When is the latest point the judges may scrap a series ? The latest rule book I have is Jan 2004,and it says it may be scrapped anytime. Many people say before the last dog runs,or before the last dog picks up the last bird of the multiple.Is it before the last dog is cast.....or before he picks up the last bird? It has come up twice in the last year that I know of, yet everyone I ask has a different take on it.Thanks.
Scrapping series question
Jay Dufour
21 - 40 of 55 Posts
Joined
·
2,613 Posts
That would REALLY SUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Joined
·
6,885 Posts
Yes, it did
Joined
·
12,852 Posts
I recall some very specific language in the rule book relating to this.
A test may be discontinued (scrapped) prior to the last dog running and it must be replaced by another test, i.e. you cannot scrap a test and award placements based on the completion of the previous test
I have reread the newest version of the rule book several times and I can find no such language. Indeed the only thing relating to scrapped tests is in The Supplement to Field Trial Rules And Standard Procedures For Retrievers page 42 about "changing tests" and the language is very vague and non-specific....
Am I missing something in the rule book or has the previous language been omitted by intent or oversight?
A test may be discontinued (scrapped) prior to the last dog running and it must be replaced by another test, i.e. you cannot scrap a test and award placements based on the completion of the previous test
I have reread the newest version of the rule book several times and I can find no such language. Indeed the only thing relating to scrapped tests is in The Supplement to Field Trial Rules And Standard Procedures For Retrievers page 42 about "changing tests" and the language is very vague and non-specific....
Am I missing something in the rule book or has the previous language been omitted by intent or oversight?
Joined
·
12,852 Posts
Thanks, I new that it must be there somewhere
Joined
·
6,885 Posts
I think not. I think you can scrap - that is, discontinue - the test. But the Rules do not authorize a "change" in the test.
However, if the judges had scrapped it, the end result would have been the same as all the dogs smoked the short bird. The "changed" test would have have no impact on placements.
The tougher question is - what would you have done if you set up a perfectly reasonable test .... and all the dogs but one would have failed ...
Do you scrap the test?
Do you award only one place?
Do you think the internet bus has any impact on how you answer the question?
NO -
No discontinuation is authorized in a completed test.
"Judges should exercise care to locate in an area different than the original test"
Do you scrap the test? NO
Do you award only one place? YES
Do you think the internet bus has any impact on how you answer the question? NOT REALLY!
Tell me who the judges were, I'll post their competitive record here.
Were you just having a Cleveland Cavalier internet moment without the verticality?
But You did put them under the bus by inference, it wasn't that long ago so anyone can go back & check their RFTN's for the year 1999. Not only will you be tarnishing the guilty but you will also tarnishing those who did a good job during their assignments.
That is hilarious. Someone from your profession talking about trust, I would call that an oxymoron. You may not AGREE with the data, as those who are trying to be something their record indicates they are not, but trust would not be the appropriate word.
Joined
·
961 Posts
As someone who has run HT for several years and just getting into serious FT events I have a little different take on the interpertation of the rule above. I would think the judges would also have the option of running the last and final dog and the in their discussion of the test could also decide that in some way that test in question was unfair and could scrap it. I would not expect it often, only in an extream case, but conditions and environmental affects could change during the test that would make it unfair or a different standard for different dogs throughout the test. No changing conditions or considerations were mentioned in Teds sceniaro. Did anything change throughout the test from start to finish? Bud
ie: I'm saying that the test is not completed until the judges sit down and review the results of the test they just ran and decided to go onto the next test.
Joined
·
5,356 Posts
You should have tried it before the made the post prior to this one -
Joined
·
3,134 Posts
You should have tried it before the made the post prior to this one -
Marvin...I told you how to use the ignore button months ago...must we go through it again?
As this thread has fairly well run it's course, & it has been established what the rules are to everyone but Bud (talk to Howard, he'll set you straight), we are now free to scuttle the thread.
Patrick, .......I don't use ignore with self promoters, it takes too much fun out of this part of the sport. I can understand with BP as I no longer respond to any of his babel. When they ID themselves it tells you who you would like to have a converse with (as they appear to be well rounded individuals) should you see them on the circuit. It also tells you who you can bypass as they have little to offer, & there are lots of those.Marvin...I told you how to use the ignore button months ago...must we go through it again?
Joined
·
584 Posts
Sorry to be late posting to this thread but I have been away attending the Lardy, Voigt, Burns and Voigt seminar trying to get out of Phase II as a trainer.
I am guessing that Jay’s post was participated by the Qualifying stake I judged recently given that he made a remark on the events thread; something about a “controversy” involving the Qualifying stake. I had though about a post on the subject for educational purposed but did not get around to it before heading to the seminar. So here is the story.
There were some moving parts that would not have been obvious to the handlers as to why we as judges got ourselves into an awkward situation, but I will not get into that. The short version is that we had 7 dogs back to the water marks with not much separation and needed a meaty test to separate the dogs. We set up a water triple with two retired guns. The test dog did a credible job on the test so we uncovered one gun leaving only the gun for the longest mark retired. Based on what I learned at the seminar this past weekend the Handjem crew would have like this setup for training, one key mark with compound factors with two easy marks to allow for some memory drain.
