[cdalt]

I agree. Based on several recent threads, it seems as though there are more than a few here that would prefer to judge a dog on the mat, not in the field

That is unfortunate to see judges with that perspective, with a good sound test a dog that has bad line manners will hinder his or her work in the field. When the birds are going off, I enjoy watching the dog on the mat and can get a good idea of whats going to happen in the field by how the dog behaved on the mat. However, sometimes that wild dog on the line does manage to do the test or catch a glimpse of a key bird at the last second, at least for that series but maybe not the next.

 

[John Robinson]

This exact same scenario happened to me with a young dog last year in the master! There was a land triple than a double blind after the marks. Many dogs had handles on the marks and some dogs double handles on the marks and were called back. My young one had excellent marks and great blinds. We were not called back because I had to re-heel him after giving the judge the 1st bird from the 1st blind and he took off for the second blind where he was re-heeled after a few feet. This was a field trial dog with derby points at the time. I thought he just hammered the test when we realized he was the only dog not called back. I couldn't believe it, dogs with handles on marks were called back and we were not. I asked the Marshall and the judges said it was a controlled break on the blind. I responded that there are only breaks on marks not blinds and the judges said well than it was a trainability issue. Trainablility even though he re-heeled instantly, sat crisply on the whistle, and took nice casts to the blind. To me I thought he demonstrated great trainability but he must have got a score of 0. It was sad to see him dropped for excellent work in the field but dropped for too much desire to go on the second land blind. This was the last hunt test I ran and went back to field trials.

I wonder how those judges would judge a similar situation I have had with my hi-roller, that being as I am fine tuning his line to the blind I occasionally say "good" when he is looking out correctly, as his name is Gus, he sometimes takes off on the G sound. Like you I catch it immediately re-line him and send him on "back". It never has been an issue in field trials, plus I have gone away from using "good" when working with him, but I wonder what those judges you had would deal with my situation. Your story goes to my point about some hunt test judges throwing the baby out with the bathwater by being overzealous on line manners with otherwise well mannered dogs. I underlined some because I have run under a number of HT judges who aren't so anal.

John

 

[copterdoc]

The dog left the line without being sent, and was stopped and recalled. I don't see how it could be ruled anything else, but a controlled break.

As a handler, I would have just let the dog roll, and played it off like I had sent it.
That way, at worst I get marked down for a PIL. Not a zero for a controlled break in Master.

 

[John Robinson]

The dog left the line without being sent, and was stopped and recalled. I don't see how it could be ruled anything else, but a controlled break.

As a handler, I would have just let the dog roll, and played it off like I had sent it.
That way, at worst I get marked down for a PIL. Not a zero for a controlled break in Master.

Broke on what? There is no such thing as a break or controlled break on a blind.

 

[copterdoc]

There is no such thing as a break or controlled break on a blind.

Why not?

I don't see anything in the rulebook, that says controlled breaks can only happen on marks.

2. A controlled break is generally when a dog leaves to retrieve before being sent, but is quickly brought under control by verbal command or whistle and returns to the handler. A controlled break in Master calls for a “0” score (Ch. 5, Sec. 5 [6]).

 

[DoubleHaul]

Why not?

I don't see anything in the rulebook, that says controlled breaks can only happen on marks.

It does say that it has to be a deliberate intent to retrieve. I don't see in this fact set where that could be possible. The dog did not know that there was anything to retrieve at that point, since the handler had not even begun to line it for the blind.

 

[copterdoc]

It does say that it has to be a deliberate intent to retrieve.

That would be the deciding factor.

I don't see in this fact set where that could be possible. The dog did not know that there was anything to retrieve at that point, since the handler had not even begun to line it for the blind.

So, was it going out for a ham sandwich?

 

[Miriam Wade]

Why not?

I don't see anything in the rulebook, that says breaks can only happen on marks.

Actually, a controlled break is not allowed in Master, but I agree with John. How can you have a break on a blind? Typically, judges will say, "You're on your own" on a blind. The handler controls the mat in terms of lining up, cues, etc. If you aren't waiting for a judge to release you-you can't have had a break of any kind.

M

 

[John Robinson]

It does say that it has to be a deliberate intent to retrieve. I don't see in this fact set where that could be possible. The dog did not know that there was anything to retrieve at that point, since the handler had not even begun to line it for the blind.

That's what I'm trying to say, in order for it to be a break, the dog has to break on something, what is the dog breaking on? There was no mark thrown to give the dog the temptaion of something to retrieve. As a judge I would assume the dog thought he had been sent, the handler realized this and said "no, not yet", then sent him on the blind. Again, aren't there larger control issues in actually running the blind for Judges to worry about?

 

[John Robinson]

That would be the deciding factor.

