Handling on the way back? [Archive] - RetrieverTraining.Net - the RTF

: Handling on the way back?



Mark S
06-13-2020, 10:17 PM
Scenario=If I I am running my dog in the derby and he successfully Lines his mark through the water but on the way back starts to run the bank. If I were to whistle stop him, cast, and make him get in the water so he is honest on the way back..would that be frowned upon by the judges?

paul young
06-13-2020, 10:38 PM
Handling on a mark is a serious fault in the Derby stake. You would most likely be dropped. From page 57; 17. Handling on a mark in the Derby Stake.

The rule book does not mention an exception for handling on the return. -Paul

Mark S
06-14-2020, 09:18 AM
Handling on a mark is a serious fault in the Derby stake. You would most likely be dropped. From page 57; 17. Handling on a mark in the Derby Stake.

The rule book does not mention an exception for handling on the return. -Paul

Thank you Paul. I agree that the rule book does not address handling on the way back, so how would you judges address this? Judges?

drunkenpoacher
06-14-2020, 09:30 AM
It makes no difference which end of your dog is visible from the line, handling in a derby stake is a serious fault. You will almost certainly be dropped for it.

swampcollielover
06-14-2020, 09:52 AM
Seems like running the back on a return is also problematic, serious fault...or is it a better option than handling on the return?

Seems to me that handling back is a better solution for the dog, as he does not get in his head that running the bank is an option!

drunkenpoacher
06-14-2020, 11:27 AM
Running the bank on the return is a minor fault.

1. Going out of its way by land, to an excessive degree, on the return from a water retrieve.

Matt McKenzie
06-14-2020, 12:55 PM
What a terrible rule. The rule encourages a handler to allow a young dog to cheat the return rather than handle to keep him honest. To what end?

drunkenpoacher
06-14-2020, 03:02 PM
What a terrible rule. The rule encourages a handler to allow a young dog to cheat the return rather than handle to keep him honest. To what end?
To sort out the placements?

tigerfan
06-14-2020, 05:09 PM
Handling on a mark is a serious fault in the Derby stake. You would most likely be dropped. From page 57; 17. Handling on a mark in the Derby Stake.

The rule book does not mention an exception for handling on the return. -Paul
I would argue that you're wrong on this cal Paul
A base that argument on the fact that you're not handling on the mark your handling on the return.
I would argue thatJust because you say there's not an exception for the return does not give you license to make it an eliminating factor. In my opinion.
Furthermore I believe that if you consider this to be a handle on a mark, the rulebook is clear that there is no discretion.
In that case you MUST drop the dog
From PG 21Section 10

.. " Derby stake tests are limited to marked retrieves and dogs which are handled on such retrieves shall be eliminated from competition"


Not only does that section require elimination for dogs that are handled or marked retrieves I think it also bolsters my argument that the elimination comes only from the action whereby they're being handled on ..."such retrieves".

tigerfan
06-14-2020, 05:14 PM
It makes no difference which end of your dog is visible from the line, handling in a derby stake is a serious fault. You will almost certainly be dropped for it. I would make the same argument made in Post 9 that you're wrong about this.
Btw how can you handle a dog that's looking away from you?

tigerfan
06-14-2020, 05:16 PM
To sort out the placements?
WRONG

Not a factor.
If you're going to consider this to be a handle on a Mark it is no discretion to the judges: Per the rulebook the dog MUST be eliminated.
In that scenario he does not come into the discussion regarding placements

drunkenpoacher
06-14-2020, 07:43 PM
WRONG

Not a factor.
If you're going to consider this to be a handle on a Mark it is no discretion to the judges: Per the rulebook the dog MUST be eliminated.
In that scenario he does not come into the discussion regarding placements
Are you using again or just plain stupid?

Tobias
06-14-2020, 08:51 PM
Tigerfan - can you post the page number/paragraph in the rulebook where it says a derby dog must be eliminated from competition if it is handled to a mark? I have tried to find said rule, but all I have seen is that it is considered a serious fault.

Also would really like to hear some other judges take on this question? If a dog is handled in order to prevent cheating on the way back from a mark that it picked up clean, and assuming the dog does as he has been directed and doesn't get into a pissing match with the hander, why would it be marked down? Are there other rules that might apply to support such handling? (unnecessary disturbance of cover)....handling on the return is probably not a risk I would take, but maybe some would. Is blowing a come in whistle considered handling (giving direction)?

Daren Galloway
06-14-2020, 09:25 PM
Tigerfan - can you post the page number/paragraph in the rulebook where it says a derby dog must be eliminated from competition if it is handled to a mark? I have tried to find said rule, but all I have seen is that it is considered a serious fault.

Also would really like to hear some other judges take on this question? If a dog is handled in order to prevent cheating on the way back from a mark that it picked up clean, and assuming the dog does as he has been directed and doesn't get into a pissing match with the hander, why would it be marked down? Are there other rules that might apply to support such handling? (unnecessary disturbance of cover)....handling on the return is probably not a risk I would take, but maybe some would. Is blowing a come in whistle considered handling (giving direction)?

Derby stake tests are limited to marked retrieves and dogs which are handled on such retrieves shall be eliminated from competition. Page 21 Section 10

Daren Galloway
06-14-2020, 09:31 PM
Tigerfan - can you post the page number/paragraph in the rulebook where it says a derby dog must be eliminated from competition if it is handled to a mark? I have tried to find said rule, but all I have seen is that it is considered a serious fault.

Also would really like to hear some other judges take on this question? If a dog is handled in order to prevent cheating on the way back from a mark that it picked up clean, and assuming the dog does as he has been directed and doesn't get into a pissing match with the hander, why would it be marked down? Are there other rules that might apply to support such handling? (unnecessary disturbance of cover)....handling on the return is probably not a risk I would take, but maybe some would. Is blowing a come in whistle considered handling (giving direction)?

However, in Derby stakes the ability to “mark’’ is all-important and dogs that are handled on a mark in a Derby Stake shall be eliminated. Also on page 50 under natural abilities.

