What qualities in a Judge make you want to run under him/her?

Old School Labs · Mar 21, 2012

Ted Shih said:
Imagine that you were trying to decide which of two trials you should run, and that the only difference between the two trials, was the judges. That is, the two trials had:

• Comparable grounds;
• Comparable entries;
• Comparable quality of competition; and
• Comparable travel distance

Consequently, the only difference between the two trials would be the judges. What qualities/characteristics of the judges would lead you to prefer one trial over another? Put another way, what are the characteristics of the judges that you enjoy running under in competition?

1. Judges with vast knowledge how to and done properly within the rules
2. Co Judge may influence
3. Bird placement done with skill not just thrown out there somewhere to mess with the field of dogs
4. No gimmicky BS
5. Generous on callbacks when appropriate and warrants it

I like a test of course that is geared well to how my dogs run.

john fallon · Mar 21, 2012

Tests judged by people who owe no one being judged anything.........that leaves out National Judges, too autonomous for my taste

Know a good Mark when they see one, and therefore do not confuse marking with lining, and are knowledgeable enough when seeing both to be able to score them comparably.

john

captainjack · Mar 21, 2012

John Robinson said:
In no particular order, I like big wide open test with well placed birds, so judges who are known to set up said test are high on my list, I like judges with personality who are just fun to run under, also judges who are good leaders who seem to get the most out of their marshalls and workers, judges who bend over backwards to be fair within the rules and make every effort to make guns visible, birds fall in sight, ect. In other words, judges who have enough faith in their test to stack other odds in the dog's favor. Judges who recognize mechanics are a big part of the formula for dealing with large numbers, not ticky-tacky trick test to eliminate dogs.

Just a few traits that my A listed judges share.

This just about covers my list. I'd add... I want a judge that will consider the dog's safety and...

I want a judge that the FT committe respects enough to get handlers to the line. One such judge at the 1st or 2nd Q I ran put an A list Amatuer who had dog #1 on the clock immediately after the test dog ran. Another such judge told the marshall at an Amatuer stake to tell the FT committe that if a handler wasn't ready to run when their number came up they should just not bother showing up at all (I'm sure that would exclude those running in the Open).

EdA · Mar 21, 2012

knowledgeable, unbiased, and consistent with call backs

Ted Shih · Mar 21, 2012

When I am evaluating judges, I want to know first if they are fundamentally sound. That is, do they practice the following principles:

1. Safety: The tests are safe.
2. Visibility: Dogs can see guns and birds.
3. Control: Handlers can see dogs. Dogs can see and hear handlers.
4. Fairness: Objective and impartial to contestants
5. Time management: Trains run on time
6. Fun: Pleasant and courteous to all

It is icing on the cake if the judges set up tough, ball buster tests

Dman · Mar 21, 2012

Ted Shih said:
When I am evaluating judges, I want to know first if they are fundamentally sound. That is, do they practice the following principles:

1. Safety: The tests are safe.
2. Visibility: Dogs can see guns and birds.
3. Control: Handlers can see dogs. Dogs can see and hear handlers.
4. Fairness: Objective and impartial to contestants
5. Time management: Trains run on time
6. Fun: Pleasant and courteous to all

Nice list.

minnducker · Mar 21, 2012

Everything Ted said, plus another important characteristic-I want to run under judges who are not afraid to judge. In other words, I like to run under judges and not just test setter-uppers.
So many "judges" set up tests with elimination in mind, not with judging/evaluation in mind. Anybody can set up a test that eliminates over half the dogs, that's no big deal. This approach results in tests with "tricks", poor visibility, unfairness and many other labels we use to decribe them. The real end result is a kind of crap-shoot; who's lucky today?

Judges who are not afraid to actually judge, can set up tests that most dogs can complete in some fashion, but still can eliminate dogs based on their performance in comparison to the rest of the field. IMO the best Open I ever ran had 7 "easy" series, (not really easy, but straightforward). The judges used their head and set up tests that went quickly at the beginning; (if I recall correctly, first a land double, second a land double and blind), utilized the grounds and the help wisely, and had no problem completing on schedule with a large entry.
They actually judged, and dogs were elminated accordingly. The competitors enjoyed running that trial, and there were no real objections as to the outcome. I remember I made it to the 4th series, and remembered the trial as a refeshing difference compared to the "norm".

