FT judging scenario

11469 Views 131 Replies 35 Participants Last post by Peter Balzer, 19 d ago

Jerry S.

Discussion Starter · 2 mo ago

You are one of the two judges. Contestant calls for birds. After the first bird hits the ground you can plainly hear the contestant say "sit" to their dog. Your co judge does not hear anything.
For this scenario let's say the other two birds hit the ground and the contestant gets their number from the judge who did not hear anything.
You were the judge that did hear contestant talk to the dog.
What do you do?

21 - 40 of 132 Posts

Tobias

· #21 · 2 mo ago

drunkenpoacher said:
That is a lot different than,
"intimidate the dog" or "touch the dog"
Two often quoted "rules" that are not in the rule book.

I guess especially since the written rule uses the words 'hold' and 'touch'..... and as I said, the word intimidate IS a synonym for threaten.

If a handler comes to the line and the dog is not coming to the line very nicely - bouncing back and forth out and back, out and back to the line and the handler makes a fast move, grabbing his hat off his head and 'preparing' to hit the dog, and the dog immediately cringes back as the hat is brought below shoulder height (on the handler), is this threatening the dog? (I have witnessed the bouncing back and forth at an all age stake, so please don't say all open dogs have great manners maybe most/many do... but not all). Let's say the judge furthest away from the line was focused on the honor dog and not watch this incident but the closer judge did.
The handler did not touch the dog.

drunkenpoacher

· #22 · 2 mo ago

Tobias said:
the word intimidate IS a synonym for threaten.

Yes and the word threaten was chosen for a reason.
I ran a very long down the shore water blind at a trial yesterday when it was quite cold. The dogs that took cast into the water and stayed in did so largely because of a level of intimidation.

Reactions: 1

Tobias

· #23 · 2 mo ago

drunkenpoacher said:
Yes and the word threaten was chosen for a reason.
I ran a very long down the shore water blind at a trial yesterday when it was quite cold. The dogs that took cast into the water and stayed in did so largely because of a level of intimidation.

I am sure it was and pity the sole who uses one word in the place of another - even though they are OFTEN used synonymously.....

You mean the dogs that succeeded were fearful of making a wrong choice, rather than happy to make the right choice? say it ain't so.... LOL

drunkenpoacher

· #24 · 2 mo ago

Tobias said:
I am sure it was and pity the sole who uses one word in the place of another - even though they are OFTEN used synonymously....

Synonymous does not mean exactly the same, and the full context of a rule matters. Surely you know that.

Tobias said:
You mean the dogs that succeeded were fearful of making a wrong choice, rather than happy to make the right choice?

I mean both. If you trust your dog to always get in the water just out of the goodness of his heart and joy of doing so you will never have an all age retriever.
I saw a bunch of well trained dogs yesterday 16 went to the water blind and I didn't see a pig among them. Only about a third of them did it well, but it was a huge blind for a Q. Any dog that finished is ready for all age.

Reactions: 1

Jerry S.

Discussion Starter · #25 · 2 mo ago

Please tell me what you would do in the moment when the dog has been sent and the judge who heard the contestant say "sit" tells their co-judge on the way to the flyer. Let's say that the judge calling for the birds and releasing dog was behind and on the opposite side of the contestant and dog and didn't hear anything but the co-judge most certainly did hear a "sit."
Put yourself in the moment this happens.
This scenario has been discussed in a couple of my training groups with a good discussion ensuing.

Reactions: 1

Tobias

· #26 · 2 mo ago

I would think the dog should be allowed to complete the series... Not the dog/handler's fault the judges weren't on the same page before the dog was released.
Also interested to hear from the judges on this forum, regarding what they would do.

Tobias

· #27 · 2 mo ago

drunkenpoacher said:
Synonymous does not mean exactly the same, and the full context of a rule matters. Surely you know that.

I agree... they do not mean exactly the same... and I will keep in mind your wisdom in making sure the exactly correct verbiage is used in discussion.

captain2560

· #28 · 2 mo ago

Jerry, if the dog was released for the flyer and my co judge came to me with his concern, I would judge hunt on flyer, and inform handler of our concern and take a small break to sort this issue out. We are not discussing a minor infraction here, it is a mandatory elimination. If my co judge is sincere and sure the infraction occurred I would listen to his concerns. I wear hearing aids to help me hear the best that is possible. I would tend to believe that if the handler said sit clearly and firmly I would have heard it. There is the possibility that the other judge heard something and interpreted in his brain as sit. This is a thorny issue that either requires elimination or not. I tend to side with the dog on issues that require discussion. After discussion and we could not agree on elimination or not I would rerun and inform handler of our concerns and watch closer on rerun. If dog needs help for not breaking it will show itself. I am hesitant to eliminate unless I have observed or heard the infraction. I have known people that are very vindictive and look for reason to eliminate a competitor. This occurrence could fall under that category. Under your scenario was anything like high winds or near a noise source(highway close by that creates noise) nearby? If it was calm and not noisy I would think if it was firm and clearly said, I would think I would have heard the sit command. More so if I was calling for the birds because I'm usually behind the dog and handler and closer than the judge watching honor dog. This is a thorny issue for me.

See less See more

Reactions: 3

testdog

· #29 · 2 mo ago

In a perfect world (own perspective), stopped on line(briefly conferring with co judge), explained to handler excused (99% would know why). Then giving handler the option to pick up the birds-- pretty cut and dry. Waiting for call backs would not be so good. I have seen both scenarios, as well as handler and judge. It happens, as does interference: throwers, gallery, training, train, loose dog and misc.. When it gets grey, one could rerun and or slide by given the stake.

drunkenpoacher

· #30 · 2 mo ago

Tobias said:
I agree... they do not mean exactly the same... and I will keep in mind your wisdom in making sure the exactly correct verbiage is used in discussion.