Tobias
06-14-2020, 09:53 PM
However, in Derby stakes the ability to “mark’’ is all-important and dogs that are handled on a mark in a Derby Stake shall be eliminated. Also on page 50 under natural abilities.

thanks Daren, I missed that. Seems crazy it would be considered handling on a mark on the return.

Daren Galloway
06-14-2020, 09:57 PM
thanks Daren, I missed that. Seems crazy it would be considered handling on a mark on the return.

I never said that, just answered your question about where the rule about handling in a derby was.

tigerfan
06-14-2020, 11:26 PM
Are you using again or just plain stupid?
Wagner you're clueless and classless Act is incredibly immature.
Sadly you and your kind have made it standard operating procedure on the POTUS forum. When you can't counter an opposing viewpoint with a cogent fact based argument you resort to childish name-calling, insults and lies.
If you can't act like an adult and want to continue acting like a clueless classless petulant child, please confine your "mean girl" act to POTUS.

It is tasteless, uncalled for and counterproductive here.
The purpose of this forum is to discuss and exchange thoughts on rules and judging.

It is a relatively new forum, and has been very informative and civil up until you dropped in like a soiled diaper.

In light of the fact that you have a long history of misinterpreting and belittling the rule book, and you are a few months away from your first judging assignment, I would think you take a little bit more of a mature respectful approach to using it as a learning tool.

There are some very experienced knowledgeable people who have freely offered their experience and thoughts.
I am certainly not an expert and greatly appreciate their contributions
Your approach will only serve to discourage their participation and the free flow of ideas and thought-provoking discussion.

But I digress; let's get back on topic to the subject at hand.
You claimed I'm stupid, so please share with us where you think I've gone astray.
As I read the rules there is a bit of a gray area regarding what the rules mean as far as handling in a derby.

I believe there can be a distinction between how handling to the bird is punished versus punishment for handling on the return with the bird.
It appears that you and Paul disagree with me on that distinction

On the other hand I don't see any gray area for the punishment for handling to the bird.
In that case I believe the rules clearly state that the dog must be eliminated
It appears to me that you and Paul differ and think that there's a little bit of leeway for the judges to not dismiss that dog.

I could be wrong and I'd love to hear yours, Paul's and anyone else's thoughts comments, rationale and rule book citations in support of your differing opinions

Thanks, Congrats & Good luck on your judging assignment!

tigerfan
06-14-2020, 11:34 PM
Tigerfan - can you post the page number/paragraph in the rulebook where it says a derby dog must be eliminated from competition if it is handled to a mark? I have tried to find said rule, but all I have seen is that it is considered a serious fault.

Also would really like to hear some other judges take on this question? If a dog is handled in order to prevent cheating on the way back from a mark that it picked up clean, and assuming the dog does as he has been directed and doesn't get into a pissing match with the hander, why would it be marked down? Are there other rules that might apply to support such handling? (unnecessary disturbance of cover)....handling on the return is probably not a risk I would take, but maybe some would. Is blowing a come in whistle considered handling (giving direction)?

Hey Julie it's in my original Post
Its page 21 section 10
It is right above where
I quoted the relevant language

Tobias
06-15-2020, 06:31 AM
Hey Julie it's in my original Post
Its page 21 section 10
It is right above where
I quoted the relevant language


Thanks Tigerfan. The rule seems pretty cut and dry. Still don't know why anyone would try to handle their dog on the way back and risk refusals on the given commands. What about a come in whistle when the dog is approaching water or cover change/terrain that will lead it away from a direct line back?

paul young
06-15-2020, 10:47 AM
I think another consideration is that since the goal is to keep the dog from avoiding water on the return, as is common in a training setting, it is a form of training on the grounds, which is prohibited.

Page 20

SECTION 6. The Field Trial Committee shall select and designate the field trial grounds by reference to ascertainable boundaries and landmarks. These boundaries and landmarks shall be described on the premium list. No competing dog shall be trained on the field trial ground as described from 24 hours prior to the start if the first stake, until the trial is concluded. (emphasis mine) -Paul

rboudet
06-15-2020, 12:18 PM
I have watched it happen often and have never dropped a dog because a handler cast the dog towards the water on a return. Now, I have told a handler that "that was enough", we aren't training. You see it all the time in ALL stakes. Dog picks up bird and on the return the handler is blowing a come in while casting dog into water or away from the next line to the bird.

rboudet
06-15-2020, 12:19 PM
I think another consideration is that since the goal is to keep the dog from avoiding water on the return, as is common in a training setting, it is a form of training on the grounds, which is prohibited.

Page 20

SECTION 6. The Field Trial Committee shall select and designate the field trial grounds by reference to ascertainable boundaries and landmarks. These boundaries and landmarks shall be described on the premium list. No competing dog shall be trained on the field trial ground as described from 24 hours prior to the start if the first stake, until the trial is concluded. (emphasis mine) -Paul

If you need to resort to dropping dogs on things like that, you don't have enough test set-up.

Daren Galloway
06-15-2020, 12:35 PM
If you need to resort to dropping dogs on things like that, you don't have enough test set-up.

Absolutely

paul young
06-15-2020, 12:56 PM
And if someone feels the need to resort to handling on the way back, you probably should have spent the weekend training instead of running the dog in a Derby.

The dog is not being dropped; the handler is being dropped. Avoiding water on the return is a Minor fault. it probably wouldn't even be considered in the final evaluation.

If you ever run across someone who has run a Derby in which I was one of the judges, I don't think you will hear that the tests were not stiff enough.

Done with this thread.

Doug Main
06-15-2020, 08:45 PM
Do all you guys that consider it handling on a mark also drop all the derby dogs whose handler blows a come-in whistle after the dog picks up the bird? Just trying to understand.

Mike W.
06-15-2020, 09:45 PM
I wise man once said "You can drop me for it today, but you won't drop me tomorrow"

Tobias
06-16-2020, 06:41 AM
I never said that, just answered your question about where the rule about handling in a derby was.. Sorry— I wasn’t inferring that you would drop a dog for said handle, just that it seems crazy someone would.

Daren Galloway
06-16-2020, 08:13 AM
. just that it seems crazy someone would.

Sure would be.