So, was it going out for a ham sandwich?[/QUOTE] That's the question you have to ask yourself, I would just assume the dog thought he'd been sent, because there is no other resonable alternative.

 

[copterdoc]

.....As a judge I would assume the dog thought he had been sent, the handler realized this and said "no, not yet", then sent him on the blind. Again, aren't there larger control issues in actually running the blind for Judges to worry about?

I certainly agree.

However, I believe that the handler's actions after the fact, made what didn't need to be Judged, into something that could really only be Judged as a controlled break.

 

[DoubleHaul]

That would be the deciding factor.

So, was it going out for a ham sandwich?

Who knows? The judges could have tossed the remains of their ham sandwich out there.

Could have been chasing a butterfly, smelling the bitch in season who just ran, whatever. I'd put it down as a minor D.A.H. and move on and run the blind. I certainly could see where two particularly anal judges would drop me for it, so I prefer to keep my eye on my dog instead of jawing with the judges, but if I were in the chair no way would I drop the dog for doing what was described.

 

[Ted Shih]

That's what I'm trying to say, in order for it to be a break, the dog has to break on something, what is the dog breaking on? There was no mark thrown to give the dog the temptaion of something to retrieve. As a judge I would assume the dog thought he had been sent, the handler realized this and said "no, not yet", then sent him on the blind. Again, aren't there larger control issues in actually running the blind for Judges to worry about?

W

I get depressed when I read threads like this and discover how many people are focused on the mat, and not on the field. It doesn't require much skill to judge a dog that is 3 feet from you on a mat. It does require a great deal of skill to judge a dog in the field. I wish people would focus on the latter and not the former.

 

[Gun_Dog2002]

That would be the deciding factor.

So, was it going out for a ham sandwich?

How do you know the dog left to retriever something? Honestly has a judge you have no idea if the dog left to pee on a bush, go to the truck, run to see people etc. Your putting intent on the dog and you have no way of knowing what that dog was going to do. Judges should look for ways to pass dogs, not fail them.

/Paul

 

[FOM]

W

I get depressed when I read threads like this and discover how many people are focused on the mat, and not on the field. It doesn't require much skill to judge a dog that is 3 feet from you on a mat. It does require a great deal of skill to judge a dog in the field. I wish people would focus on the latter and not the former.

I agree - there are way too many other things to look at than making a mountain out of a mole hill - I can understand if a judge wants to mark the dog down for trainability a point or two, but to fail a dog, really??

 

[copterdoc]

How do you know the dog left to retriever something?

I don't.

That's why I said that would be the deciding factor.

I'm not saying that I would have dropped the dog.

I'm saying that as a handler, I would not recall a dog that leaves the line, intent on retrieving something. Even if all that was left to retrieve was a blind, that I had not yet lined the dog on.

I would not recall the dog, because I believe that doing so, tells the Judges that I did not send the dog.

It falls under the "don't make the Judges think", unwritten rule of handling. And I don't see how they would have any other choice, but to rule it a controlled break. I would consider being allowed to run the blind, a gift.

 

[John Robinson]

I don't.

That's why I said that would be the deciding factor.

I'm not saying that I would have dropped the dog.

I'm saying that as a handler, I would not recall a dog that leaves the line, intent on retrieving something. Even if it was a blind, that I had not sent the dog to retrieve.
I would not recall the dog, because I believe that doing so, tells the Judges that I did not send the dog.

It falls under the "don't make the Judges think", unwritten rule of handling.

You have had several very experienced judges say they wouldn't even note it down in their book, what is there to think about? A guy or gal is lining their dog up on a blind, there is the normal amount of fussing around trying to line the dog up perfectly with the handler quietly talking to his dog, the dog missinterprets one of these quiet comments as the send command, the handler quickly stops his dog, re-heels, eventually lines the dog up and sends on the blind, how in the world do you call that a controlled break? Judges can think all they want, it will never be a break. As a handler I'm going to re-heel and properly line my dog up for the best chance to complete a tough blind.

John

 

[copterdoc]

.....what is there to think about?.....

The difference between getting called back to the next series, and not getting called back to the next series.

The safe move, is to just let the dog go, and handle.

 

[Ted Shih]

I can't believe that we are having this discussion. No wonder so many people I respect are depressed about the quality of judging in Field Trials.

 

[Golddogs]

The dog left the line without being sent, and was stopped and recalled. I don't see how it could be ruled anything else, but a controlled break.

As a handler, I would have just let the dog roll, and played it off like I had sent it.
That way, at worst I get marked down for a PIL. Not a zero for a controlled break in Master.

No Mark...............No Break.

Dog gets a ding on trainability. Could the handler just let it roll? Sure, but why? Establishing control is the mark of a good handler and I appreciate that. Dog can't be allowed to run the show.

Keep your standards high regards.