[Lorri]

As most of you know, I haven't run a field trial in about 1 1/2 - 2yrs. I am still active judging and will still attend local trials when my job permits. That, being said, I have talked to folks in the gallery and many are saying that judging has become very unfair and the word "political" gets used a lot. Now, if you judge enough you will get called "political" at some point. I would like to hear from folks, that if this is true, and we are seeing this more and more how do we prevent these folks from judging. I did see an open where there were at least 2 dogs that ran and crushed the 1st test. They weren't call back! I asked why, and someone said well so and so is judging and if he doesn't like you, you won't get called back! How does this happen? Both handlers questioned via the marshall and were not called back. Is this why we have a field trial committee? Why don't they act?
Please don't point fingers but lets figure a way to alleviate this growing problem. Thjs forum can be put to good use. This is a great tool if we use it wisely.

 

[John Robinson]

I've only been running FTs since 1995 but I have heard about political judging from day one, especially back in the old days when it was said by certain judges they would never give the win to a Golden for example. That said, I can honestly say I haven't witnessed it personally. I have seen some questionable call backs and placements here or there, but I wouldn't call them dishonest. Sometimes certain judges have certain pet peeves in dogs, put greater or lesser emphasis on certain traits. I know judges that will drop a dog for lack of style or voice for example while another judge completely ignores it. I am able to anticipate my call backs 90% of the time, and I usually know when I'm in the money, just not exactly where.

I really don't think it is a very big problem right now.

 

[Mistyriver]

I thnk it still can happen. Fortunately there are 2 judges. I always wondered if any impact on a decision if the judge is also the breeder of dogs x,y, and z running under them.

 

[labguy]

Good dog work is good dog work and personal biases should never, ever enter into a judging decision. This hurts everyone in the game and does a huge disservice to every dog and every competator no matter where they place in an event.

If some judges are in fact "political" then it seems to me that it is the responsibility of the host club and the FT committee to refrain from asking these judges again.

I myself have never seen this. I have seen some bad judging where mistakes were made but never (as far as I know) intentional ones.

In the trial you saw, where the 2 dogs weren't called back, it is possible that a mistake was made. A good way of finding out is to ask the judges yourself their reasoning for dropping those dogs. A good judge will have no problem discussing their decisions and even showing you the sheets.

Listening to what people in the gallery say is a poor way of forming a conclusion about something as the gallery is usually a fair way off line and has preconceived notions of reality and lots of their own biases. Go straight to the source and it will help avoid rumor and innuendo.

Maybe the dropped dogs were noisy on line, maybe the handler touched/pushed the dog with his knee, maybe the dogs left line before being given a number, maybe the handler was talking quietly to the dog as the guns went off.....who knows. Many things could have happened on line that people in the gallery didnt see.

This is a funny game and an interesting study in human nature. I've never seen any group that is more prone to gossip, rumor mongering, backstabbing, sniping and generally poor manners and sportsmanship than competative retreiver people.

If there is blatant unfair judging and politics then there are channels available to deal with it.

Formal complaint regards and this is...............................JMHO

 

[Fred Warf]

Quote ( They weren't call back! I asked why, and someone said well so and so is judging and if he doesn't like you, you won't get called back! How does this happen? Both handlers questioned via the marshall and were not called back. Is this why we have a field trial committee? Why don't they act?)

Lori - committee has NO input on call backs - only if a test is unsafe or is not with in the rules. It takes 2 judges to drop a dog, it only takes 1 judge to carry a dog - so both have to agree to drop.

 

[Lorri]

Misty River, I have been in that situation where I have had to judge my own breeding. Three times actually. On all 3 ocassions I deferred to my co judge TOTALLY!

 

[MikeBoley]

I thnk it still can happen. Fortunately there are 2 judges. I always wondered if any impact on a decision if the judge is also the breeder of dogs x,y, and z running under them.

I am certain I have seen this happen.

 

[EdA]

This is a funny game and an interesting study in human nature. I've never seen any group that is more prone to gossip, rumor mongering, backstabbing, sniping and generally poor manners and sportsmanship than competitive retriever people.

While this is a rather broad generalization which applies only to a minority of people involved there is more than a little truth to it.

 

[Steve Amrein]

When I first got int the game I was helping a AA stake. One of the judges was likely the 1st AA judging assignments and the other was a well known and likely a HOF inductee or may already be in the HOF. While rebirding and some folks came up to the line to look at the last series someone asked where so and so was. The senior judge spouted off who gives a s@#* they will only get a greenie because they have not been around long enough and have yet to pay their dues.