EdA
06-16-2020, 09:56 AM
Here is what the rules say about return: there is no provision in the rules either implied or stated about return other than the bold text. If you choose to penalize a dog on it’s return the only support you have in the rules is style. I would argue that handling on the return beyond a come in whistle and a cast does not make for a pleasing performance. In a Derby I would instruct a handler who insisted that his dog returns by water by stopping and casting the dog repeatedly that I was not judging the dogs route of return but that I was keeping notes on anything beyond a reasonably fast return. I don’t think this would ever be an issue in an all age stake.

2. The function of a Non-Slip Retriever is to seek and retrieve “fallen’’ game when ordered to do so. He should sit quietly on line or in the blind, walk at heel, or assume any station designated by his handler until sent to retrieve. When ordered, a dog should retrieve quickly and briskly without unduly disturbing too much ground, and should deliver tenderly to hand. He should then await further orders.


5. Poor style, including a disinterested attitude, a slow or reluctant departure, quest for game, or return with it.


(7) Style is apparent in every movement of a dog and throughout his entire performance at trials, for example: by the gaiety of his manner in approaching the line, by his alertness on-line, by his eagerness and speed on retrieves, by his water-entry, by his pick-up of birds and by his return with them. Style makes for a pleasing performance; together with ability to mark, they constitute the most important factors for placings in Derby Stakes.
In all stakes, in respect to “style,’’ a desired performance includes: (a) an alert and obedient attitude, (b) a fast-determined departure, both on land and into the water, (c) an aggressive search for the “fall,’’ (d) A prompt pick-up (e) a reasonably fast return. Dogs may be credited for outstanding and brilliant exhibitions of style, or they may be penalized for deficiencies in style — the severity of the penalty ranging from a minor demerit, to elimination from the stake in extreme cases.

EdA
06-16-2020, 10:10 AM
Seems like running the back on a return is also problematic, serious fault...or is it a better option than handling on the return?

Seems to me that handling back is a better solution for the dog, as he does not get in his head that running the bank is an option!
Those issues should be addressed in training not in competition. My role as a judge is to evaluate the relative performances of the dogs which, in my opinion, does not include the route of return but stopping the dog and handling on it’s return makes for a relatively less than pleasing performance.

swampcollielover
06-16-2020, 10:29 AM
EdA...let me see if I understand your comment. Your saying that as a judge you evaluate the relative performances of the dogs, which for you, would not include a dog running the bank on the return on a blind. On the other hand, if a dog is 'handled' on the return, that does impact to some degree the overall performance of that dog.

Ted Shih
06-16-2020, 10:41 AM
I do not view handling on the return from a mark as a cause for Mandatory Elimination. In some instances, I might view it as smart handling. For example, imagine a very tight double. On the return from mark 1, I might move to one or another side of the mat, to encourage a return that left the line to the memory bird open. No issue to me. Or a handler might cast arm out and blow come in whistle to encourage water return. Again no issue to me. Of course, this handler stopped the dog, then cast. Bigger deal - but as Ed remarked - an issue of style. It is not cause for mandatory elimination to me because - as Marc mentioned - it is handling on a return from a mark, not handling on the retrieve of the mark

swampcollielover
06-16-2020, 11:45 AM
Ted,
That helps...thanks

tigerfan
06-16-2020, 02:02 PM
Thanks Tigerfan. The rule seems pretty cut and dry. Still don't know why anyone would try to handle their dog on the way back and risk refusals on the given commands. What about a come in whistle when the dog is approaching water or cover change/terrain that will lead it away from a direct line back?

Off the top of my head I can think of a couple of reasons to Julie
The Handler may want to handle them in order to not burn up the line on the memory bird in a tight test
He also may want to reinforce and encourage the watery attitude in a young dog

tigerfan
06-16-2020, 02:11 PM
EdA...let me see if I understand your comment. Your saying that as a judge you evaluate the relative performances of the dogs, which for you, would not include a dog running the bank on the return on a blind. On the other hand, if a dog is 'handled' on the return, that does impact to some degree the overall performance of that dog.

Swampy ,There are no blinds in a Derby;

......."Derby stake tests are limited to marked retrieves and dogs which are handled on such retrieves shall be eliminated from competition" Page 21 Section 10

FYI: it is not unheard of for judges to instruct you to try to bring your dog back dry on a water blind in all age Stakes.
2 reasons for that are to save time and also to make it fairer for later running dogs by keeping the blind corridor shoreline less scented up from drag back

In light of the above facts and that in all aged Stakes dogs are tested on natural and trained abilities; it seems a little bit arbitrary and capricious to penalize a derby dog whose only supposed to be tested on natural abilities

EdA
06-16-2020, 06:22 PM
EdA...let me see if I understand your comment. Your saying that as a judge you evaluate the relative performances of the dogs, which for you, would not include a dog running the bank on the return on a blind. On the other hand, if a dog is 'handled' on the return, that does impact to some degree the overall performance of that dog.
As I stated in my previous post there is nothing in the rules that would invoke a penalty for a dog returning from a water mark by land. I have no problem with the handler blowing a come in whistle with a cast toward the water but stopping and handling the dog is less than a pleasing performance and why risk it. What if the dog 1) doesn’t stop 2) stops but doesn’t take the cast 3) spits the bird out? The weekend is not for training, I would not drop a dog whose handler chose to handle on the return but it would certainly invoke some type of penalty depending on how ugly those attempts were. No such penalty would occur because the dog simply returned to it’s handler by land in a relatively quick and efficient manner.

here are things on the return that should be noted and appropriate penalty(s) in the form of deductions for lack of style
1) a slow pickup and lackadaisical return
2) repeatedly dropping the bird to readjust the hold in the absence of mitigating circumstances
3) stopping to pee and/or poop particularly offensive when done multiple times
4) avoiding returning directly to the handler, parading with the bird

Tobias
06-16-2020, 06:54 PM
Thanks Tigerfan, EdA and Ted for your input on this question. Certainly has been a nice discussion on the subject, as well as informative.

paul young
06-16-2020, 09:18 PM
Thank you, Ed and Ted for your input. You always have my ear on all things related to judging.

