The thread I started about touching a dog while on line to take care of a health concern prompted a more thought provoking issue: rules enforced by judges that aren't actual AKC rules. In that vein, I think it would be interesting for folks to post situations in which rules either weren't followed, rules were inaccurately or incorrectly enforced or "rules" that were enforced but weren't even rules at all. For instance, I posted recently about two dogs in a trial in which their birds ended up hanging off the ground in a briar thicket yet neither dog was no-birded despite the risk of injury and the fact that the birds not being immediately accessible or accurately scented changed the test. To me, that was a very clearly written rule not being properly applied. At a Junior test, I saw a dog get no-birded on a water mark that put up a big splash but landed about 3'-4' farther than the judges wanted so the bird came to rest in some VERY sparse water cover but was still very visible to the gallery. Long story short is that after a marathon hunt, mostly on land, and the dog relieving itself several times, the judges called no-bird, an incorrect application of the rule. I've read of people being dropped for using a finger snap to move their dogs one way or another despite the fact that extremely successful and experienced trainers like Mike Lardy and Dennis Voigt do it. The justification is that it is a "threatening gesture." After witnessing something at a trial, if a dog crept at all while on line, some judges would drop the dog if he crept the least bit at the honor position. That is enforcing a rule that does not exist as the rules only address the honoring dog actually interfering with the working dog. There is no mention whatsoever in the rules about the honoring dog creeping but not interfering. I'd like to hear what others have seen or experienced in the hopes that it may bring more of these inconsistencies to light.
"Rules" that Aren't Rules
J. Walker
1 - 20 of 112 Posts
Joined
·
1,068 Posts
The thread I started about touching a dog while on line to take care of a health concern prompted a more thought provoking issue: rules enforced by judges that aren't actual AKC rules. In that vein, I think it would be interesting for folks to post situations in which rules either weren't followed, rules were inaccurately or incorrectly enforced or "rules" that were enforced but weren't even rules at all. For instance, I posted recently about two dogs in a trial in which their birds ended up hanging off the ground in a briar thicket yet neither dog was no-birded despite the risk of injury and the fact that the birds not being immediately accessible or accurately scented changed the test. To me, that was a very clearly written rule not being properly applied. At a Junior test, I saw a dog get no-birded on a water mark that put up a big splash but landed about 3'-4' farther than the judges wanted so the bird came to rest in some VERY sparse water cover but was still very visible to the gallery. Long story short is that after a marathon hunt, mostly on land, and the dog relieving itself several times, the judges called no-bird, an incorrect application of the rule. I've read of people being dropped for using a finger snap to move their dogs one way or another despite the fact that extremely successful and experienced trainers like Mike Lardy and Dennis Voigt do it. The justification is that it is a "threatening gesture." After witnessing something at a trial, if a dog crept at all while on line, some judges would drop the dog if he crept the least bit at the honor position. That is enforcing a rule that does not exist as the rules only address the honoring dog actually interfering with the working dog. There is no mention whatsoever in the rules about the honoring dog creeping but not interfering. I'd like to hear what others have seen or experienced in the hopes that it may bring more of these inconsistencies to light.
Joined
·
8,593 Posts
Hi J. Walker,
I've been judging retriever events since 1990 or so. I'm pretty sure many of the things I have done could have made your list.
I try, as most all of us do when judging, to be as fair, consistent, empathetic, challenging, honest, as possible.
What venues do you judge? Have you been doing it a long time?
A few things that I think about these sorts of discussions regarding what one reads in print on the forum: What one sees with his mind's eye, based upon what's written on the page, will vary greatly from what another sees. This is why so many folks are disappointed when a novel is made into a movie. We all interpret it visually, so different than anyone else when we read it.
Similarly, when someone is in the gallery, or handling, they may see something very differently than those in the judges' seats. They may also not have access to all of the considerations and dialogue that takes place among the judges or what thoughts are going on in the judges' minds.
Again, what venues do you judge? How long have you been doing it?
I ask because the more I'm around the games, the more I find I need to learn and the more open minded I seem to become. (This may also be due to memory loss and a perception that I'm learning stuff that I already knew!
)
Enjoy the weekend, Chris
I've been judging retriever events since 1990 or so. I'm pretty sure many of the things I have done could have made your list.
I try, as most all of us do when judging, to be as fair, consistent, empathetic, challenging, honest, as possible.
What venues do you judge? Have you been doing it a long time?
A few things that I think about these sorts of discussions regarding what one reads in print on the forum: What one sees with his mind's eye, based upon what's written on the page, will vary greatly from what another sees. This is why so many folks are disappointed when a novel is made into a movie. We all interpret it visually, so different than anyone else when we read it.
Similarly, when someone is in the gallery, or handling, they may see something very differently than those in the judges' seats. They may also not have access to all of the considerations and dialogue that takes place among the judges or what thoughts are going on in the judges' minds.
Again, what venues do you judge? How long have you been doing it?
I ask because the more I'm around the games, the more I find I need to learn and the more open minded I seem to become. (This may also be due to memory loss and a perception that I'm learning stuff that I already knew!
