I thought I would address a variety of disparate thoughts that have arisen lately in a variety of threads:
The Rule Book
As always, I think it is best to start with the Rule Book:
Page 35: A dog sent on a blind retrieve shall at once proceed in the general direction of the line given by the handler. A dog that fails to do so shall, in the absence of unusual extenuating circumstances, be eliminated from the stake.
- This addresses two aspects of a blind: a) The requirement to go when sent (failure to do so results in elimination); and b) the importance of a good initial line (GIL)
- See also Serious Fault No. 16: Failure to go when sent on a blind retrieve.
Page 43: On “blind’’ retrieves, wherever possible, the Judges should plan their tests in such a way that they take advantage of natural hazards, such as islands, points of land, sand bars, ditches, hedges, small bushes, adjacent heavy cover, and rolling terrain. Despite such natural distractions, it should be possible, at least in theory, for a dog to “find’’ a well-planned blind-retrieve on the initial line from his handler; that he will do so is highly improbable because of those natural hazards, so he must be handled to the “blind.’’ Nevertheless, the test should be so planned that the dog should be “in-sight’’ continuously. A blind retrieve is a test of control, and a dog which is out of sight for a considerable period cannot be said to be under control. Utilizing natural hazards should obviate the need for Judges issuing special instructions about the manner of completing a blind retrieve, other than to “get the meat’’ by the shortest, fastest, or most direct route.
- To me the key point is that a "blind retrieve is a test of control."
See also
- Serious Fault 6: “Out-of-control,’’ i.e., paying no attention to many whistles and directions by the handler.
- Moderate Fault 7 Not stopping for directions, after two or three whistles which the dog should have heard.- Moderate Fault 8. Failure to take lines and directions or to hold lines and directions more than a short distance.
- Minor Fault 6. Not stopping at the first whistle that should have been heard, but stopping at the second or third.
- Minor Fault 7. Popping on a blind retrieve where there are no extenuating circumstances such as distance, wind, shallow (running) water or other conditions which make it difficult to hear the handler’s whistle.
- Minor Fault 8. Occasional failure to hold the line or take the handler’s directions for more than a few yards.
Remember that Style is noted eight times in the Rule Book. And that Poor Style is a moderate fault "Poor style, including a disinterested attitude, a slow or reluctant departure, quest for game, or return with it." And that repeated instances of a moderate fault can elevate it to a Serious Fault.
General Thoughts on the Rule Book
There will always be a tension between the objective and the subjective. Take for example, education. The objective side argues for standardized testing saying that only through objective testing can we know how well our children are educated. The subjective side argues that standardized testing gives us students who can answer multiple test questions but cannot think. Who is right? Probably both.
In field trials, you could certainly argue that the Rule Book should be more explicit so that judging is more standardized and objective.
You could also argue that it is difficult to standardize performance tests involving animals and changing environmental conditions
As for me, I think the Rule Book provides a good framework for understanding and that you want to have judges put their own subjective interpretation of the Rule Book on it.
The Book on You as a Judge
In the previous posts, a number of people have said something along the lines of: Well, Judge A does this. But, Judge B does that. How am I to know what to do?
This is where experience comes into play. Over time, you learn for example that Rick Coats is very particular about the line to the blind. Ted Shih, less so. And if you don't know about a judge's preferences, you call one of your friends and ask about that Judge's preferences. And then you can make an informed opinion about what the judge wants.
Anymore, I judge the Open because I want to see the best dogs and handlers, and I judge with less experienced judges because clubs typically do not want to fly two judges to their part of the country.
When I am paired with a less experienced judge, I typically say "Look, this is a collaborative effort, but as a practical matter, if things go well, I will get the credit, and if things go bad, I will get the blame. That is the nature of the beast and I accept it. In time, you will be the experienced judge, and if things go well, you will get the credit, and if things go bad, you will get the blame. That is the nature of the beast and you need to accept it."
