Re: Juges evaluation
obxdog said:
There seems to be alot of threads on different sites about somehow trying to do a judges evaluation. Seems to me this should be the job of the Hunt Test/Field Trial committee, they should be there observing the test and listening to marshalls and participants during and after the test. If they have problems with a judge, they note problems and keep a record for the next committee. Eventually poor judges just won't get many assignments, and in general evaluation would be unbiased. Of course it helps to have knowledgable and unbiased people on your committes too.
Hitting the nail on the head. Do a good job you come back some other time, bad job .....
I really think most judges know when they run a good test and when they do not. Voluntary evaluations are usually heavily loaded with negativity because those that feel they were in some way wronged are the ones who are going to fill them out. Those that are happy are simply say to the judges "nice test, thanks" when leaving the line. How many Monday morning QB's do you read threads from complaining about judging. Some are correct in their complaints, but most have the "not my dog" attitude. I did everything right and it was all the judges fault is a common motto of such threads and in the end it becomes obvious that when both sides are presented the dog that did not qualify really did not deserve to qualify. What useful information would a judge gather from evaluations? You would get a bunch of "great jobs" and a number of "you suck" evaluations. Most great job evaluations would be from those who passed and the you suck would be from those who did not.
A judge could set up the best test of all time, the perfect test if you will, and someone is going to have a dog that does not do well because they have not trained for it or the dog/handler had a bad day. You simply cannot make everyone happy all the time. If you have been judging long enough you know what you are capable of and if you are still being asked to judge you must be doing a pretty good job. The judge and hunt test committee are the only ones who need to be happy with a test and who cares how the handlers feel? The judges are there to evaluate dogs, not to be evaluated.
Let's look at another direction this could take. Your a judge and are asked to judge for the Woman’s Pretty Golden Club (sorry golden girls, just an example). Now the WPGC has a bunch of very pretty conformation dogs, but few good field dogs. You as a judge set a test that is within the rules and fair for whatever level you are judging. Only three dogs out of 40 qualify. What kind of evaluations do you think you would get? Would they be at all useful? What about setting up a tough test that is firmly within the guidelines of the level you are judging at a club and having a large portion of the dog’s bomb out and you get crappy evaluations? Are you going to want to judge for this group again?
I think that if I were to set up a test that was at the level it should be and judged the dogs fairly I would walk away happy with myself and would not feel the need to be evaluated by those running under me. Evaluations are a double edged sword, they could help you improve (maybe) but they could also create hard feeling towards a club or by a club towards a judge and while I agree there are some crappy judges out there, there are simply not enough judges as it is. Why further limit the pool? If a judge is judging that you really feel so strongly about, do not enter his test.