)Enjoy the weekend, Chris
Joined
·
1,048 Posts
Actually this rule is written.
Perhaps you should review the FT rules. From the FT rule book:
BTW: I've Watched Mike Lardy at several trials even as an Open Judge. I haven't seen him snap his fingers to move a dog in violation of this provision. ;-)
I'm pretty sure there is a similar provision in the HT regulations.
Joined
·
143 Posts
I'll start the ball rolling. About 5 years ago at a master test. I moved to the honor bucket, snapped my fingers (in front of the dogs face), pointed my finger and told the dog to sit.
I was tracked down at a senior test and told the master judge wanted to talk to me. When I talked to the judge he told me he wouldn't stand for anymore intimidation and said that the finger snapping was considered intimidation.
Any comments?
I was tracked down at a senior test and told the master judge wanted to talk to me. When I talked to the judge he told me he wouldn't stand for anymore intimidation and said that the finger snapping was considered intimidation.
Any comments?
Joined
·
777 Posts
Joined
·
990 Posts
OK let's clear up a misconception here right away. When Mike or I or many, many others, snap their fingers or pat their thighs or say here or say heel, it is not while the birds are going down and after signaling. It is either on the set-up before the signal or it is after a retrieve and preparing to line up a dog for another retrieve or a blind. These methods of moving a dog on line are entirely within the rulebook. They have been used for decades and by many handlers for many dogs. Any judge that would penalize for them is misguided unless the process is extremely obsessive. When used with finesse, it can be an extreme of great teamwork.
Joined
·
5,349 Posts
I think that is a key point some people are missing. I ran my very first derby under a very compassionate judge. I was very-very nervous and ran the dog just as I had in training, snapping my fingers to heel him back, lightly tapping my thigh to rotate him in to me, ect. Only problem is I did it a little bit after I called for the birds. My dog pinned the birds and the judge recognizing my newbie nervousness, took me aside and explained that I couldn't do that from the time I called for the birds until the judge had released my dog to retrieve. I'll never forget that first experience on line and the helpful judge who cut me a little break.
John
Joined
·
1,068 Posts
I totally appreciate what you're saying, Chris. I have not sat in the judge's chair as yet. Still, when we're talking about most of the rules being clearly written (notice I said "most") and some judges drop dogs and handlers for rules that do not exist, that should be discussed, don't you think? At the bare minimum, it raises awareness and prompts people to pull out their rule books. For instance, there was a recent thread in which it was stated and apparently confirmed with the judges that a Derby dog was dropped for a controlled break on the memory bird. As a result of that thread, I'd bet a lot of folks went back and read the rule and said "Ah, there it is. There's no such thing as a break on a memory bird." I would think that's a good thing.Hi J. Walker,
I've been judging retriever events since 1990 or so. I'm pretty sure many of the things I have done could have made your list.
I try, as most all of us do when judging, to be as fair, consistent, empathetic, challenging, honest, as possible.
What venues do you judge? Have you been doing it a long time?
A few things that I think about these sorts of discussions regarding what one reads in print on the forum: What one sees with his mind's eye, based upon what's written on the page, will vary greatly from what another sees. This is why so many folks are disappointed when a novel is made into a movie. We all interpret it visually, so different than anyone else when we read it.
Similarly, when someone is in the gallery, or handling, they may see something very differently than those in the judges' seats. They may also not have access to all of the considerations and dialogue that takes place among the judges or what thoughts are going on in the judges' minds.
Again, what venues do you judge? How long have you been doing it?
I ask because the more I'm around the games, the more I find I need to learn and the more open minded I seem to become. (This may also be due to memory loss and a perception that I'm learning stuff that I already knew!
Enjoy the weekend, Chris
I'm not trying to get folks to call out certain judges, clubs or events and HOPE people don't think that's my intent SO PLEASE DON'T DO THAT ANYONE. That information is irrelevant to the issue. For me, it's more of an "If this ever happens to you, know this rule," kind of scenario as I think real-world situations sort of make the rules come to life. A person can read the rule book all day long but until a specific scenario comes along in which a rule was or was not applied or was applied incorrectly, it's a little tougher to see the rules as they are written in their practical application. Still, if you want to DQ this thread for a threatening gesture, let me have it.
Joined
·
1,068 Posts
Dennis,
I'm sorry I didn't clarify and certainly didn't mean to imply either you or Mike would ever handle outside the rules. In fact, I meant just the opposite, that if two such highly-respected handlers snap their fingers at rule-appropriate times, yet some judges want to call it a threatening gesture any time it's used such was when aligning dogs initially at the line, moving dogs back that are creeping up before signaling for the birds, getting dogs forging ahead back at heel, etc. that shows inconsistency. Again, I'm very sorry I didn't make clearer what I meant.
Joined
·
5,349 Posts
I think these discussions on judging calls and various rule interpretations fall into one of a few categories:I totally appreciate what you're saying, Chris. I have not sat in the judge's chair as yet. Still, when we're talking about most of the rules being clearly written (notice I said "most") and some judges drop dogs and handlers for rules that do not exist, that should be discussed, don't you think? At the bare minimum, it raises awareness and prompts people to pull out their rule books. For instance, there was a recent thread in which it was stated and apparently confirmed with the judges that a Derby dog was dropped for a controlled break on the memory bird. As a result of that thread, I'd bet a lot of folks went back and read the rule and said "Ah, there it is. There's no such thing as a break on a memory bird." I would think that's a good thing.
