[john fallon]

When one accepts a judging assignment and signs the paper indicating they know and will judge strictly by the Rules etc.
Should Traditional embellishments then also be used , because historically they have become accepted without the benefit of a rule change?

 

[Gerard Rozas]

What the heck is a "Traditional embellishment"?

 

[john fallon]

An Unwritten Rule :wink:
john

 

[Steve Bean]

I voted 'no' only because I'm speaking of HT where relative work is not a major factor. There needs to be consistency in the rules, and leaving embellished rules open leads to very big discrepencies in tests, judgement, and passes when we are looking for a STANDARD.

 

[Kenneth Niles Bora]

An Unwritten Rule :wink:
john

How you get that? I think it is an old fashioned way to make something pretty. Maybe flowers on lapels and lace cuffs? :lol:



Traditional

\Tra*di"tion*al\, a. [Cf. F. traditionnel, LL. traditionalis.] 1. Of or pertaining to tradition; derived from tradition; communicated from ancestors to descendants by word only; transmitted from age to age without writing; as, traditional opinions; traditional customs; traditional expositions of the Scriptures.


embellishment

\Em*bel"lish*ment\, n. [Cf. F. embellissement.] 1. The act of adorning, or the state of being adorned; adornment.

In the selection of their ground, as well as in the embellishment of it. --Prescott.

2. That which adds beauty or elegance; ornament; decoration; as, pictorial embellishments.

The graces and embellishments of the exterior man. --I. Taylor.

 

[john fallon]

An Unwritten Rule :wink:
john

How you get that? I think it is an old fashioned way to make something pretty. Maybe flowers on lapels and lace cuffs? :lol:



Traditional

\Tra*di"tion*al\, a. [Cf. F. traditionnel, LL. traditionalis.] 1. Of or pertaining to tradition; derived from tradition; communicated from ancestors to descendants by word only; transmitted from age to age without writing; as, traditional opinions; traditional customs; traditional expositions of the Scriptures.


embellishment

\Em*bel"lish*ment\, n. [Cf. F. embellissement.] 1. The act of adorning, or the state of being adorned; adornment.

In the selection of their ground, as well as in the embellishment of it. --Prescott.

2. That which adds beauty or elegance; ornament; decoration; as, pictorial embellishments.

The graces and embellishments of the exterior man. --I. Taylor.

An Embellished Rule is one that, or is , perceiver to Enhance.*
A Traditional one, is one that is an inherited, established, or customary pattern of thought, action, or behavior,..................... without written instruction

Let's not split hairs
Add the two and you get ,Unwritten Rule pattern of thought, action, or behavior :wink:
john


* HEIGHTEN, INCREASE; especially : to increase or improve in value, quality, desirability, or attractiveness

 

[john fallon]

100% of those that voted so far think you should follow the Rules as written no matter no matter how Steeped in the Tradition of the Game you think you are :wink:
john

 

[Tim Carrion]

There is no way every eventual possible situation could ever be addressed in a single document. Common sense and traditions "shall and should" be part of judging.
2 prime examples: a handler that yells no instead of stopping his dog with a whistle and a handler that paints their dog for visibility. Not in the book put just not done.

Tim

 

[john fallon]

I voted no.
There is no way every eventual possible situation could ever be addressed in a single document. Common sense and traditions "shall and should" be part of judging.
2 prime examples: a handler that yells no instead of stopping his dog with a whistle and a handler that paints their dog for visibility. Not in the book put just not done.

Tim

The introductory paragraph of the "Standard" states:

"In order that trials may be conducted as uniformly as practicable, Standardization of objectives is essential, and, therefore, all Judges, Guns, Contestants and Officials, who have a part in conducting trials, should be familiar with and be governed, so far as possible, by the following Standard"

"So far as possible" grants an allowable margin of freedom or variation and gives you the all the leeway you could wish for.
But with a little effort on the part of the RAC, the desired uniformity could be markedly enhanced by clarification.
john

 

[john fallon]

Here is one thought, That is compatable with the subject matter of the "Rules" that Aren't Rules thread
to think about on this rainy Sunday morning.

john

 

[Jacob Hawkes]

I see great things to come in this thread.

 

[Cleo Watson]

I find it amusing that those of us who voted NO are listed by name and those who voted YES are not. Why? Doesn't matter to me as I stand behind my reply, just wondering.