It appears that I was in the wrong on this topic. -Paul

06-18-2020, 06:50 PM
I wouldn’t run a dog in a derby that doesn’t clearly understand what being honest in the water is. As a judge I quit grading the dog once he picks up the bird. In my opinion it’s a judgement call. I think if it’s a short whistle u make an effort the dog doesn’t comply and comes back relatively quickly I would let it slide. However if ur sitting out there for 5 minutes with a bunch of cast and wasting a lot of time I’d prob drop u. It also depends on the rest of the fields performance. I prob wouldn’t try to handle if he decides to cheat on the way home but also wouldn’t enter another derby until I was confident I got the problem solved. If ever. Not a huge fan of running a bunch of derbies or Q’s for that matter with young dogs. Some people are into that my goal is to make competitive all age dogs.

minnducker
06-18-2020, 07:31 PM
The actual original question was, "If I were to whistle stop him, cast, and make him get in the water so he is honest on the way back..would that be frowned upon by the judges?". To make sure the less experienced people aren't confused by some of the answers, the answer to your question is "Your dog would be dropped from the derby stake." What you are describing is definitely a "handle" by any definition, and the rule book is crystal clear that if you "handle" in a derby, you must be dropped.
Some of the answers describe actions by the handler unlike what you described, that they choose to not call a "handle", other judges might disagree, oh well. But deifinitely, your question describes what can only be judged as a handle.

drunkenpoacher
06-18-2020, 08:01 PM
The actual original question was, "If I were to whistle stop him, cast, and make him get in the water so he is honest on the way back..would that be frowned upon by the judges?". To make sure the less experienced people aren't confused by some of the answers, the answer to your question is "Your dog would be dropped from the derby stake." What you are describing is definitely a "handle" by any definition, and the rule book is crystal clear that if you "handle" in a derby, you must be dropped.
Some of the answers describe actions by the handler unlike what you described, that they choose to not call a "handle", other judges might disagree, oh well. But deifinitely, your question describes what can only be judged as a handle.

Great answer

EdA
06-18-2020, 08:17 PM
The actual original question was, "If I were to whistle stop him, cast, and make him get in the water so he is honest on the way back..would that be frowned upon by the judges?". To make sure the less experienced people aren't confused by some of the answers, the answer to your question is "Your dog would be dropped from the derby stake." What you are describing is definitely a "handle" by any definition, and the rule book is crystal clear that if you "handle" in a derby, you must be dropped.
Some of the answers describe actions by the handler unlike what you described, that they choose to not call a "handle", other judges might disagree, oh well. But deifinitely, your question describes what can only be judged as a handle.
The rule was written when young dogs were learning to handle and there were instances of Derby placements by dogs who handled on a mark which is contrary to the spirit of the Derby stake’s intention. The rule is about handling to a mark not handling on the return with a mark. There is no provision in the rules to support how that should be judged beyond what has been posted by more than one person. So the answer to the OP’s question is far from “crystal clear” but as I stated previously, why would you stop the dog and handle it on it’s return.

pheona
06-18-2020, 09:22 PM
Do not handle. This is a test not training session. Always train with a collar on. Let's say he marked the bird perfectly.. now with you handling is it going to wipe out memory of next bird. Let's go further into this. What if you handle and the dog refuses. What you do. Spend 10 minutes trying to get your dog into the water. The judges are on time table. They usually have derby along with a open or mature assignment. Now your dog is dropped.

tigerfan
06-18-2020, 11:35 PM
The actual original question was, "If I were to whistle stop him, cast, and make him get in the water so he is honest on the way back..would that be frowned upon by the judges?". To make sure the less experienced people aren't confused by some of the answers, the answer to your question is "Your dog would be dropped from the derby stake." What you are describing is definitely a "handle" by any definition, and the rule book is crystal clear that if you "handle" in a derby, you must be dropped.
Some of the answers describe actions by the handler unlike what you described, that they choose to not call a "handle", other judges might disagree, oh well. But deifinitely, your question describes what can only be judged as a handle.
Please give us the specific language in the rule book that supports your contention.
So if I come to the line for a Derby series with a long memory bird up the middle and a short flyer on the left. I set my dog up on my left and he fixates on the short flyer.
So I handle my dog from my left side to the right to attempt to get him to stop fixating on the flyer and help him to see the long bird.
Do I get dropped for handling him?
How about if my dog is returning with a bird and I notice a water moccasin, fire ant mound, poison ivy, thorny locust etc on his path back. If I handle him away from the path of the water moccasin etc, do I get dropped for that handle?

tigerfan
06-18-2020, 11:37 PM
Great answer
Really?
What part of the rule book do you believe supports your contention?

minnducker
06-19-2020, 06:56 AM
A couple responses. Tigerfan, this info from an earlier response to you. "Derby stake tests are limited to marked retrieves and dogs which are handled on such retrieves shall be eliminated from competition" Page 21 Section 10. Seems pretty clear. The rule book DOESN"T say, handle on the way to a mark, and it DOESN"T say you can handle on the way back from a mark. Those comments are opinions, but aren't in the rule book. It says what it says, our dog will be eliminated if you "handle on" the retrieve of a mark. If the intention was to make it OK to handle on the way back from a mark, I'm sure the rule book would so state. Also consider, I trained a dog, for a short time, who had a mouth issue with ducks. If the dog was in cover where he couldn't be sen, he would crush the duck completely. If he was in the open or swimming in open water, no problem. If a handler did what the questioner describes, would the judge know why the handler decided to handle the dog?

EdA
06-19-2020, 07:26 AM
A couple responses. Tigerfan, this info from an earlier response to you. "Derby stake tests are limited to marked retrieves and dogs which are handled on such retrieves shall be eliminated from competition" Those comments are opinions, but aren't in the rule book. It says what it says, our dog will be eliminated if you "handle on" the retrieve of a mark. If the intention was to make it OK to handle on the way back from a mark, I'm sure the rule book would so state.

SECTION 10. Derby stake tests are limited to marked retrieves and dogs which are handled on such retrieves shall be eliminated from competition.