The co judge did not say anything but had a look of shock on her face. I was new to the sport and did not know what to do or who to talk to. Hopefully stupid crap like this goes away. Maybe this mentality died along with him.

If this had happened currently I would have made sure things would have surely turned out differently.

 

[Kyle B]

Unfortunately, this is how we all start our "Won't Run Under" lists. Fortunately, my list is pretty short.....but I will drive over those trials or not run at all rather than run under those judges.

Sure it takes 2 to drop, but I have seen it over and over again where you have a really senior judge and a no or low point judge just get bulled over for call backs and placements (and sometimes 2 senior judges but one just doesn't care enough to argue).

The good part of this is there are some judges out there that we all want to run under. Not because they give "us" the nod, but you know their tests are fair, well thought out, don't rely on circus tricks, etc and they themselves are fair to friends, enemies and people they don't know. Best way to find those judges......sit next to them in the chair.

 

[Lorri]

I have been very blessed with the people I judged with. When it has come time to do placements everything has been spot on. At some point you will have to judge your best friend, pro and dogs you have bred. I have had some wonderful mentors that have taught me to tune out everything but dog work. If you can't be fair just say no thanks!

 

[24116]

I guess I believe the game today is the same game it was 30 years ago just dogs and people. But because of cell phones and the internet the politics bitching and whining is just so much more in your face.

 

[BonMallari]

I guess I believe the game today is the same game it was 30 years ago just dogs and people. But because of cell phones and the internet the politics bitching and whining is just so much more in your face.

true to a certain extent...but what info, aka gossip,inuendos, or perceived errors in judgement used to take days, now is viral within minutes via a text message or email..some say there is a dwindling pool of capable judges but I think there are still a few qualified judges out there that no longer actively campaign a dog,so they are not being considered because they aren't on the "circuit"...

 

[greg magee]

This is a funny game and an interesting study in human nature. I've never seen any group that is more prone to gossip, rumor mongering, backstabbing, sniping and generally poor manners and sportsmanship than competative retreiver people.

Obviously you've never been to a cub scout pinewood derby competition.
And the horse people aren't far behind.

 

[Ted Shih]

Unfortunately, politics exist in FT. Fortunately, not as much as some believe.

Unfortunately, poor judging (bad tests, bad evaluation of dog work) also exists.
Unfortunately, more than some would believe

Neither can be alleviated by the Field Trial Committee.

 

[Mike W.]

I always wondered if any impact on a decision if the judge is also the breeder of dogs x,y, and z running under them.

Interesting. I know of two trials in the last 60 days where the winner was bred by one of the judges. Probably just a coincidence.

 

[Gawthorpe]

It is too easy to point to politics as to why someone placed, or was dropped in a field trial. One thing that comes up time and time again is that those that commit the most, work the hardest and give back to the sport tend to do better than those that do not.

In my region many people come to mind that have the attributes mentioned above. Fortunately, very few people come to mind that are political manipulators of the game.

 

[Granddaddy]

Unfortunately, this is how we all start our "Won't Run Under" lists. Fortunately, my list is pretty short.....but I will drive over those trials or not run at all rather than run under those judges.

Sure it takes 2 to drop, but I have seen it over and over again where you have a really senior judge and a no or low point judge just get bulled over for call backs and placements (and sometimes 2 senior judges but one just doesn't care enough to argue).

The good part of this is there are some judges out there that we all want to run under. Not because they give "us" the nod, but you know their tests are fair, well thought out, don't rely on circus tricks, etc and they themselves are fair to friends, enemies and people they don't know. Best way to find those judges......sit next to them in the chair.

Yep, it's the best way to find both the good & the bad (both political & unknowledgeable) among judges. Have to admit, like most folks, I too have a list of judges I prefer not to run under, but it's short.

 

[labguy]

Unfortunately, politics exist in FT. Fortunately, not as much as some believe.

Unfortunately, poor judging (bad tests, bad evaluation of dog work) also exists.
Unfortunately, more than some would believe

Neither can be alleviated by the Field Trial Committee.

I don't understand the logic with the last line in the above post................By acknowleging the problems and never inviting those poor judges or the ones who let politics interfere with their decisions, to judge for that trial again................the Field Trial Committee and host club could do much to alleviate the problem.

Or am I missing something obvious here???

 

[john fallon]

I can remember posting on this very subject in about 2003 and being told that it was a figment of my imagination.

john