 

[Brevard Arndt]

Who was it that said :"Judging field trials is an art and not a science." ?

 

[John Robinson]

John, despite the language in the rules remaining the same in the decades since they started, the field trial game has clearly evolved far beyond what I would consider "an ordinary day's shoot", and the amount of creeping you see with some dogs really pushes the envelope of what the founders would consider a "non-slip" retriever. Is this what you are talking about? Or are there some actual rules that you see ignored on a regular basis as part of the tradition of running a dog now that concern you?

Actually I don't think tradition is the proper term, I think if there is a discrepancy, it is that the sport has evolved away from the early non-slip tradition that was carried over from England almost a hundred years ago. I get your point though, are there generally accepted practices in running a dog today that seem to conflict with how the rules were originally written. The secret handshake deal that Mooser talks about.

My position is that it would either be impossible to write a rule book that was so complete a person new to the game could study it alone, without any other input, and compete in this game, or if it was done, I believe judge's hand would be so tied by the "book" they would in effect be more like a referee than a judge. IMO, it takes a lot of time in the saddle to become a good handler and a good judge. That doesn't mean you have to learn unwritten rules, but you do have to understand the nuances of the game.

John

 

[Bubba]

TV antenna fall off the DW again John?

That duct tape don't hold as good in the hot weather regards

Bubba

 

[paul young]

Hell, no!

whose traditions? yours? mine? Cotton Pershalls? pretty weird poll......-Paul

 

[Chris Atkinson]

Hell, no!

whose traditions? yours? mine? Cotton Pershalls? pretty weird poll......-Paul

It was from 2004. Somebody found it and bumped it up.

We all change our minds over time...or are allowed to.

Chris

 

[john fallon]

John, despite the language in the rules remaining the same in the decades since they started, the field trial game has clearly evolved far beyond what I would consider "an ordinary day's shoot", and the amount of creeping you see with some dogs really pushes the envelope of what the founders would consider a "non-slip" retriever. Is this what you are talking about? Or are there some actual rules that you see ignored on a regular basis as part of the tradition of running a dog now that concern you?

Actually I don't think tradition is the proper term, I think if there is a discrepancy, it is that the sport has evolved away from the early non-slip tradition that was carried over from England almost a hundred years ago. I get your point though, are there generally accepted practices in running a dog today that seem to conflict with how the rules were originally written. The secret handshake deal that Mooser talks about.

My position is that it would either be impossible to write a rule book that was so complete a person new to the game could study it alone, without any other input, and compete in this game, or if it was done, I believe judge's hand would be so tied by the "book" they would in effect be more like a referee than a judge. IMO, it takes a lot of time in the saddle to become a good handler and a good judge. That doesn't mean you have to learn unwritten rules, but you do have to understand the nuances of the game.

John

John, I was just told by Ted on another thread that the criteria that he uses to assess the magnitude of a certain class of faults is how much such behavior would negatively impact an ordinary days shoot . So for some, this particular concept is Gospel.

Moving along, how does one differentiate between an unwritten rule and a nuance...when for all practical purposes they are doing the same thing.

I for one would like to see verbiage that has outlived its applicability culled and the unwritten rules that we now run by submitted in their stead.


john

 

[John Robinson]

I didn't notice the dates on the early post. But putting aside the fact that the thread was started seven years ago, I find the subject timely as there seems to be a lot of questions regarding unwritten rules if the exist and some on how certain rules are interpreted in the real world of field trials and hunt test.

I remember when I was first considering running my dog in NAHRA almost twenty years ago. I didn't train with anybody else, had never seen or been to any form of field trial or hunt test, and had no idea what I would be in for. I received the NAHRA rule book and studied the heck out of it hoping that would prepare me somewhat for my first Started field test. It did, a little, and fortunately I was able to get two passes and a title that weekend, which hooked us on the sport. Now I see relative newcomers hoping to glean as much insight as they can by reading the rule book, making some assumptions based on their interpretation of it and being surprised when they see judges at an event interpreting it differently. In some cases they believe the judges were obviously not following the rule book, when in reality they did stick to the book. It's just a matter of emphasis in some cases, understanding the difference between should and must, and judges making actual judgement calls.

John