[achiro]

This may have been missed in another thread and I am real curious what others think

. The one area that seemed to cause some concern was on a vocal over and the dog would take the cast a couple feet and then scallop straight back. Some opinions viewed this as a refusal if I remember correctly. I do remember one individual stated that once an over is given it should be taken until stopped.

One of these days, I'm gonna train a dog to go back on "OVER" and over on "BACK" then go screw with these judges. :wink:

 

[Buzz]

One of these days, I'm gonna train a dog to go back on "OVER" and over on "BACK" then go screw with these judges. :wink:

I was once told by a judge at a hunt test not to tell my dog to "fetch it up" when he dropped a bird. He said I was intimidating my dog. I told him that it was the only command he knew regarding picking up a bird.

One of these days, I'm going to start teaching dogs that "good dog" means pick up the bird. That should screw with them pretty good too! :wink:

 

[Guest]

I've heard some [inexperienced, unknowledgeable, clueless] judges say that. But NOT any good judges who know what good dog work is...

A dog should make PROGRESS TO THE BLIND. We've all discussed this before in a very long thread. It doesn't matter WHAT the handler does as far as the type of cast, which hand, which word, etc. As long as the dog makes progress to the blind, the dog is doing well.

A dog that CONTINUES to make an over after an over cast could actually be scored as a cast refusal because it would not be making progress to the blind.

Any judge that thinks a dog should cast over across a field forever may not know what it really means to run a blind...

If a judge judged me that way, I'd take it with a grain of salt (maybe not at the time LOL) and never run under them again.

At the same time, I'm not in the general practice of using overs on blinds with dogs that I run in hunt tests...

So they wouldn't have too much opportunity to work their voodoo on me. LOL

If someone hasn't already, it would be interesting to take a problem dog (I have one or two now) and train it that "GOOD" means something intimidating. Wonder if it would work in the test?

-K

 

[SFiedler]

Kristie, do you remember which thread this was previously discussed in? I cannot seem to locate it. Thank you.

 

[T. Mac]

In this case, the dings should be in perseverance. The dog took the cast in the direction given, but did not persevere in continuing in that direction, succumbing to attractions or conditions along the path.


A cast refusal would be where the dog initially goes in a direction other than directed (does not make progress towards the blind). In my book a handler trying to cheat the blind is the same as a cast refusal on the part of the dog. Both are trainability issues, one with the dog, the other with the handler.


T. Mac

 

[Guest]

Kristie, do you remember which thread this was previously discussed in? I cannot seem to locate it. Thank you.

Search function isn't working properly...

But I think I went around and round with Lisa Van Loo. She and I both have a ton of posts, so it's not going to be easy to find. I'd say it was 18-24 months ago.

I just did a quick search via google and couldn't find it.

here's a similar one:

http://retrievertraining.net/forums...&start=60&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=


-K

 

[achiro]

In this case, the dings should be in perseverance.

Really?

The dog took the cast in the direction given, but did not persevere in continuing in that direction, succumbing to attractions or conditions along the path.
T. Mac

So you are saying that if I give a dog a right over, he should go directly right until I stop him and give him a back cast? A blind with right angles only, if you will?

What are your thoughts on this thread regarding the over off the point?
http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=41785&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

 

[Paul Rainbolt]

The line to the blind is usually a pretty narrow corridor. The cast given at a trial or test dose not mater as long as the dog meets judges criteria for the blind(which is usually a mystery until call backs). Several cast refusals in a row will probably put you off line. In training cast are literal.

At the end of the blind go through your judges sheets pull out the Okie dog CO dogs and keep only the Texas dogs for the water marks. Welcome to TEXAS :wink:

 

[T. Mac]

In this case, the dings should be in perseverance.

Really?

Really and truly!

The dog took the cast in the direction given, but did not persevere in continuing in that direction, succumbing to attractions or conditions along the path.
T. Mac

So you are saying that if I give a dog a right over, he should go directly right until I stop him and give him a back cast? A blind with right angles only, if you will?

As a judge, you judge what you see. What commands are given are inconsequential as long as the desired results are obtained. I do not know how you have trained your dogs or what commands you use. (Once judged a fellow who used whistle trills as his commands.) I must base any decisions I make based on the performance of the dog. And that performance is predicated on the dogs line to the blind. Straight line w/ no whistles = win; straight line w/ a few whistles = very good; squiggly line with a lot of whistles = not so good. A big curving line w/ no (few)whistles or a line that doesn't reach the blind = very poor.

T. Mac

 

[Ken Guthrie]

What if before a cast was given, you said "good dog"?

You know, instead of "back".

How would you judge this?

Oh the memories regards,

Gut

 

[AmiableLabs]

I used to think "cast refusals" was a big thing to judges. It certainly is to handlers. As a handler, whenever another handler blows that whistle, and the dog sits, I look at the handler to see his/her cast. And then I look to see the dog's response.