When the rule was written no one considered handling on a mark to include handling on the return from a mark. You can accept that as opinion if you wish. The intent for the Derby stake is that it be judged on marking therefore handling on a mark constitutes not marking. This was understood for 40-50 years until a few judges awarded placements to dogs who handled on marks in the Derby hence the rule.

I’ll not invest further equity in the discussion because you have already made up your mind albeit erroneously. If you judge a Derby and drop a dog for handling on the return your reason must be something other than a mandatory elimination for handling on a mark. To use that as justification is a misinterpretation of the rule.

drunkenpoacher
06-19-2020, 07:46 AM
"whistle stop him, cast, and make him get in the water so he is honest on the way back"
I suspect most of us do this in training but how many do it, or recommend it, on the return from a mark in any stake at a field trial?

Let's assume the trial grounds are free of rattle snakes, tar pits, land mines or similar hazards.

minnducker
06-19-2020, 08:22 AM
Rules are proposed, written down, discussed and reviewed and then finally approved. I don’t agree that it’s a good idea to imagine you can read the minds of those involved, and decide they really meant something other than what is written in the rule book after going through this process.

EdA
06-19-2020, 09:31 AM
Rules are proposed, written down, discussed and reviewed and then finally approved. I don’t agree that it’s a good idea to imagine you can read the minds of those involved, and decide they really meant something other than what is written in the rule book after going through this process.
Since I was present at the RAC meeting when the rule proposal was written and voted as a representative of my club no imagination on my part is necessary, just a slightly above average memory.

Thomas Running
06-19-2020, 09:51 AM
I will be judging 2 quals and a derby in the next couple of weeks. Judging derby dogs I give the dogs some slack. If 2 dogs had identical performances on all marks, and one came strait back from a water mark, and the other cheated the shore, I MAY give the nod to the one that came strait back. I do look at other style points that also could come into play. In handling on a return, I do not think it is acceptable in a derby. As was stated this is not time to train your dog. In all stakes, quals and all age, I know the difference between a come in whistle with a hand out and a sit whistle and a handle. If you blow a sit whistle I start judging and you dog better take the cast.

Ted Shih
06-19-2020, 01:42 PM
I remember the derby where the judges placed a dog that handled first and the uproar that followed. Like Ed, I remember the discussions concerning the Rule Change. And I concur with Ed. No one was concerned about “handling” on the return.

For those of you arguing that a mark must incorporate a return, I suggest you perform a word search of the Rule Book.


First, there is no mention of the “return” in the Rule Book’s discussion of “marking.”


Of course, the Rule Book states “Accurate marking, or memory of “falls’’ is of paramount importance.” RB 50. Most people eliminate the “memory of falls” and simply say “Accurate marking is of paramount importance.” But, the Rule Book clearly considers “memory of falls” to be synonymous with “accurate marking.” In the same vein, the Rule Book notes that the “Ability to “mark’’ does not necessarily imply “pin-pointing the fall.’’ RB 50. Again, a reference to the dog’s ability to remember the fall.


If you look at pages 50-51 - in which the Rule Book discusses the evaluation of “marking” - you will find references to a dog’s ability to find a bird, not to its return with a bird.


Second, when the Rule Book refers to the “return” it is in the context of Style, see RB 53, or “Control,” see RB 54.


Third, it would be incongruous for the Rule Book to place a higher standard of obedience on a derby dog than an All Age Dog. The Rule Book is clear that the emphasis in the Derby is on natural abilities, not trained ones. RB 49-50.

In this vein,
• Derby Stakes are limited to “marked retrieves.” RB 21
• Derby dogs are not required to “honor.” RB 28-29
• Derby dogs may be taken to line “on lead.” RB 29
• Only “reasonable” steadiness is required of derby dogs. RB 54
• Controlled breaks are not cause for elimination in the derby. RB 46


Why would you impose a higher standard on a derby dog than an All Age Dog?


Finally, I think some of you are too quick to proscribe the described conduct as a SERIOUS FAULT.


If you are advocating for the MANDATORY ELIMINATION of a dog for being handled on its return, you are advocating for that conduct to be considered a SERIOUS FAULT. By that I mean, regardless of the circumstances, when the dog engages in that conduct, it must be eliminated. PERIOD.


I am loathe to consider any conduct to be a SERIOUS FAULT other than that behavior specifically described in the Rule Book.

drunkenpoacher
06-19-2020, 09:46 PM
I will be judging 2 quals and a derby in the next couple of weeks. Judging derby dogs I give the dogs some slack. If 2 dogs had identical performances on all marks, and one came strait back from a water mark, and the other cheated the shore, I MAY give the nod to the one that came strait back. I do look at other style points that also could come into play. In handling on a return, I do not think it is acceptable in a derby. As was stated this is not time to train your dog. In all stakes, quals and all age, I know the difference between a come in whistle with a hand out and a sit whistle and a handle. If you blow a sit whistle I start judging and you dog better take the cast.

So I am running my dog in one of your upcoming derbies. Going into the last series my dog has stepped on every mark and did it with style. Half a dozen other dogs have done well but each had a few minor faults and some short hunts.
In the last series my dog again steps on the first mark and then the second. He is returning with the last bird and starts to veer off to the right, avoiding water. I whistle, he ignores it. I whistle again LOUDER, he stops, slowly. I give him a left cast, he refuses and continues his return avoiding water. I whistle, he stops, I let him sweat a few seconds then cast left and give a verbal over, he takes it just like we are doing swim by. Once back on "line" I give a come in whistle which he obeys. The rest of the dogs do very well but all cheat water on the return with last mark and none of the handlers try to stop them.
My question is; Would the word "idiot" be written on my page in your notes?

minnducker
06-20-2020, 12:17 AM
Quoting from the rule book: “Derby stake tests are limited to marked retrieves and dogs which are handled on such retrieves shall be eliminated from competition.” Note that the rule book doesn’t say handling on a mark, and it doesn’t say handling on the way to a mark, it says handling on RETRIEVES. A dog is in the process of a RETRIEVE from when it leaves the handler’s side, until it delivers the bird. So handling the dog on the way back is clearly handling on a RETRIEVE. I’m not saying this is fair or unfair, or a good or bad rule, but it is a rule. Maybe it should be changed. I respectfully can't rationalize not eliminating a dog who is handled in a RETRIEVE when you read the rule book. I'm done, thanks.