The test was a triple with the first bird down out about 250 yards on the right thrown to the right into a stiff cross wind, gun retired. The line to the mark was mostly through splashing and lunging water but there were three parallel channels of swimming water to angle across. There was a tree and brush pile about 50 yards from the mat and this long mark was thrown hip pocket to that brush pile which made it difficult to false line a dog up wind without lining the dog completely out of the test. The middle mark was out about 150 yards, gun left out and the bird thrown downwind to the left so the factors pushed the dog to the mark. Then the dink go bird was well to the left of the middle gun and mark.
Dog #1 caved in to the factors on the long mark and was picked up. Dog #2 was a repeat of dog #1 and picked up. Likewise dog #3 but its handler managed to hack the dog to a point down wind of the mark and the dog followed its nose to the mark. Likewise dog #4 caved in to the factors on the long mark and was picked up. The handler for dog #5 sent his dog right of the near brush pile and the dog held into the wind too well and missed the long mark just up wind, but did not check up and had to be handled back to the mark after running out of real estate and popping. I kept thinking that the handlers were going to wise up and handle their dogs before they got so far astray they could not be handled but that never happened. Dog # 6 caved in and was picked up.
With one more dog to run my co-judge I discussed the situation and our options as respects scrapping the test. If the last dog did the test we had a clear winner and could likely have sorted out the two handles for 2nd and 3rd place; not ideal for a Qual but tolerable. If the last dog did not do the test we are looking at placing two dogs and while relatively better, two dogs that had done marginal work; not acceptable in my opinion.
While I could not quote the exact wording I was certain in my mind that judges had the option to scrap a test until the last dog had retrieved the last mark or the handler voluntarily chose to pick up the dog. The other though I had was that had I been in the holding blind with the last dog in that situation I would have wanted the opportunity to have a go at the test and the blue ribbon. Therefore, we decided to call the last dog to the line with the understanding that if I thought the dog was not going to complete the test cleanly I would instruct the handler to pick up the dog and scrap the test. When the last dog caved in to the factors on the last mark, I instructed the handler to pick up the dog and declared the test to be scrapped.
The “controversy” was that the FTC wanted to be certain that their judges had conformed to the letter of the rules in making that decision on the fly. I found the applicable rule that evening and pointed it out to a member of the FTC the following morning before going to set up the replacement test. In the interest of keeping everything above board the FTC reported the situation to the AKC rep who then came over later to have a chat with the Qual judges, Carole and me. He wanted an explanation of what we had done and why and got the same story that I have given above.
The applicable rule is the one posted by Bruce in post #5, and the key word is "completed". I still believe that the way the rule is worded there is room for the interpretation that a test is “completed” when the last dog retrieves the last mark as others have stated. However, it is the interpretation of the AKC rep at the trial and therefore the interpretation of the AKC that a test is completed when the last dog is called to the line. The rational being that if the test is scrapped because the last dog is failing the test then in effect that last dog has been judged and therefore the teist is complete. When looking at it from that prospective, I am hard pressed to argue that logic. Now that I have been advised of the AKC’s interpretation of this rule, it is now my interpretation also although I would prefer to have the greater latitude.
So that is my story and I am sticking to it. Crank up the bus if you would like but consider that I have already been approved to judge a couple more trials. :twisted:
I cannot tell you how disappointed I will be if the AKC decides that I can no longer judge because of this faulty interpretation of the rules.
On a side note, I made an attempt to justify our/my decision by explaining that I was loathed to give out only two placements in a Qual. The AKC rep was complimentary of the test difficulty and would have preferred that we had given out only two placements in lieu of scrapping and replacing the test. He further commented that they was not at all happy with the owner/handler qualifying stakes because they were seeing too many Qualifying tests that were way too easy.
Joined
·
941 Posts
Jim, I think your rationale was sound for scrapping the test based on what you have stated. It does sound as though you were happy with the overall test, but disappointed in the results. Consequently you hung on to see if it would improve as more dogs ran.
None of us "like" to scrap a test for many reasons too numerous to name.
I try to subscribe to the old adage: "Just because you lay an egg, doesn't mean you have to hatch it!"
I will say that if 3 dogs failed the test, perhaps the other 4 should have considered handling before their dogs got into failure position--i.e. go for the test and handle once the dog indicated they weren't going to the right place. At least you could have placed 4 dogs and salvaged a test that, while hard, sounded fair.
None of us "like" to scrap a test for many reasons too numerous to name.
I try to subscribe to the old adage: "Just because you lay an egg, doesn't mean you have to hatch it!"
I will say that if 3 dogs failed the test, perhaps the other 4 should have considered handling before their dogs got into failure position--i.e. go for the test and handle once the dog indicated they weren't going to the right place. At least you could have placed 4 dogs and salvaged a test that, while hard, sounded fair.
21 - 40 of 55 Posts
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
