Some of you have seen this.
Why?
I vote no.
Proposed addition to the 2025 NRC By-Laws
drunkenpoacher
Some of you have seen this.
Why?
I vote no.
1 - 20 of 83 Posts
Joined
·
15,208 Posts
Some of you have seen this.
Why?
I vote no.
Joined
·
12,852 Posts
It was always understood that in that capacity you have information unavailable to the contestants and so it was never considered that the CM would choose to be a contestant. Decorum has obviously changed and therefore the officers felt it was important enough to amend the bylaws. Chief Marshall is probably the single most important position at the National and the distraction of running a dog, the above conflict of interest notwithstanding, should be unacceptable. Much like judging, if you want to be a contestant you should not be Chief Marshall.
Joined
·
15,208 Posts
Joined
·
8,978 Posts
As a lowly 3rd & 4th holding blind assistant Marshall at a National, I can not even imagine running my dog! (Not that I’m worried about that ). But I guess if they are considering a rule, someone must have wanted to. I voted yes.
Joined
·
15,208 Posts
If you had a dog qualified would you prefer to;
A. Run your dog and serve as an assistant marshal.
B. Run your dog and forgo serving as a marshal.
C. "Elect to have someone else run your dog in the event while you marshal" or "Compete the succeeding year (in a different zone)"
D. Something else
If you prefer "C", should the same apply to Co-Chief Marshals? The bird steward? The throwers? The gunners? Ground crew? Traffic....?
Joined
·
12,852 Posts
isn’t that what this addresses?
Joined
·
15,208 Posts
It is very poorly written IMO.
The way I read it, it would prohibit the Chief Marshal from running. The option of running the next year or someone else handling the dog are options.
Why would the same not apply to co-chief marshals, bird stewards, grounds crew, etc.. All have the same or similar "insider info" as the chief marshal.
Joined
·
12,852 Posts
I agree that ”his or her commitment” is vague and subject to interpretation and if literally true would prevent someone from running their dog once they have committed to be CM not just the period of serving as CM which is about two weeks. It should be specific as to what time period the commitment encompasses.
Joined
·
15,208 Posts
I hadn't considered that angle.
I was able to attend a few days of the NARC this year. I can't see how the chief marshal would have had any advantage over the co-chief marshals. One of whom ran a dog and went out in the third as I recall. Why are the co-chiefs not included in the proposed rule?
I helped with the grounds crew when I could. The lead of the grounds crew knows every possible test setup, every mark, every blind. The rest of the crew knows the tests in advance. Should the proposed rule apply to them?
Joined
·
8,978 Posts
Joined
·
15,208 Posts
My choice too and we don't need a new rule for it.
Joined
·
12,852 Posts
1) The Chief Marshall is very involved with the judges aa an advisor and confidant, his or her involvement as a contestant is both inappropriate and a conflict of interest.
2) Co Chief Marshall is not required and rare (or it used to be) and if a rule is written should include that position too.
I have been CM or Co CM 3 times and judge once. As CM I hope that I was as helpful as the CM was when I judged.
Joined
·
2,298 Posts
This rule doesn't have anything to do with having an advantage or cheating. It’s more about providing the chief marshal the option to stay fully engaged and devote the time needed to be in-charge of the operations of the National. It also allows the chief marshal the freedom to make key decisions like stopping due to heat without the influence of their own dog running. The chief marshal spends most of the trial in the tent with the judges. They have too much going on to be able to run their dogs. Other committee members have a substantial amount more down time and are far less involved in the key decisions and operations of the trial.
This rule change allows the chief marshal an option to run the following year just like the judges. To me, you commit to being a chief marshal years in advance without knowing if your dog will be qualified. This frees you up to be able to commit without worrying about being qualified or not for the year you are committing to.
Joined
·
12,852 Posts
As Bubba said one agrees to be CM well before dogs are qualified for the NRC. The position is so important and time consuming it’s difficult to imagine that anyone would even consider running their own dog. There have certainly been times when the CM’s dog has run and in at least one memorable case won being handled by another person and at the NRC that is generally a pro. This rule would not prohibit that it only addresses what was considered to be understood in the past.
Joined
·
15,208 Posts
All valid points.
IMO, the chief marshal (and everyone else) has ample time to remove themself from the position if their dog qualifies. All involved can and should have backup plans for any position that is vacated for any reason. One reason would be a chief marshal qualifying a dog a week or two before a National.
I predict the proposed change goes down in flames.
We will see.
Joined
·
234 Posts
I guess I’m still too green and naive. I don’t see a big issue with the prosposed rule.
I would assume it’s extremely difficult to find someone to be the Chief Marshall (first off to be a good reliable and organized one, secondly for someone to accept the position). And even moreso to find a replacement at the last minute.
If the CM does qualify their dog(s) but elects to not have someone run them, is it terribly offensive to just allow them to be qualified the next year instead? (I’m fully aware of annual qualifications and how that matters etc).
But in this case, for one or two dogs, it just doesn’t seem to offend me if they move their qualification to the next year.
Joined
·
12,852 Posts
Finding a highly qualified substitute at the last minute who could drop everything for two weeks in November could be a daunting task.
Joined
·
15,208 Posts
Next year is always at risk, especially with an older dog.
The marshals at this years NARC did an outstanding job.
I know without any doubt, either of the co-chief marshals could have stepped into the chief marshal position if there had been the need.
Joined
·
12,852 Posts
Such is not universal. The NARC was in the most
populous area of retriever people in the country. Not all regions are that way and we are talking November and all the competing activities not June.
Joined
·
15,208 Posts
1 - 20 of 83 Posts
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