tigerfan
06-20-2020, 10:24 AM
A couple responses. Tigerfan, this info from an earlier response to you.You appear to have reading comprehension issues. Both as to the rulebook as well as to what has been posted in this thread. Case in point; Page 21 Section 10 of the rulebook was not info posted in a response TO me. In reality it was originally posted by me in a response to others "Derby stake tests are limited to marked retrieves and dogs which are handled on such retrieves shall be eliminated from competition" Page 21 Section 10. Seems pretty clear It also seems clear to me. The rule book distinguishes between marked retrieves and blind retrieves. In doing so it makes it clear that a blind retrieve is prohibited in Derbies. use factors to make it highly unlikely to be "lined" or retrieved without help from the handler giving directions to the dog to arrive at the unknown location of the bird For all other stakes besides the Derby it goes so far as to delineate that a handle to the bird is not an eliminating factor and could actually be superior to a undisciplined gorilla hunt. Only for the Derby does it require elimination for a dog which needs handling assistance to find the bird on such "marked retrieves" The rule book DOESN"T say, handle on the way to a mark, and it DOESN"T say you can handle on the way back from a mark. Those comments are opinions, but aren't in the rule book. It says what it says Yes it does!!! our dog will be eliminated if you "handle on" the retrieve of a mark. I agree; but believe you are now contradicting yourself If the intention was to make it OK to handle on the way back from a mark, I'm sure the rule book would so state.Im sure the rule book would be quite long and confusing if it tried to specifically address every possible eventuality Also consider, I trained a dog, for a short time, who had a mouth issue with ducks. If the dog was in cover where he couldn't be sen, he would crush the duck completely. If he was in the open or swimming in open water, no problem. If a handler did what the questioner describes, would the judge know why the handler decided to handle the dog? My comments In red
I don't understand the logic or relevance of the rest of your post regarding the bird crusher or the Judges knowing why a handler handles a dog.
My only comments would be I wouldn't run a dog with bird crushing tendency in cover, and a judge can only judge what he sees and shouldn't concern themselves with why a handler does what he does
.

tigerfan
06-20-2020, 10:56 AM
Let's assume the trial grounds are free of rattle snakes, tar pits, land mines or similar hazards.
That is a pretty poor assumption.Top Priorities of judges and contestants should include fair and safe grounds
I don't believe I have ever seen any FT grounds that was pristine, and devoid of other distracting wildlife or game birds and all potential hazards such as thorns, snakes, badgers, fire ant mounds sand spurs, wasps, goat heads etc.

tigerfan
06-20-2020, 11:07 AM
. I respectfully can't rationalize not eliminating a dog who is handled in a RETRIEVE when you read the rule book. I'm done, thanks.
Let me try to give you another example, that I have seen often
In this case the dog goes out and makes the retrieve and is returning with a wing covering its eyes and making it so it can't find its way back to the line.
It blindly is heading towards a road or other danger. The rules state that once the dog has made the retrieve it should not drop the bird, other than to reposition it; and not to any excess
The dog is doing its best to be a good dog and not drop the bird as it was trained.
The handler starts blowing his whistle to help the dog avoid getting hurt and find its way back to the line from the retrieve
You gonna drop this dog for his "handle"??

tigerfan
06-20-2020, 11:14 AM
So I am running my dog in one of your upcoming derbies. Going into the last series my dog has stepped on every mark and did it with style. Half a dozen other dogs have done well but each had a few minor faults and some short hunts.
In the last series my dog again steps on the first mark and then the second. He is returning with the last bird and starts to veer off to the right, avoiding water. I whistle, he ignores it. I whistle again LOUDER, he stops, slowly. I give him a left cast, he refuses and continues his return avoiding water. I whistle, he stops, I let him sweat a few seconds then cast left and give a verbal over, he takes it just like we are doing swim by. Once back on "line" I give a come in whistle which he obeys. The rest of the dogs do very well but all cheat water on the return with last mark and none of the handlers try to stop them.
My question is; Would the word "idiot" be written on my page in your notes?

I would not be surprised if that word made its way onto your page.

I also wouldn't be surprised if words akin to "Nice Dog" & "Bad Handler" joined that word after the last series :)

drunkenpoacher
06-20-2020, 12:31 PM
So I am running my dog in one of your upcoming derbies. Going into the last series my dog has stepped on every mark and did it with style. Half a dozen other dogs have done well but each had a few minor faults and some short hunts.
In the last series my dog again steps on the first mark and then the second. He is returning with the last bird and starts to veer off to the right, avoiding water. I whistle, he ignores it. I whistle again LOUDER, he stops, slowly. I give him a left cast, he refuses and continues his return avoiding water. I whistle, he stops, I let him sweat a few seconds then cast left and give a verbal over, he takes it just like we are doing swim by. Once back on "line" I give a come in whistle which he obeys. The rest of the dogs do very well but all cheat water on the return with last mark and none of the handlers try to stop them.
My question is; Would the word "idiot" be written on my page in your notes?

I would not be surprised if that word made its way onto your page.

I also wouldn't be surprised if words akin to "Nice Dog" & "Bad Handler" joined that word after the last series https://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif
We are trying to have a conversation here tiger king.
You hurtful and childish comments contribute nothing other than to maintain your reputation as RTF’s most obnoxious member and reveal your lack of class.
I do envy your keen eyesight though. Being able to see badger holes, fire ants, snakes and such from the line and handle a dog around them is impressive.

Malcolm
06-22-2020, 05:24 PM
No! The return is not under judgement! I personally handle on returns, if i think my next line out is being compromised. It's done in every major stake from all good handlers! (Smart handling)
I hate to see judges focused on trained ability instead of natural abilities. Especially in Derbies! It's killing the sport! CHEATING TEST'S DON'T DETERMINE THE BEST MARKER!

Kyle B
06-23-2020, 10:42 AM
Good discussion. Can add a few people to my "Do not run under list".