But the best judges tell me you don't judge "refusals." You don't look at (or listen to) the handler. You judge the line to the blind.

 

[achiro]

In this case, the dings should be in perseverance.

Really?

Really and truly!

The dog took the cast in the direction given, but did not persevere in continuing in that direction, succumbing to attractions or conditions along the path.
T. Mac

So you are saying that if I give a dog a right over, he should go directly right until I stop him and give him a back cast? A blind with right angles only, if you will?

As a judge, you judge what you see. What commands are given are inconsequential as long as the desired results are obtained. I do not know how you have trained your dogs or what commands you use. (Once judged a fellow who used whistle trills as his commands.) I must base any decisions I make based on the performance of the dog. And that performance is predicated on the dogs line to the blind. Straight line w/ no whistles = win; straight line w/ a few whistles = very good; squiggly line with a lot of whistles = not so good. A big curving line w/ no (few)whistles or a line that doesn't reach the blind = very poor.

T. Mac

I don't disagree with what you are saying here so to be clear. I am saying that blind b is better than blind a. (granted many would use an angle back instead of an over but who am I to say what means what to that persons dog).. What I understand you to say is that in blind b the dog is not holding the line and the "scallop" = no perseverance???



click on image to enlarge

 

[Doug Main]

In this case, the dings should be in perseverance.

Really?

Really and truly!

I disagree. Its trainablity NOT perseverence. See the HT guidelines:

Lower scores, even to the extent of grading a dog
zero (0) on Trainability based on a lack of response, may
be the result of the following: (a) not taking the direction
originally given by the handler, (b) not continuing in that
direction for a considerable distance, (c) failure to stop
promptly and popping-up and looking back for directions,
(d) failure to stop promptly and look to the handler
when signaled, (e) failure to take a new direction,
i.e., a new cast, when given and (f) failure to continue in
that new direction for a considerable distance.

What a "considerable distance" is, or when a poor cast becomes a "cast refusal" is a matter of judgment.

 

[Bayou Magic]

In this case, the dings should be in perseverance. T. Mac

T Mac,

What case are you referring to? The only lack of perseverance on a blind that comes to mind would be when a dog stops and tries to return to the handler - something I've never seen on a blind. If a dog is so far off line that not carrying an over implies a lack of perseverance, the handler might as well be checking his map for the best way home anyway.

I may just be misinterpreting what you are saying.

fp

 

[Buzz]

I don't disagree with what you are saying here so to be clear. I am saying that blind b is better than blind a. (granted many would use an angle back instead of an over but who am I to say what means what to that persons dog).. What I understand you to say is that in blind b the dog is not holding the line and the "scallop" = no perseverance???



click on image to enlarge

I did about a 200 yard blind in a fun test last weekend. It looked like the one on the right, but instead of 2 bumps in it, it had 3. I gave a left angle back, left angle back, then a left over. With the left over the dog lined from where it was to the blind. I looked at the judges sheet and he gave the dog a 5 for trainability. He must not have liked that left over, or maybe the scallop - I didn't think it was half bad. My stardards must be too low. I would have kicked the dog's butt in training to hold an angle back, but in the situattion, a left over felt right. And I thought it worked out fine...

On Rorem's handling DVD he says that if repeated casts don't get the disired result in competition or testing, don't keep giving the same one!

 

[SFiedler]

Are blinds and cast refusals judged the same in both AKC/HRC tests? I am only familiar with HRC and would like to run in a HT some day.

 

[Patrick Johndrow]

The line to the blind is usually a pretty narrow corridor. The cast given at a trial or test dose not mater as long as the dog meets judges criteria for the blind(which is usually a mystery until call backs).

So a question for the judges….if the criteria is something other the obvious why are judges so hesitant to reveal their “criteria”?

 

[achiro]

In this case, the dings should be in perseverance.

Really?

Really and truly!

I disagree. Its trainablity NOT perseverence. See the HT guidelines:

Lower scores, even to the extent of grading a dog
zero (0) on Trainability based on a lack of response, may
be the result of the following: (a) not taking the direction
originally given by the handler, (b) not continuing in that
direction for a considerable distance, (c) failure to stop
promptly and popping-up and looking back for directions,
(d) failure to stop promptly and look to the handler
when signaled, (e) failure to take a new direction,
i.e., a new cast, when given and (f) failure to continue in
that new direction for a considerable distance.

What a "considerable distance" is, or when a poor cast becomes a "cast refusal" is a matter of judgment.

So you don't like blind b? and it is a trainability issue because the cast I gave my dog to take an angle back looks a lot like the one you give your dog to get an over?

 

[3 dog knight]

So you don't like blind b? and it is a trainability issue because the cast I gave my dog to take an angle back looks a lot like the one you give your dog to get an over?

No, it's because in blind A your dog did two cast refusals for not making progress to the blind, and in blind B your dog did two cast refusals for not carrying a cast a considerable distance. Either way your out.

Welcome to Texas
3DK

 

[achiro]