I tell them that they need to think about what they want their legacy - or the book on them as a judge - to be. Some people have a reputation for being very tough in their tests. Others have a reputation for lighter tests. Some people are very strict on their blinds. Others less so. What competitors want to know is that you are consistent. To use a baseball analogy, they want to know that your strike zone is consistent from trial to trial and from person to person. Then they can make informed decisions about whether they elect to run under you.
So, if you are thinking about judging, or just starting judging, give some thought as to what you want the book on you to be.
My General Thoughts
1. There are very few things that require elimination on a blind. A no-go is one. A refusal to give up a bird is another. A break on a cold honor would be a third.
2. As a judge, you can say things that become requirements. If you say, that piece of water is mandatory. Or we want to see four high and dry. You are establishing requirements
You need to be careful when you make things mandatory. Because, you may not like the consequences. And, if you decide to change your mind about requirements, people will lose respect for you.
3. Be careful about reading things into the Rule Book that do not exist. For example, the term "progress to the blind" does not exist. The Rule Book does not forbid the use of a come in whistle.
4. Be careful about saying that you "always" or "never" do something. Don't box yourself in. It is important to be flexible.
Specific Thoughts on Blind Construction/Evaluation
1. Never waste a good cross wind. If you have enough wind and enough distances, plenty of dogs will fail.
2. Use visual keyholes where ever possible, not physical keyholes. Physical keyholes punish the high roller, Visual Keyholes do not.
3. Set up your blinds so that a good handler with a fast dog can get two whistles in.
4. Don't make your blinds a one trick pony.
- Have a beginning, middle and and end.
- At the beginning, have something up front that drives them off line. Don't let the dogs get momentum and a good initial line easily.
- Make the dogs and handlers work throughout the blind - Not just at the poison bird, the keyhole, or the end.
- Most dogs have about 4-5 good whistles in them. If you make them stop more than 4-5 times, you will find many dogs become far less compliant.
5. Look at the blind as a whole. Don't get myopic about one issue:
For example,
- The come in whistle
- Failure to jump something like a log that is 8 feet long at 150 yards
- A double tap before giving a cast
If your blind is hard enough, none of the above will make or break the deal
At the end, ask yourself, did that dog/handler team do a pleasing job of managing the corridor of my blind
Ted
The Rule Book
As always, I think it is best to start with the Rule Book:
Page 35: A dog sent on a blind retrieve shall at once proceed in the general direction of the line given by the handler. A dog that fails to do so shall, in the absence of unusual extenuating circumstances, be eliminated from the stake.
- This addresses two aspects of a blind: a) The requirement to go when sent (failure to do so results in elimination); and b) the importance of a good initial line (GIL)
- See also Serious Fault No. 16: Failure to go when sent on a blind retrieve.
Page 43: On “blind’’ retrieves, wherever possible, the Judges should plan their tests in such a way that they take advantage of natural hazards, such as islands, points of land, sand bars, ditches, hedges, small bushes, adjacent heavy cover, and rolling terrain. Despite such natural distractions, it should be possible, at least in theory, for a dog to “find’’ a well-planned blind-retrieve on the initial line from his handler; that he will do so is highly improbable because of those natural hazards, so he must be handled to the “blind.’’ Nevertheless, the test should be so planned that the dog should be “in-sight’’ continuously. A blind retrieve is a test of control, and a dog which is out of sight for a considerable period cannot be said to be under control. Utilizing natural hazards should obviate the need for Judges issuing special instructions about the manner of completing a blind retrieve, other than to “get the meat’’ by the shortest, fastest, or most direct route.
- To me the key point is that a "blind retrieve is a test of control."
See also
- Serious Fault 6: “Out-of-control,’’ i.e., paying no attention to many whistles and directions by the handler.
- Moderate Fault 7 Not stopping for directions, after two or three whistles which the dog should have heard.- Moderate Fault 8. Failure to take lines and directions or to hold lines and directions more than a short distance.
- Minor Fault 6. Not stopping at the first whistle that should have been heard, but stopping at the second or third.
- Minor Fault 7. Popping on a blind retrieve where there are no extenuating circumstances such as distance, wind, shallow (running) water or other conditions which make it difficult to hear the handler’s whistle.
- Minor Fault 8. Occasional failure to hold the line or take the handler’s directions for more than a few yards.