Tobias
06-23-2020, 11:04 AM
No! The return is not under judgement! I personally handle on returns, if i think my next line out is being compromised. It's done in every major stake from all good handlers! (Smart handling)
I hate to see judges focused on trained ability instead of natural abilities. Especially in Derbies! It's killing the sport! CHEATING TEST'S DON'T DETERMINE THE BEST MARKER!

You are talking specifically about the line the dog takes on the return and not other things? Basic obedience? Stopping to mark every 10 yds when approaching the line? repeated dropping the bird? Seems there are things that could be judged on the return to the handler?

drunkenpoacher
06-23-2020, 11:29 AM
No! The return is not under judgement! I personally handle on returns, if i think my next line out is being compromised. It's done in every major stake from all good handlers! (Smart handling)
I hate to see judges focused on trained ability instead of natural abilities. Especially in Derbies! It's killing the sport! CHEATING TEST'S DON'T DETERMINE THE BEST MARKER!

You are talking specifically about the line the dog takes on the return and not other things? Basic obedience? Stopping to mark every 10 yds when approaching the line? repeated dropping the bird? Seems there are things that could be judged on the return to the handler?
“ dogs should be considered under judgment from the time they are called to come to the line until they have left the line and are back of all the judges and on leash.”

Northrup Larson
06-30-2020, 08:30 AM
It seems to me as a judge In the derby the goal is to find the best marker that weekend, not to drop dogs Because they ran the bank on the way to the Bird or on the way back .if you read the blue book put together by some of the best
Judges it will tell u that . Your job as judge is to
Setup a test that if a dog cheats the water or cover it puts him away from the mark. If the dog
Marks the bird in the derby & cheats that is your
Fault as a judge not the dog. & as for handling
on the way back I for one could care less, now
If it becomes Excessive & ugly that is a different
Story

Mike W.
06-30-2020, 09:57 AM
The book also talks about "courage". You can easily invoke that as a reason to deal with running around the water. Page 52, #5.

EdA
07-01-2020, 07:42 PM
The book also talks about "courage". You can easily invoke that as a reason to deal with running around the water. Page 52, #5.
i disagree, courage implies not avoiding unpleasant conditions in the quest for a bird which has nothing to do with returning with a bird. The OP’s question about handling on the return to avoid the dog not returning by water on a water related mark does not involve courage.

paul young
07-02-2020, 07:41 AM
No! The return is not under judgement! I personally handle on returns, if i think my next line out is being compromised. It's done in every major stake from all good handlers! (Smart handling)
I hate to see judges focused on trained ability instead of natural abilities. Especially in Derbies! It's killing the sport! CHEATING TEST'S DON'T DETERMINE THE BEST MARKER!

Where does the rule book support this? Page, Section and Paragraph, please. -Paul

Mike W.
07-02-2020, 09:33 AM
Ed, I was talking about running around water to the bird, in response to NL's post

Malcolm
07-09-2020, 02:07 PM
Correct. The line back has nothing to do with your other questions. They all are separate infractions that can increase from minor - major.

Wayne Nissen
07-09-2020, 02:10 PM
Quoting from the rule book: “Derby stake tests are limited to marked retrieves and dogs which are handled on such retrieves shall be eliminated from competition.” Note that the rule book doesn’t say handling on a mark, and it doesn’t say handling on the way to a mark, it says handling on RETRIEVES. A dog is in the process of a RETRIEVE from when it leaves the handler’s side, until it delivers the bird. So handling the dog on the way back is clearly handling on a RETRIEVE. I’m not saying this is fair or unfair, or a good or bad rule, but it is a rule. Maybe it should be changed. I respectfully can't rationalize not eliminating a dog who is handled in a RETRIEVE when you read the rule book. I'm done, thanks.

I sincerely hope you don't judge my upcoming derby dog or my all age dogs.

Malcolm
07-09-2020, 02:32 PM
Where does the rule book support this? Page, Section and Paragraph, please. -Paul
Where doesn't it support! This a common sense issue, hence the rule book is designed to give the judges leeway.
A lot of people clearly aren't ready to hold the book! My advice would be to train with a knowledgeable Ft group and have this discussion during the setup.
You will hopefully gain an understanding.

Malcolm
07-09-2020, 02:33 PM
Wayne, I hear you! WTH! Do any of them actually run field trials?????

labsforme
07-10-2020, 07:34 AM
The dog IS under judgement until done and behind the judges. I don't worry about the return unless the handler makes it a huge issue which the dog ignores. If cheating coming back that's the handlers problem to take care of in training.

Jeff G

paul young
07-13-2020, 10:01 PM
Where doesn't it support! This a common sense issue, hence the rule book is designed to give the judges leeway.
A lot of people clearly aren't ready to hold the book! My advice would be to train with a knowledgeable Ft group and have this discussion during the setup.
You will hopefully gain an understanding.

Malcom said: "No! The return is not under judgement!"

You are dead wrong on this subject. There are six faults that can only be committed during the return.

Minor fault number one, listed below, is the fault that was under discussion at the beginning of the thread. It's only a minor fault. No big deal. Certainly not a big deal in the Derby. Go home and address it in training.

I have submitted a rule change request to the RAC. Strike the word "on" and replace it with the word "to" within Serious fault 17. We'll see if it goes anywhere.

If you truly believe the return is not to be judged, perhaps it is you who is not ready to hold the book. -Paul

Serious faults:

5. “Switching birds,’’ i.e., giving up after a hunt in the area of the fall for one bird and going to and hunting “the area’’ of another “fall,’’ or dropping the bird being retrieved, and picking up another.

10. “Hard-mouth,’’ or badly damaging a bird, which, in the opinion of the Judges, was caused solely by the dog without justification — mandatory elimination under the “STANDARD.’’
8. Retrieving a decoy, i.e., returning to land with it — mandatory elimination under the “STANDARD.’’

Moderate faults:

5. Poor style, including a disinterested attitude, a slow or reluctant departure, quest for game, or return with it.

Minor faults:

1. Going out of its way by land, to an excessive degree, on the return from a water retrieve.
4. Slow pick-up of a dead bird (except when fluttering or badly shot-up); dropping bird; handling game in a sloppy manner.
11. Roughness with game.

