FT judging scenario

11471 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?

41 - 60 of 132 Posts

Daren Galloway

· #41 · 2 mo ago

Ted Shih said:
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"?

I believe it violates this rule more than a threatening gesture.

During the period from the moment when the handler signals readiness for the birds to be thrown until the dog’s number is called, the handler of the working or honoring dog shall remain silent. Also, in all marking tests during such period, the handler’s hands shall remain quietly in close proximity to his body. A handler who projects his hand during such period, whether for the purpose of assisting his dog to locate a fall or otherwise, should be considered to have used a threatening gesture, and his dog penalized accordingly.

Reactions: 3

Tobias

· #42 · 2 mo ago

I agree, Ted. The use of the hat would be considered a threatening or intimidating gesture. Meant to control the dog. So, if only one judge saw the infraction, would their co judge defer? my guess is most judges would agree the handler should be excused based on what one of them witnessed and they should. That is why there are two judges.

I am not an attorney, and the retriever world is but a blip on the map of human activities...hypothetical discussions are entertaining and also educational. But, IMO, it's not the end of the world if someone uses words that are often interchanged in the course of discussion.

I would like to think that at the end of a blind, if my dog did a great job, I could physically love her up before leaving the line.. but I am not dumb enough to try.

drunkenpoacher

· #43 · 2 mo ago

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

You posted a question on a public forum, so yes, you did ask for input.

Tobias said:
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😂

It's a rule violation, whether anyone saw it or not.

Tobias said:
I would like to think that at the end of a blind, if my dog did a great job, I could physically love her up before leaving the line.. but I am not dumb enough to try.

You could and no one would care.

Use whatever phrases you want and continue to misquote the rulebook. You have every right to do so, but it isn't helpful.

Reactions: 3

Kevin Nash

· #44 · 2 mo ago

I don't believe there's any basis for dispute on what the rule book says about the infraction of saying "sit" after calling for birds and before receiving a #. To me the key question is how do 2 judges address an infraction observed by one judge but not the other. Given that the dog was released before any discussion, I feel no immediate urgency to determine mid retrieve whether this dog is eliminated. Had the judge who heard "sit" called "no bird" to stop the test, we may have discussed and decided with the dog in the holding blind. That didn't happen. Likely we will spend less time watching the dog pick up 2 more birds than we would spend stopping him for dialogue.
To me the greater issue is how one judge accepts input from the other and considers that in addressing a potential elimination fault at callbacks. While it may be convenient to the handler to know immediately, that's not the judges' primary concern - noting the issue now then deciding with callbacks seems appropriate. I feel accountable that my observations and my book justify my decisions. I may note "co-judge indicates hearing "Sit" during throws",but would not drop the dog for a fault I did not observe.

See less See more

Reactions: 3

paul young

· #45 · 2 mo ago

If one Judge does not trust the other, there is no point in having 2 judges.

I have never had a co-judge lie to me.

Reactions: 4

Marvin S

· #46 · 2 mo ago

paul young said:
If one Judge does not trust the other, there is no point in having 2 judges.

I have never had a co-judge lie to me.

?????????????????

I made a point discussing the parameters with my co-judge also requesting their input
into those parameters. How would you feel about someone who violated that discussion?
& YES there are homers.

captain2560

· #47 · 2 mo ago

paul young said:
If one Judge does not trust the other, there is no point in having 2 judges.

I have never had a co-judge lie to me.

Paul, the vast majority of people judging are good eggs, but if you judge long enough you will encounter unscrupulous individuals. If you encountered such a person and their history was not evident to you, say you are out of the area, what better way to enforce their vindictiveness than to accuse the competitor of a mandatory elimination fault? Just saying it can happen. And someone else just hearing the word sit without observing the individual say it is hard for me to eliminate the team. For all the lawyers out there, where one person heard it but didn't visually observe it and the other individual didn't hear anything, a good lawyer could tear that apart and create reasonable doubt.

Reactions: 2

drunkenpoacher

· #48 · 2 mo ago

captain2560 said:
if you judge long enough you will encounter unscrupulous individuals.

Everyone I know with a lot of judging experience has stories. I always ask the people I know and trust about potential co-judges before committing to an assignment. There a many people I look forward to judging with and some I would refuse to.

Reactions: 2

Ted Shih

· #49 · 2 mo ago

drunkenpoacher said:
I always ask the people I know and trust about potential co-judges before committing to an assignment.

I took the same approach when I started and it served me well. My second assignment was with Judy Powers who said "I hear you've been investigating me."

