in a test or trial
The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Wildear
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 25

Thread: in a test or trial

  1. #1
    Senior Member Tobias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015

    Default in a test or trial

    what do you consider a worse offense - Whistle Refusal or Pop? Or do you view them equally in terms of 'infractions'?

    As an edit - we know the dog heard the whistle at the time of the WR or popped because he was lacking confidence (not because he thought he heard it)
    Last edited by Tobias; 02-04-2017 at 11:00 AM.

  2. Remove Advertisements

  3. #2
    Senior Member labsforme's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Mission Valley,Mt


    My opinion doesn't matter. What does each rule book say? Also circumstances of a pop? Are there other stakes that the dog could have heard a whistle?
    Jeff Gruber
    working on pelts
    Duckponds Prize Package
    CK'S Contessa (avatar)
    Ice Chilled Juice ***
    I Ain't No Tin Lizzy

  4. #3
    Senior Member Furball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Gainesville, FL


    "What does the rule book say" is the right answer.
    I consider a pop a bigger offense...lack of confidence or the dog doesn't understand his job. A downward spiral. Whistle refusal when there's no mitigating circumstance for not hearing the whistle...just a slip up in trainability or dog being high and wanting to go upward spiral
    Anney Doucette
    Gainesville FL
    & "Fisher" CH Deauxquest Hard Day's Knight UDT VER RAE MH WCX CCA VCX OS DDHF; Can. CD WC
    & "Slater" HRCH Morninglo Wing-T Your Bird Can Sing CDX MH NA WCX CCA VCX
    & "Bally" BISS GCH Richwood Wing-T Workin' Like A Dog MH WCX** DDHF

  5. Remove Advertisements

  6. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Boston, GA


    HT...both minor dog faults unless you have multiple and then can become moderate or serious faults.
    Tom Dorroh
    Boston, GA

  7. #5
    Senior Member Daren Galloway's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    North Dakota


    FT Rulebook:
    II. MODERATE FAULTS. (Infractions in thiscategory may actually be so slight as to warrant theirconsideration as only a “minor’’ fault, or they maybe so severe as to warrant their consideration as a“serious fault”; also, repetitions of a “moderate’’ faultor combination of several of these faults may readilyconvert the total infractions into a “serious’’ fault.)
    6. “Popping,’’ i.e., stopping and looking back fordirections on a “marked’’ bird before an extensive search.
    7. Not stopping for directions, after two or three whistleswhich the dog should have heard.

    III. MINOR FAULTS. (Either severe, or repeated,or combinations of these “minor’’ infractions maysummate into a “moderate,’’ or even a “serious’’ fault.Also, they may be so slight as not to warrant anypenalty at all.)
    6. Not stopping at the first whistle that should have beenheard, but stopping at the second or third.

    7. Popping on a blind retrieve where there are noextenuating circumstances such as distance, wind, shallow(running) water or other conditions which make it difficultto hear the handler’s whistle.

    The seriousness of the penalty for any or all of theforegoing faults varies with the seriousness of theinfraction, whether that infraction was repeated and howoften, and whether there was a combination of variousinfractions. However, before inflicting a severe penaltybecause of a dog’s failure to stop promptly at the whistle,Judges should determine whether the wind, the cover,or the distance seriously interfered with the dog’s abilityto hear his handler. In general, the performance in thetest should be considered in its entirety; an occasionalfailure to take and hold a direction may be considereda minor fault, if offset by several other very goodresponses. A considerable penalty should be imposedfor repeated, willful disobedience of the handler’s orders;and less penalty when, after taking the proper direction,he does not continue on it as far as the handler desired.Stopping voluntarily, to look back for directions, in anisolated instance, may be considered a minor fault, butfrequent repetition may convert such “popping-up’’ intothe category of serious faults.

    So if a dog pops on a mark, handler gives a verbal back and dog goes directly to the mark, how do you judge it? I know what I would do.
    Daren Galloway

  8. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006


    Assuming there is no chance of hearing or not hearing I consider a pop a bigger problem in the training program and confidence of the dog.
    At a trial it all depends on conditions at the time

  9. #7
    Senior Member BonMallari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008


    seen a few dogs being carried to the next series after whistle refusals....cant remember the last time I saw one carried because of a pop...YMMV
    Executor of the Alanson C Brown III - Trust

    Quote Originally Posted by lanse brown View Post
    A few things that I learned still ring true. "Lanse when you get a gift, say thank you and walk away. When you get a screwing walk away. You are going to get a lot more screwings than gifts"

  10. #8
    Senior Member EdA's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003


    Pops on marks much more serious than pops on blinds

  11. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2003


    Pop on a blind if it's once is barely noted by me as a judge. Dog is in blind "mode" and maybe is listening for whistle and might hear a bird or something and is trying to work with handler and pops. If it's done repeatedly then it's a problem.

    In my experience a dog that pops on a mark in a Ft Should expect to be dropped.

  12. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009


    ED - A MEN!
    This issue, again, is amply addressed in the STANDARD.

    This venue is a casual, hypothetical, attempt to glean answers. Always risky when presenting 'hypos'.
    Tenured judges are ... and should be ... very careful as to stating responses.

    I recall early on at the Madison Retriever Club in '62, Ripp'n Ready popped (consecutively) on a land
    blind & while regaining positive control/momentum, the judges let me - "mix & feed".

    Of course, as a newbie, I had questions for the judges. One being a top national judge - John
    Romadka - Madison's finest. "Failure to carry a positive line; lack of purpose; indifference,
    the explanation". I NEVER forgot John's patient careful answer to a new guy in the game!

    My first important lesson. Many variations today but essentially similar and not a pass.

    Today, dogs/handlers coping with a myriad of issues on marking tests, notwithstanding weather/
    light variations, and ... comparative work, good/bad, a pop on a mark is a killer.

    However, if in fact there are extenuating issues - and there could be many - judges , good judges,
    must be very, very careful, perceptive and prudent before disqualifying any such dog.

    I know I am scrambling the 'eggs', but just as setting tests and judging retrievers are an imperfect
    venue, mandating failure on a test when mitigating circumstances are present may be wrong.


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts