Okay BBG and Scott, we may never see eye to eye on this issue, but answer me this one question. Do you believe a handler telling his dog to sit while the birds are going down during a Senior test is serious enough fault to warrant a non qualifying score in most instances? I won’t even hold you to saying you’d always fail a dog and handler for the infraction.
I, like others, contend that there is plenty of latitude within the rules to allow this dog and handler to continue to play. I won’t go so far as to say they are going to pass, but I’m not willing to say they have failed for this single infraction either. The following is what I believe has been eluded to thus far, but here it is as it reads in the rules and regulations….
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From Chapter 5
Part II - Evaluation and Scoring of a Dog's Abilities
The evaluation of a dog's abilities can never be precise; it is not an exact science. However, the primary purpose of a Retriever is to get the birds to hand as quickly as possible in a pleasing, obedient manner; whether a dog accomplishes its primary purpose is determined by its possession of a unique set of both natural abilities, and abilities acquired through training. Part III of these Guidelines is a discussion of the natural and acquired abilities of Retrievers.
….snip…
A zero means that the dog did not perform minimally. For example, it would be difficult to assign a score other than zero in Perseverance when a Senior or Master dog failed to enter water after having been ordered to do so several times.
A zero score is very different from a "nonscore." A zero is computed into the dog's average for that ability while a non-score is not. The zero indicates that the dog had an opportunity to exhibit an ability, but failed to do so. The non-score says that such an opportunity did not present itself. An "X" should be entered on the scoresheet for non-scores
When both Judges grade a dog zero on the same ability, the dog can no longer receive a Qualifying score. Keep in mind that moderate to serious faults in an ability will often become more apparent through the series of tests. In questionable instances, give the dog the benefit of the doubt.
….Snip….
A Judge's responsibility is to determine, through the evaluation of abilities, whether or not a dog possesses sufficient abilities to be entitled to official AKC recognition of those abilities in the form of Junior Hunter, Senior Hunter or Master Hunter titles.
…snip…
Part III - The Abilities of Retrievers
IV. The final attribute to be evaluated by Judges is Trainability, that includes those abilities dogs acquire through training (steadiness, control, response and delivery). While not to be underestimated, acquired abilities must be viewed in a different perspective, being of somewhat lesser importance than natural abilities even though a Master Hunter must exhibit all that is desirable in a finished Retriever. The level that acquired abilities are developed will vary in different Test categories; for example, a reasonable degree of steadiness and general obedience are the requirements in the Junior Hunting Test. A greater degree of steadiness and some degree of the other qualities are expected in the Senior Hunting Test. There shall be expectation of full refinement in acquired attributes in Master Hunting Tests.
Classification of Faults
Classification of the many faults which may be exhibited by retrievers during the course of a hunting test shall be primarily in terms of generalizations. In the lists which follow, various infractions are cataloged as I. Serious Faults, II. Moderate Faults and III. Minor Faults. Each fault should be considered as a single occurrence, and only to an average degree. However, such infraction may be so minor in degree that it scarcely merits the indicated penalty. Conversely, the degree of a given instance of infraction may be of sufficient gravity to merit a much more severe penalty that is suggested - even to the point of elimination from the stake. Also, in each of these three general categories, all of the faults listed should not be given equal weight, since they are not of equal gravity or importance.
Repetition of a fault, particularly time after time, indicates a "weakness" or a bad habit, and justifies much more penalty than in an isolated occurrence of this fault. The same holds true when there is a combination of different faults. The listing of individual faults within each category has not been made in the order of their seriousness. A Judge may be thoroughly justified in moderating a penalty or even in failing to impose one, if, in his or her opinion, there have been extenuating circumstances to justify such action.
The faults included in this classification are limited to those which are observed most often at retriever Hunting Tests. Others may occur, such as the repeated failure to exercise gun safety, and this classification may serve as a helpful guide on such occasions in determining the relative importance of such unusual offenses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For the judge that is willing to zero out a dog/handler for saying “sit” while birds in the air, have you as a judge fulfilled your obligation to determine through the evaluation of abilities whether or not the DOG possesses sufficient abilities to be called a senior hunter.
Can you as a judge say with certainty that the DOG did not perform minimally in trainability/obedience and warrants a “0” without question, and the dog does not deserve the benefit of the doubt?
Given that the rules allow for even “serious” faults to be viewed as minor in the degree that it scarcely merits the indicated penalty, wouldn’t it be more prudent to allow the dog to continue on to see if such faults manifest itself to the degree that failure is warranted?