Malcolm
07-17-2020, 11:15 AM
Malcom said: "No! The return is not under judgement!"

You are dead wrong on this subject. There are six faults that can only be committed during the return.

Minor fault number one, listed below, is the fault that was under discussion at the beginning of the thread. It's only a minor fault. No big deal. Certainly not a big deal in the Derby. Go home and address it in training.

I have submitted a rule change request to the RAC. Strike the word "on" and replace it with the word "to" within Serious fault 17. We'll see if it goes anywhere.

If you truly believe the return is not to be judged, perhaps it is you who is not ready to hold the book. -Paul

Serious faults:

5. “Switching birds,’’ i.e., giving up after a hunt in the area of the fall for one bird and going to and hunting “the area’’ of another “fall,’’ or dropping the bird being retrieved, and picking up another.

10. “Hard-mouth,’’ or badly damaging a bird, which, in the opinion of the Judges, was caused solely by the dog without justification — mandatory elimination under the “STANDARD.’’
8. Retrieving a decoy, i.e., returning to land with it — mandatory elimination under the “STANDARD.’’

Moderate faults:

5. Poor style, including a disinterested attitude, a slow or reluctant departure, quest for game, or return with it.

Minor faults:

1. Going out of its way by land, to an excessive degree, on the return from a water retrieve.
4. Slow pick-up of a dead bird (except when fluttering or badly shot-up); dropping bird; handling game in a sloppy manner.
11. Roughness with game.

Paul - I've been running FT's, training my own dogs, and Judging Ft's for close 20 years. I've never seen you walk to the line at a FT. We are looking for Natural ability, not trained ability in a Derby!
Everything you have pointed out is always under judgement. You are making assumptions that these things happened. I don't recall these being mentioned in the thread.
You have to know how to apply the rules! Handling on the return is done for many reasons, none having to do with the dog needing assistance to find the bird! That's the intent of the rule! I'm asked to judge multiple times a year, because I know how to set up tests and judge dogs "fairly".
Its an evaluation of the total dog, not an elimination event! The Dog knowing where the bird is (Marking) takes precedent! The placements will sort themselves out. Allowing people to play is how they learn what is expected, not being dropped for a chicken shit reasons.
This is how I judge and I believe others in the sport like to be judged!

paul young
07-17-2020, 01:11 PM
I don't know why you chose to make this so personal, but you have. Even going so far as to suggest I am not fit to judge, never ran a dog in a trial, etc. Allow me to enlighten you.


Paul - I've been running FT's, training my own dogs, and Judging Ft's for close 20 years. 29 years for me. I've never seen you walk to the line at a FT. That's interesting. Your home club used to be Colonial. My dog, Canterbury's Daisy May won the Q at the Colonial spring trial, handled by me, in 1998. Another of my dogs, Northstar's Canadian Beauty, won the Q at Shrewsbury, also handled by me, in 2008. Both had other placements and Jam's. My first FT judging assignment was in 2002, for Westchester. 18 years ago. We are looking for Natural ability, not trained ability in a Derby!
Everything you have pointed out is always under judgement. That is true. You are making assumptions that these things happened. I never made those assumptions. You stated the return was not under judgement. I pointed out that there were many different faults that could only be committed during the return from a retrieve in order to support my position that the return was, indeed, under judgement. I don't recall these being mentioned in the thread. They were not, in this, you are correct. What was under discussion was handling a Derby dog on the return from a marked retrieve in order to prevent it from avoiding water. This is a minor fault and would not even be considered by me when placing the dogs which finished the trial. Why anyone would want to potentially get into a battle with a dog in a situation where there is no possibility of correction is beyond me.
You have to know how to apply the rules! I do. Handling on the return is done for many reasons, none having to do with the dog needing assistance to find the bird! That's the intent of the rule! I'm asked to judge multiple times a year, because I know how to set up tests and judge dogs "fairly". I like to think that I am asked to judge by the various clubs for the same reasons.
Its an evaluation of the total dog, not an elimination event! The Dog knowing where the bird is (Marking) takes precedent! The placements will sort themselves out. Allowing people to play is how they learn what is expected, not being dropped for a chicken shit reasons.
This is how I judge and I believe others in the sport like to be judged!

Malcom, I remember judging a Q in a trial where you were judging Derby. There were only 5 dogs in the Derby. After 2 series all 5 were eliminated. Strangely enough, only one name appears in the Judges Directory for that trial and it is not you. However, I wonder if those folks felt that you "know how to set up tests and judge dogs "fairly"? Do you feel you Allowed people to play and learn what is expected on that day?

There's nothing to be gained for continuing this dialog.

Hopefully a poorly written portion of the rulebook will be revised, as I have requested. Serious faults, in my opinion, should not require judges to interpret anything. -Paul

drunkenpoacher
07-17-2020, 01:54 PM
a poorly written portion of the rulebook

That kind of blasphemous talk could incite a riot.

captain2560
07-27-2020, 04:30 PM
can we all agree to use common sense? Handling in the derby is intended to eliminate a dog that cannot find the bird without assistance. Even supreme court justices have to consider the intent of a law or rule as the case may be. If all we can do is argue a part of a rule and not see the intent of the rule we might as well just give the job to a law clerk. We all know derby dogs are highly trained animals for their age. Trying to maintain that standard as long as it is not ugly or intensive should not be grounds for elimination. In the end it may effect the dogs total performance. If the rule book does not allow for interpretation and common sense our sport is in trouble.

Chris Atkinson
07-28-2020, 09:50 AM
can we all agree to use common sense? Handling in the derby is intended to eliminate a dog that cannot find the bird without assistance. Even supreme court justices have to consider the intent of a law or rule as the case may be. If all we can do is argue a part of a rule and not see the intent of the rule we might as well just give the job to a law clerk. We all know derby dogs are highly trained animals for their age. Trying to maintain that standard as long as it is not ugly or intensive should not be grounds for elimination. In the end it may effect the dogs total performance. If the rule book does not allow for interpretation and common sense our sport is in trouble.

Well done Brooks! I like this!

Good judging requires good judgement.

Chris