I'm not trying to get folks to call out certain judges, clubs or events and HOPE people don't think that's my intent SO PLEASE DON'T DO THAT ANYONE. That information is irrelevant to the issue. For me, it's more of an "If this ever happens to you, know this rule," kind of scenario as I think real-world situations sort of make the rules come to life. A person can read the rule book all day long but until a specific scenario comes along in which a rule was or was not applied or was applied incorrectly, it's a little tougher to see the rules as they are written in their practical application. Still, if you want to DQ this thread for a threatening gesture, let me have it.
1) The blatant bad call. Those situations where the judge flat out made a mistake. Sometimes it's a head scratcher, sometimes it's a mistake you could see anybody make in the heat of the battle.
2) Situations that occur in a certain venue and may be the appropriate call in that venue, but other posters extrapolate the situation to their own venue and argue back and forth, when it really is an apples-oranges thing.
3) Real gray area calls, where it could be justified either way by rule, but since we have the luxury of time, we parse and parse the rule book like a constitutional scholar getting ready to argue a case before the supreme court.
4) What Moosegooser calls secret handshake rules. Again based on unclear or vague rules, but after years and years of running trials, a handler understands things like going on your number is not considered a break, or you probably should ask the judge for permission before touching your dog while under judgement. If your only knowledge of running field trials was what you read in the book, you might find that the book is vague in certain areas, or your interpretation is counter to the way the rule is administered in real life.
John
Joined
·
3,256 Posts
When it happens during the marks going down, it should be considered a threatening gesture. That doesn't mean that it can't also be considered a threatening gesture at other times. I can't imagine that the run of the mill snapping to get the dog to heel would be, but I could see how someone could do it in such a way that a judge could make that call.
Joined
·
990 Posts
Agreed Ted and I don't like the extreme time that some handlers can take. But the Rule Book seems to be focused on "lining" the dog as if you are putting your hand down. Various sections do refer to "be lined by the handler briskly and precisely". I think there is an aversion to over-use of the hand or repeatedly trying to re-align the dog.
A few weekends ago, I was lining up my young dog on an Amateur Water Blind with a mark. My dog kept looking between two spots neither quite right. I took longer than I usually do but finally got an excellent IL into the water and onto an island on line. The judge afterwards said "WOW that was great to see that entry. You took forever but it was worthwhile".
If I hadn't got the IL or had a poor blind I'd bet the judge would have thought I took too long.
Lesson? If you are going to do "excessive" lining you'd better have a good job!!
Joined
·
5,252 Posts
OK, nobody wants to play...
I think this thread could be helpful in bringing rule book interpretation/misinterpretation issues to light. Just like the no touching thread pointed out that some judges have added their own spin to that rule and thus don't apply it in accordance with the book. This shouldn't be a judge bashing thread, but rather something to give both current and future judges something to think about.
So...
I've heard folks say that when running a blind, each cast where the dog does not "make progress" toward the blind is a cast refusal. I don't think this is supported by the AKC rules in a HT or FT.
I'm not saying that a dog not progressing toward the blind shouldn't be penalized for being off line, avoiding a hazard, etc. I just can't find any wording that says anything at all about "making progress" toward the blind has refused a cast.
I think this thread could be helpful in bringing rule book interpretation/misinterpretation issues to light. Just like the no touching thread pointed out that some judges have added their own spin to that rule and thus don't apply it in accordance with the book. This shouldn't be a judge bashing thread, but rather something to give both current and future judges something to think about.
So...
I've heard folks say that when running a blind, each cast where the dog does not "make progress" toward the blind is a cast refusal. I don't think this is supported by the AKC rules in a HT or FT.
I'm not saying that a dog not progressing toward the blind shouldn't be penalized for being off line, avoiding a hazard, etc. I just can't find any wording that says anything at all about "making progress" toward the blind has refused a cast.
Joined
·
5,315 Posts
Same type of thread from 2009
http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?t=40758
Teds post is interesting
http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/showpost.php?p=451159&postcount=116
j
ohn
http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?t=40758
Teds post is interesting
http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/showpost.php?p=451159&postcount=116
j
ohn
Joined
·
14,806 Posts
you are right!
it is not in the NAHRA rule as well.
But it is in another, I am told. It is a game I do not play.
issue is, some folk play ALL the games. and the info starts to blurrrrrrrr
so, they will argue up and down and be sure they are right.... and they are
if they wuz a playin' an other game;-)
.
Joined
·
2,302 Posts
More words of wisdom by Mr. Bora.you are right!
it is not in the NAHRA rule as well.
But it is in another, I am told. It is a game I do not play.
issue is, some folk play ALL the games. and the info starts to blurrrrrrrr
so, they will argue up and down and be sure they are right.... and they are
if they wuz a playin' an other game;-)
.
.
1 - 20 of 112 Posts
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