Trevor Toberny · Mar 21, 2012

What about a judge that has good test but isn't the nicest person and is constantly raising her voice?

T-Pines · Mar 22, 2012

Everything Ted said in post #25, perfect and it applies to hunt tests as well.
Excellently phrased question, by the way, very respectful of your audience.

Trevor T, aka Fowl Hunter study how Ted presented his well thought out question, presenting lots of variables but making them all equal but one. THis shows his knowledge of the game, and shows his audience that he respects their knowledge as well. And then he asked his question in a very positive way to get positive answers about good judging. He did not ask for negative answers about bad judging. If your questions were well thought out, with all information presented upfront, no hidden agenda, asking for positive responses you would not be thrown under the bus and you would not be accused of stirring the pot. Just a helpful thought, we all can learn.

Colleen

Wade Thurman · Mar 22, 2012

Ted Shih said:
When I am evaluating judges, I want to know first if they are fundamentally sound. That is, do they practice the following principles:

1. Safety: The tests are safe.
2. Visibility: Dogs can see guns and birds.
3. Control: Handlers can see dogs. Dogs can see and hear handlers.
4. Fairness: Objective and impartial to contestants
5. Time management: Trains run on time
6. Fun: Pleasant and courteous to all

It is icing on the cake if the judges set up tough, ball buster tests

Hi Ted,

Can I add one little wrinkle to your original question.

When looking at or considering the 2 trials "you", being any of us, have never run under any of the 4 judges doing the AA stakes or the minors, Now how do you decide?

EdA · Mar 22, 2012

Wade said:
Hi Ted,

Can I add one little wrinkle to your original question.

When looking at or considering the 2 trials "you", being any of us, have never run under any of the 4 judges doing the AA stakes or the minors, Now how do you decide?

By relying on the opinions of people whose opinion you value, if Ted or someone like Ted gives me an opinion I value that and hope that there are those who value my opinion as well. If none of us have first hand knowledge then enter at your own risk, I have done that in the recent past and I was pleasantly surprised each time.

Wade Thurman · Mar 22, 2012

EdA said:
By relying on the opinions of people whose opinion you value, if Ted or someone like Ted gives me an opinion I value that and hope that there are those who value my opinion as well. If none of us have first hand knowledge then enter at your own risk, I have done that in the recent past and I was pleasantly surprised each time.

I like both of your responses Ed. Thank you!! I like what Ted had to say as well.

Some have mentioned they would prefer to run under someone who is running a dog currently. That would not bother me so long as they have run in the past or been in and around the game recently but without a dog to run.

I like judges who like to have fun because that is why we all started doing this, to have fun. It is big business now, I get that but lifes to short not to have fun especially on the weekend when none of us are working!!!!

EdA · Mar 22, 2012

Wade said:
Some have mentioned they would prefer to run under someone who is running a dog currently!

While it is nice to be current there are some who are current who, as the old saying goes, don't know $h!t from Shinola.....

Wade Thurman · Mar 22, 2012

EdA said:
While it is nice to be current there are some who are current who, as the old saying goes, don't know $h!t from Shinola.....

Hahahaahahahahahahaha. you got that right

BonMallari · Mar 22, 2012

fowl hunter said:
What about a judge that has good test but isn't the nicest person and is constantly raising her voice?

Gee Trevor, and you wonder why people give you grief.....maybe a lesson is tact and subtlety is in order.....of course you could be describing my son's mother but the only test she knows is 4th grade math,and that is if I help explain to her the book

wayne anderson · Mar 22, 2012

Cordial judges (not necessairly overly-friendly), who set up tests where the dogs can SEE the throwers, SEE the marks fall, and SEE their dogs MOST of the time on the way to the blinds. Also, tests to match the number of entries--Don't need a 100-dog test with only 50-some dogs entered (saw and ran under this situatlon just recently).