If you're upset with me, so be it. When you use partial quotes and substitute synonyms for what is written in the rulebook you can, and do, misrepresent with the rules clearly state.

Tobias

· #31 · 2 mo ago

drunkenpoacher said:
If you're upset with me, so be it. When you use partial quotes and substitute synonyms for what is written in the rulebook you can, and do, misrepresent with the rules clearly state.

I think it is easy to make a mountain out of a molehill. But maybe just to jerk your string, I will continue to use those 'phrases'..... And by the way, you choose to interpret what I say in your own way. And why didn't you answer my question reguarding the use of the hat?

captain2560

· #32 · 2 mo ago

When discussing unscrupulous acts done by people while judging, I have been in the chair for 40+years. I have signed the sheet with winner and placements after discussion with co judge only to find when ready to to sign book placements have been changed after signing the placement sheet. In another instance my co judge when determining placements had erased a hunt on one dog and replaced it with a significant out of area hunt. I could see the erasure of previous good job, all because he didn't like owner of dog. Just saying in the vast majority of instances judging I have been with very fair individuals. But have run into a couple of bad eggs. Be aware of what is going on and above all be fair to the dogs.

Reactions: 5

Kenneth Niles Bora

· #33 · 2 mo ago

Tobias said:
.....And why didn't you answer my question reguarding the use of the hat?

It may possibly be because the tipsy egg cooker is able to understand that this is a did you hear that handler thread. And not a did he wave his cap thread. I suggest reading the opinions of the well pointed judges who are responding. The responses and insights are helpful.

Daren Galloway

· #34 · 2 mo ago

Jerry S. said:
Please tell me what you would do in the moment when the dog has been sent and the judge who heard the contestant say "sit" tells their co-judge on the way to the flyer. Let's say that the judge calling for the birds and releasing dog was behind and on the opposite side of the contestant and dog and didn't hear anything but the co-judge most certainly did hear a "sit."
Put yourself in the moment this happens.
This scenario has been discussed in a couple of my training groups with a good discussion ensuing.

If it was the first series and time not at a premium, I'm a firm believer in allowing ppl to pick up the birds for their $100 if they so chose. So, I would give them a number, inform my cojudge, and I would inform them they are out, and welcome them to pick up the remaining birds.

Reactions: 1

Tobias

· #35 · 2 mo ago

Kenneth Niles Bora said:
It may possibly be because the tipsy egg cooker is able to understand that this is a did you hear that handler thread. And not a did he wave his cap thread. I suggest reading the opinions of the well pointed judges who are responding. The responses and insights are helpful.

I didn't ask for your input, either. But there you go, giving it anyway.

Tobias

· #36 · 2 mo ago

Daren Galloway said:
If it was the first series and time not at a premium, I'm a firm believer in allowing ppl to pick up the birds for their $100 if they so chose. So, I would give them a number, inform my cojudge, and I would inform them they are out, and welcome them to pick up the remaining birds.

Can you clarify for me your positition? (I thought the dog had already been released, before the co judge knew there had been a sit infraction).....You being the judge that heard the 'sit'? And since you heard it and your co judge did not, you then tell him/her that the dog is out but they can pick up the remaining marks if they choose?

drunkenpoacher

· #37 · 2 mo ago

Tobias said:
And why didn't you answer my question reguarding the use of the hat?

Yes
Acting like you are going to strike your dog with a hat or anything else during a trial is clearly in violation of the rules. Not sure how it's relevant here.

Tobias

· #38 · 2 mo ago

drunkenpoacher said:
Yes
Acting like you are going to strike your dog with a hat or anything else during a trial is clearly in violation of the rules. Not sure how it's relevant here.

If only one judge saw it. .... just as if only one judge heard the word sit.... Maybe the handler had a wasp stinging his thigh😂

Tim Carrion

· #39 · 2 mo ago

Jerry S. said:
Please tell me what you would do in the moment when the dog has been sent and the judge who heard the contestant say "sit" tells their co-judge on the way to the flyer. Let's say that the judge calling for the birds and releasing dog was behind and on the opposite side of the contestant and dog and didn't hear anything but the co-judge most certainly did hear a "sit."
Put yourself in the moment this happens.
This scenario has been discussed in a couple of my training groups with a good discussion ensuing.

IF:
1) I am the judge calling for birds and releasing & heard "sit" after the first landed I would not signal to the next bird ( pick em up ) ask my co-judge if they heard the same: if yes out if no then rerun dog
2) I am not calling for birds or releasing and heard "sit" I would allow my co- judge to continue calling for bird and giving a # because they obviously did not appreciate a problem and we could discuss it after the fact
3) If I didn't hear "sit" then the dog runs the series

Tim

Reactions: 1

Ted Shih

· #40 · 2 mo ago

Tobias said:
I will continue to use those 'phrases'

IF - and I deliberately emphasize the word - you want to have an intelligent discussion about the Rule Book, then you need to quote the Rule Book and not substitute your interpretation of what words the Rule Book should have or could have employed. The precise Rule Book language is this:

No handler shall (1) carry exposed any training equipment (except whistle) or use any other equipment or threatening gestures in such a manner that they may be an aid or threat in steadying or controlling a dog;

So, the question is: Did the behavior constitute a "threatening gesture"?

Reactions: 3

21 - 40 of 132 Posts