Reactions: 2

paul young

· #50 · 2 mo ago

captain2560 said:
Paul, the vast majority of people judging are good eggs, but if you judge long enough you will encounter unscrupulous individuals. If you encountered such a person and their history was not evident to you, say you are out of the area, what better way to enforce their vindictiveness than to accuse the competitor of a mandatory elimination fault? Just saying it can happen. And someone else just hearing the word sit without observing the individual say it is hard for me to eliminate the team. For all the lawyers out there, where one person heard it but didn't visually observe it and the other individual didn't hear anything, a good lawyer could tear that apart and create reasonable doubt.

Well, I've been judging since 1995 and I'm 70 years old. Time is getting short.

Reactions: 1

drunkenpoacher

· #51 · 2 mo ago

paul young said:
Well, I've been judging since 1995 and I'm 70 years old. Time is getting short.

Only 2 1/2 decades left.

Hunt'EmUp

· #52 · 2 mo ago

In the lower stakes especially with an obvious newbie Handler. I would be inclined to let the dog run then confer with my co-judge after the run. If it is decided that both of us heard it and thus against the rules; then most likely inform the handler and dismiss the dog, from call-backs. Upper stakes the tolerance would be much less and the dog would most likely not get to run. Just my obseveration but in upper stakes when such like this happens the handler usually pull their own dog as they know, they've broken the rule. Handlers running the open-am stakes know-what they are in for and should know better; but lower stakes oftentimes new handlers are so nervous they don't even know their own name if you were to ask them? Welp what is it going to harm to have a handler get to run their dog after they've paid and shown up. Especially in a sport that could really use an influx of new handlers and new blood to keep it running? You can always cut a dog later if both judges agree.

Reactions: 1

labsforme

· #53 · 2 mo ago

Minor stakes would probably confer with co-judge and count as a controlled break. Not a disqualifying fault.

Jeff

Reactions: 1

Pete

· #54 · 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.

Very simple, the handler just got a free set up with a flyer. People aren't perfect, all of us hesitate or make mistakes. Tell the handler when he is finished picking up his birds or when he comes back with the first bird. There are many ways these things can go down. Tell the handler why he is being picked up. Put your ear plugs in and move on. Take them out for the next dog. Who cares what some one may think about you. The judges decision is final right or wrong. Life goes on. Don't make a habit of it.
Pete

Tobias said:
I agree, Ted. The use of the hat would be considered a threatening or intimidating gesture. Meant to control the dog. So, if only one judge saw the infraction, would their co judge defer? my guess is most judges would agree the handler should be excused based on what one of them witnessed and they should. That is why there are two judges.

I am not an attorney, and the retriever world is but a blip on the map of human activities...hypothetical discussions are entertaining and also educational. But, IMO, it's not the end of the world if someone uses words that are often interchanged in the course of discussion.

I would like to think that at the end of a blind, if my dog did a great job, I could physically love her up before leaving the line.. but I am not dumb enough to try.

That would be considered a threatening gesture just as in the post above where it says,,,, if you project your hand away from your side to assist the dog in locating a bird while the guns were going off,,,,that would be considered a threatening gesture. As stupid as that sounds,
Pete

Reactions: 1

Steve Shaver

· #55 · 2 mo ago

Ted Shih said:
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"?

Ok so I have a question about the first part of this rule I emphasized in red. What about when a handler removes his hat to accentuate his cast while running a blind??? I really have no problem with it and never seen a judge have a problem with it but when reading this rule it would seem to be illegal. I have seen it used many times.

drunkenpoacher

· #56 · 2 mo ago

Steve Shaver said:
Ok so I have a question about the first part of this rule I emphasized in red. What about when a handler removes his hat to accentuate his cast while running a blind??? I really have no problem with it and never seen a judge have a problem with it but when reading this rule it would seem to be illegal. I have seen it used many times.

I see nothing in the rule that says a hat is illegal. What makes you think is is?

Steve Shaver

· #57 · 2 mo ago

NO TRAINING EQUIPMENT EXCEPT A WHISTLE

drunkenpoacher

· #58 · 2 mo ago (Edited)

Steve Shaver said:
NO TRAINING EQUIPMENT EXCEPT A WHISTLE

Is a hat training equipment? Same question for gloves and white coats.

A handler wearing these gloves would be crossing the line if I'm judging.

https://www.amazon.com/FUNSTITUTION-Occasions-Cheerleading-Football-Birthdays/dp/B08NV27N3L/ref=asc_df_B08NV27N3L?tag=bngsmtphsnus-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=80470624951567&hvnetw=s&hvqmt=e&hvbmt=be&hvdev=c&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=&hvtargid=pla-4584070153246537&th=1

paul young

· #59 · 2 mo ago

drunkenpoacher said:
Only 2 1/2 decades left.

HA! I hope you're right and I hope that they're good ones.

Reactions: 1

drunkenpoacher

· #60 · 2 mo ago

paul young said:
HA! I hope you're right and I hope that they're good ones.

I have friends older than you that are getting puppies this spring.

Reactions: 1

41 - 60 of 132 Posts