Brian Cockfield · Mar 22, 2012

Wade said:
I like both of your responses Ed. Thank you!! I like what Ted had to say as well.

Some have mentioned they would prefer to run under someone who is running a dog currently. That would not bother me so long as they have run in the past or been in and around the game recently but without a dog to run.

I like judges who like to have fun because that is why we all started doing this, to have fun. It is big business now, I get that but lifes to short not to have fun especially on the weekend when none of us are working!!!!

My thoughts exactly. There are some judges that no longer run dogs but have been there and done that. The tests have definitely gotten harder than in the past but the art of bird placement hasn't changed. I run FT because I have fun doing it. I learned very quickly when I started playing this game that I would go home with my tail tucked between my legs more often than not. I have no problem with this as long as the tests and callbacks are fair. I have run under a lot more good judges than bad and have only had a few blatantly bad experiences.

Ted Shih · Mar 22, 2012

Wade said:
Hi Ted,

Can I add one little wrinkle to your original question.

When looking at or considering the 2 trials "you", being any of us, have never run under any of the 4 judges doing the AA stakes or the minors, Now how do you decide?

My response echoes that of Ed.

I will talk to amateurs like Ed, Ron Ainley, Robbie Bickley, Jimmie Darnell, Don Driggers, Jason Fleming, Dave Furin, and Michael Moore and ask them for scouting reports.

I will also speak to pros like Bill Eckett, Danny Farmer, Bill Sargenti, Bill Schrader (soon to be an Amateur again) and Kenny Trott and ask them for information.

Ted

Trevor Toberny · Mar 22, 2012

BonMallari said:
Gee Trevor, and you wonder why people give you grief.....maybe a lesson is tact and subtlety is in order.....of course you could be describing my son's mother but the only test she knows is 4th grade math,and that is if I help explain to her the book

I was asking a legit question. I saw a judge that. Had very nice test. I have been to alot of trial where you always hear something negative about the setups but I didn't hear a single negative. Everyone was actually saying what nice test they set up. The thing was this particular judge was always yelling from the line get dogs, where are the dogs. Yelling at the bird boys on radio to hurry and to hustle and do we need to get someone else to come throw your bird from you etc etc. this judge also was rude to a handler when it ended up not being the handlers fault. Would you still run under this judge because this judge puts on a fair honest test?

Trevor Toberny · Mar 22, 2012

T-Pines said:
Everything Ted said in post #25, perfect and it applies to hunt tests as well.
Excellently phrased question, by the way, very respectful of your audience.

Trevor T, aka Fowl Hunter study how Ted presented his well thought out question, presenting lots of variables but making them all equal but one. THis shows his knowledge of the game, and shows his audience that he respects their knowledge as well. And then he asked his question in a very positive way to get positive answers about good judging. He did not ask for negative answers about bad judging. If your questions were well thought out, with all information presented upfront, no hidden agenda, asking for positive responses you would not be thrown under the bus and you would not be accused of stirring the pot. Just a helpful thought, we all can learn.

Colleen

Contrary to what people may thing, in all honesty I haven't asked any questions looking for negative responses. I ask questions because I want to learn and ask questions because I am curious as to what others say. Once certain people comment that have no relevance to
Y questions JUST to get a rise then yes I have probably wrote before I thought it out. But no matter what all Melanie has wrote and has said negative about me and me negative about her if I saw her stuck at a trial I would her pull her out or if she had a flat I would help fix it etc etc. I got into my profession of a firefighter paramedic because I like to help people by nature, whether I like them or not.

What qualities in a Judge make you want to run under him/her?

Old School Labs

john fallon

captainjack

EdA

Ted Shih

Dman

minnducker

Trevor Toberny

T-Pines

Wade Thurman

EdA

Wade Thurman

EdA

Wade Thurman

BonMallari

wayne anderson

Brian Cockfield

Ted Shih

Trevor Toberny

Trevor Toberny

Top Contributors this Month

Recommended Communities