[john fallon]

The thread on judging a blind running now on Forum got me thinking about how the scoring should factor into the overall scoring picture. Some good Ideas have been forwarded there on judging the blind per se this thread is about when to use this information

When I judge a FT blind, time permitting, any dog that has met our predetermined criteria with regard to it's parameters and has not committed a mandatory elimination fault.... passes and moves on to be further tested.

The work itself then only comes under scrutiny again if, when deciding who is to be called back during the trial, or who is to be placed or receive a JAM if it is at the end of necessary testing.....if at that point a careful evaluation one against the other of two or more of the dog's work on the mark's didn't provide the necessary separation to carry or to place one dog above the other , the work on the blinds then could provide the tie breaker.

At that point, and/or any time a comparison of the blind work would become necessary, I, like some on the other thread advised, would compare the dog's work on their blind in it's entirety, and not on the basis of some isolated shortfall.

In essence what I am saying is Great marks and a passing blind you are back. Good marks and a passing blind you are probably back. It is only when your marks put you on the bubble that the disposition of the quality of your blind becomes a deciding factor. Great marks and passing blinds should never be out scored by lesser marks and better blinds

john

 

[BonMallari]

I am not sure when the change came about from having the 4th series in an AA stake going to marks, when years ago it was traditionally ended on a blind, but IMO it changed the strategy involved...when the AA stakes ended on a blind, there was a chance to make up ground a take a bit of a chance if you were theoretically behind, it also gave the front runner the chance to seal the deal and put the trial away...

when the trial ends on marks the same cant be said...and yes I am familiar with the rule book stating that the marking ability of dogs is of utmost importance, and the saying "pin it to win it"

 

[captainjack]

I don't agree with that judging philosophy. Dennis Voigt has written and I believe posted here on the subject and he laid out a very good scenario and argument for the dog that didn't pin every mark.
All I can tell you is that I do give more importance to marking, but if marks are close to even, and the dog that was only a whisker ahead almost fails the blind while the dog that is a whisker behind does a 1 or 2 whistle blind that is chewing most of the dogs up, the dog that smoked the blind is going home with the Blue.

So IMO, marks are of primary importance but that doesn't mean blinds are unimportant.

For those that agree with the blinds being pass or fail except in a tie breaker, why not run the two sets of marks, pick a winner, and in the event if a tie, do a land blind and if still tied, do a water blind?

 

[john fallon]

I don't agree with that judging philosophy. Dennis Voigt has written and I believe posted here on the subject and he laid out a very good scenario and argument for the dog that didn't pin every mark.
All I can tell you is that I do give more importance to marking, but if marks are close to even, and the dog that was only a whisker ahead almost fails the blind while the dog that is a whisker behind does a 1 or 2 whistle blind that is chewing most of the dogs up, the dog that smoked the blind is going home with the Blue.

So IMO, marks are of primary importance but that doesn't mean blinds are unimportant.

For those that agree with the blinds being pass or fail except in a tie breaker, why not run the two sets of marks, pick a winner, and in the event if a tie, do a land blind and if still tied, do a water blind?

I make no mention of "A whisker" but will not quibble with your analogy if there is but a "whisker" of difference between the top two dogs Marks...yes the one that "smokes" the blind wins over the one almost fails the blind.

john

 

[larrynogaj]

I remember years ago my mentor saying "you can't win a FT on a blind, but you sure can lose one."

 

[john fallon]

I remember years ago my mentor saying "you can't win a FT on a blind, but you sure can lose one."

One can only hope that the majority of those judging are of that same mindset....

john

 

[Howard N]

So IMO, marks are of primary importance but that doesn't mean blinds are unimportant.

I agree, they mean something.

It seems to me that blinds are judged mostly pass or fail. I have trouble with a common blind getting the same weight as an excellent blind.

 

[john fallon]

I agree, they mean something.

It seems to me that blinds are judged mostly pass or fail. I have trouble with a common blind getting the same weight as an excellent blind.

Of course they mean something.a) If, at the time it is run, you don't met our predetermined criteria with regard to it's parameters or committed a mandatory elimination fault You are not around for the next series. b) When two dogs being compared are "knotted up" the work on the blinds can be used to provide additional information to get some separation.

john

 

[John Robinson]

I like that approach and for years thats the way most field trials were judged, if you didn't "fail" the blind you were called back. Now it seems that not only do you have to "pass" the blind, you need to be in the top half or so of those who completed the blind in order to make the cut. I just ran the Texas circuit and believe me, they don't judge blinds pass-fail down there.

John

 

[John Robinson]

Of course they mean something.a) If, at the time it is run, you don't met our predetermined criteria with regard to it's parameters or committed a mandatory elimination fault You are not around for the next series. b) When two dogs being compared are "knotted up" the work on the blinds can be used to provide additional information to get some separation.

john

Again I agree; in my judging, many times at the end of the day, the quality of blind has affected placements, but marking is primary.

John