RetrieverTraining.Net - the RTF banner

Judging Criteria #2

3K views 23 replies 10 participants last post by  greg magee 
#1 ·
When judging each series, do you base your callbacks on:

A) A pre-established standard for the test
B) Comparison of dog work performed (i.e. outliers fail).
 
#2 ·
When judging each series, do you base your callbacks on:

A) A pre-established standard for the test
B) Comparison of dog work performed (i.e. outliers fail).
I haven't judged a licensed trial but my approach has always been both. Certain pre-established standards such as cheating, popping, breaking, whistle refusal, cast refusal, switching, etc. are heavily weighted - then it comes down to general performance and outliers fail based on the criteria established by the successful dogs.
 
#4 ·
A point - or in this case, a dog - outside the bell shaped curve of normalized distribution
 
#5 ·
Neither

Can this dog still place or win ... relative to the rest of the field
 
#16 ·
Again, the question is about a single series, not cumulative work.

I agree with most that faults should be judged equally, regardless of the series.

I agree that after the first series, judging should be based on cumulative work. However, failure on a blind is absolute.

But in reality, I don't think that is often what we see on weekends. A fault in the waterblind will more likely lead to being dropped, regardless of previous work.

It would seem many judges compare dogs within a series to determine callbacks, rather than how they actually performed vs. expectations. I think some judges have a number in mind that they want to carry to subsequent series. X number of dogs will be called back, the rest get penciled out even though the work may not "mathmatically" eliminate them from contention. An extra whistle or two on a blind may result in "failure," regardless of the cumulative work to that point.
 
#17 ·
Canman

I think you need to be more precise in your language - or perhaps your concepts.

First, as many people have already mentioned ... all faults are not created equal.

Second, it is impossible to make judgments in a vacuum. Previous work always has some influence on whether a dog returns to play some more - or not.

Third, there is a difference between an outright failure and a fault - or series of faults - on a blind. For example, a dog might require five whistles to cast off a point. That is not an outright failure and depending upon the judge, the dog's previous work, and the performance of the rest of the field, might merit a callback - or not. However, - in my book, at least - a failure to get in the water at any point in time after the point would constitute an outright failure.

Fourth, there are some judges that make callbacks based on numbers. You play long enough, you learn who they are and make your informed decision about whether to run under them - or not. There are other judges who do not pencil out dogs to get to their callbacks.

For example, at the Labrador Retriever Club in the Open the judges - Sig Vilagi and Dick Horn - set up a double and a blind for their first series (they were concerned about thunderstorms). Their test did not get the action that they wanted (55 dogs called back from 80 starters). Rather than set up another blind - on Saturday, they put together a killer quad (and it was a hoot to run). They went from 55 to 26. They dropped 10 on the water blind and went with 16 to the last series. Clearly, Sig and Dick were not proceeding on some pre-conceived notion of how many dogs should be called back.

My point is this - I think generalizations in this area are dangerous - and more often than not, ill-informed and meaningless.

Ted
 
#18 · (Edited)
My purpose for discussion is more about how people judge, than particular situations. In order to do that, you have to imagine situations.

Another words, eliminate as many variables as possible, judge it in a vacuum if necessary.

If judges set a standard on what is acceptable work on the land blind, should that standard be carried forward to subsequent series? Or, are you more likely to get dropped for that fault in subsequent series? Again, this in not cumulative work, and yes for discussion purposes faults are identicle .

I wish decisions were always based on cumulative work, but sometimes I find that hard to imagine.

Come on, I don't think discussing how this game is judged is dangerous.
 
#20 ·
My purpose for discussion is more about how people judge, than particular situations. In order to do that, you have to imagine situations.

If judges set a standard on what is acceptable work on the land blind, should that standard be carried forward to subsequent series? Or, are you more likely to get dropped for that fault in subsequent series? Again, this in not cumulative work, and yes for discussion purposes faults are identicle .
You assume that judges set a standard for what is acceptable work on the land blind.

You might begin by testing the validity of that assumption.

Some do, some don't. Some judges don't care what your previous work was, if you don't hit their keyholes, you are out. Others make decisions based on cumulative work.

You then assume that faults on land are the same as faults on water. Others may disagree, I don't think that assumption is valid. Consequently, I think you can talk about it until the cows come home, but the discussion has relatively little carryover into the real world.

Consequently, I do not think you are accomplishing your stated mission of determining how people judge.

If you want to proceed down your chosen path, then you need to follow your stated purpose, be more specific about your hypothetical, including

- work in first series of dog and field
- work in second series of dog and field
- faults of dog and field in land blind
- faults of dog and field in water blind

Then the discussion might be more enlightening about how specific participants judge
 
#19 ·
I think broad generalizations based upon limited experience are not particularly useful.
 
#23 ·
Good question from one who I would suggest read and discuss the supplement; serious faults etc. Bell curve? Give me a break!
Again the rule book is very clear on serious faults!
As a judge, if every dog does the work in the first test with out any failures shame on me! If 90% fail shame on me. Sometimes my co-judge & I do an excellent job of setting tests, some times we don't. I would like to be able to say that in an open or Am first test 25% fail the test. I am just not that good and I don't think many of us with experience would say we are. Sure if we really knew what all dogs, the wind, the light, the FT gods would have happen it would be easy. Be fair & be honest.
Example Open all age I was a co-judge 96 dog entry. First test land triple with one bird (go bird) across a small piece of water. Of the first 25 dogs only 6 had not handled or picked-up. Then something change light, wind, handlers got smarter? I don't know? The next 71 we lost 8. What the hell happened? I don't know. Just beefed up the land blind/s and got it down to about 50. Fifty to a water blind? Things happen. We had terrible weather Sunday with lighting twister warnings etc. We got it done and the winner was happy! Was anyone else? Probably not! Read and discuss the rule book. When you have more experience judging you will understand "You ain't perfect! I may not be good but I am honest.
 
#24 ·
What we need to remember as judges is that marking is of primary importance. If a dog I'm judging smokes the first series (between the paws on every bird) and is stylish to boot he gets more latitude on his blinds. It gets harder when you have a dog that is doing fair work at best. Does not crush one bird, has mediocre blinds but did not fail them, and is still around in the last series. That’s why they call it judging. It is a sad but true testament that due to time restraints some people is penciled out. When you have the opportunity to carry some one who you know is not going to win you do it. But there are times when you have to let them go. But the rule of thumb for me has always been 3 faults. Sometimes one if it is serious enough. And it's even harder when your co-judge wants to carry his Pro's dogs when you know it's an out and out failure. Most of us know what kind of dog we want to see win the trial. You do your best to set up test to find that dog. If a certain dog does not meet your criteria, as well as your co-judges criteria, their gone. Judging is so subjective that you wouldn't want to box yourself into a corner by using one or the other of your two options.
 
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