Remember that Style is noted eight times in the Rule Book. And that Poor Style is a moderate fault "Poor style, including a disinterested attitude, a slow or reluctant departure, quest for game, or return with it." And that repeated instances of a moderate fault can elevate it to a Serious Fault.
General Thoughts on the Rule Book
There will always be a tension between the objective and the subjective. Take for example, education. The objective side argues for standardized testing saying that only through objective testing can we know how well our children are educated. The subjective side argues that standardized testing gives us students who can answer multiple test questions but cannot think. Who is right? Probably both.
In field trials, you could certainly argue that the Rule Book should be more explicit so that judging is more standardized and objective.
You could also argue that it is difficult to standardize performance tests involving animals and changing environmental conditions
As for me, I think the Rule Book provides a good framework for understanding and that you want to have judges put their own subjective interpretation of the Rule Book on it.
The Book on You as a Judge
In the previous posts, a number of people have said something along the lines of: Well, Judge A does this. But, Judge B does that. How am I to know what to do?
This is where experience comes into play. Over time, you learn for example that Rick Coats is very particular about the line to the blind. Ted Shih, less so. And if you don't know about a judge's preferences, you call one of your friends and ask about that Judge's preferences. And then you can make an informed opinion about what the judge wants.
Anymore, I judge the Open because I want to see the best dogs and handlers, and I judge with less experienced judges because clubs typically do not want to fly two judges to their part of the country.
When I am paired with a less experienced judge, I typically say "Look, this is a collaborative effort, but as a practical matter, if things go well, I will get the credit, and if things go bad, I will get the blame. That is the nature of the beast and I accept it. In time, you will be the experienced judge, and if things go well, you will get the credit, and if things go bad, you will get the blame. That is the nature of the beast and you need to accept it."
I tell them that they need to think about what they want their legacy - or the book on them as a judge - to be. Some people have a reputation for being very tough in their tests. Others have a reputation for lighter tests. Some people are very strict on their blinds. Others less so. What competitors want to know is that you are consistent. To use a baseball analogy, they want to know that your strike zone is consistent from trial to trial and from person to person. Then they can make informed decisions about whether they elect to run under you.
So, if you are thinking about judging, or just starting judging, give some thought as to what you want the book on you to be.
My General Thoughts
1. There are very few things that require elimination on a blind. A no-go is one. A refusal to give up a bird is another. A break on a cold honor would be a third.
2. As a judge, you can say things that become requirements. If you say, that piece of water is mandatory. Or we want to see four high and dry. You are establishing requirements
You need to be careful when you make things mandatory. Because, you may not like the consequences. And, if you decide to change your mind about requirements, people will lose respect for you.
3. Be careful about reading things into the Rule Book that do not exist. For example, the term "progress to the blind" does not exist. The Rule Book does not forbid the use of a come in whistle.
4. Be careful about saying that you "always" or "never" do something. Don't box yourself in. It is important to be flexible.
Specific Thoughts on Blind Construction/Evaluation
1. Never waste a good cross wind. If you have enough wind and enough distances, plenty of dogs will fail.
2. Use visual keyholes where ever possible, not physical keyholes. Physical keyholes punish the high roller, Visual Keyholes do not.
3. Set up your blinds so that a good handler with a fast dog can get two whistles in.
4. Don't make your blinds a one trick pony.
- Have a beginning, middle and and end.
- At the beginning, have something up front that drives them off line. Don't let the dogs get momentum and a good initial line easily.
- Make the dogs and handlers work throughout the blind - Not just at the poison bird, the keyhole, or the end.
- Most dogs have about 4-5 good whistles in them. If you make them stop more than 4-5 times, you will find many dogs become far less compliant.
5. Look at the blind as a whole. Don't get myopic about one issue:
For example,
- The come in whistle
- Failure to jump something like a log that is 8 feet long at 150 yards
- A double tap before giving a cast
If your blind is hard enough, none of the above will make or break the deal
At the end, ask yourself, did that dog/handler team do a pleasing job of managing the corridor of my blind
Ted
