inept judge will sooner rather than later find fewer and fewer assignments...FTC get a lot of feedback from contestants, they also run the trial themselves..You generally know when you have run under a good set of judges because even the contestants that may have been dropped will tell you so...

When you run under a good judge let them know it,no matter where or if you placed...a thank you after the trial and even a Thank You card after the trial goes a LONG way...conversely if you run into a less than adequate judge, just dont enter that stake next time if they judge again, FTC pay attention and they know when entries are down that "maybe" the judges they invited didnt quite attract the field they had hoped for....
 
#49 ·
I guess if the "best judges" don't judge, but sit back and bemoan how bad the FT judging is, we are condemned to making do with less than adequate judges.
 
#50 ·
John, I don't know whether you are trying to be clever or what? But I have made the point of asking
people who are eminently qualified why they don't judge more & the most common answer is that
they have not been asked. Why would that be?

This is your opportunity to contribute :p.
 
#53 ·
As to why eminently qualified judges aren't being asked to judge, I have no idea.
Personally I think by and large the people who are asked to judge, honestly try to do their best.
I hate to read the implications from the naysayers who say the judges are incompetent, corrupt and political.
 
#56 ·
As to why eminently qualified judges aren't being asked to judge, I have no idea.
Personally I think by and large the people who are asked to judge, honestly try to do their best.
I hate to read the implications from the naysayers who say the judges are incompetent, corrupt and political.
Here is my take on why some are not asked to judge ; When people exit the game whether their dog(s) retire or they just decide to not go thru the grind of campaigning another dog, We tend to forget about them.Also they may become a victim of the rule where they may not have competed in the last couple of years. I am sure that there are more than a few former qualified judges out there that no longer play on the circuit that would/could judge. Its not like they forgot how to set up a quality test, or that they forgot what good dog work looks like, but like many other instances in our society " out of sight, out of mind" seems to prevail
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top