50 yards with 15 degree "cone" off 6.6 yards (from the blind) & at 100 yards that is doubled to 13.2 yards..........Sorry for the tangent. :wink:
There ya go!KwickLabs said:50 yards with 15 degree "cone" off 6.6 yards (from the blind) & at 100 yards that is doubled to 13.2 yards..........Sorry for the tangent. :wink:
It's pretty much that simple, IMHO.
I have no problem with this as a judging philosophy, if it is used in a consistent manner throughout the entire length of the blind.
It seems to me to just be semantics whether you judge how close to or how far away a dog runs relative to the line & clearly the line to the blind is the line to the blind - but that becomes relative when judging the field of dogs (like whether you say these dogs are called back or these dogs are dropped, to the field of dogs you get to the same judging result). And while the line is the line, few dogs (if any) over FT blind distances remain perfectly on that line even if they arrive at & retrieve a blind without a handle, so by the very concept of how close to that line a dog remains while running the blind actually becomes a corridor with its width determined by the field of dogs. So while you might not being visualizing a 15' deviation from the line, by your own statement you are judging the dogs relative to how close they are to that line & have to determine how close/how far is acceptable relative to the field. That acceptable how close/far is a corridor in application.K G said:It's pretty much that simple, IMHO.
And trying to visualize 15' to either side of the "line" at 75 yards is counterproductive, again IMHO. Point "A" is the mat; point "B" is the bird. Draw a dotted line between the two, show any appreciable hazards or landmarks germaine to that line, then draw what the dog does. At the end of the series, eliminate any outright failures or cumulative failures and move on.
When the judging is done, I doubt either judge will have referred to how far off line dogs were, but rather how close to ON line the dogs were and did they take the casts they were given and hold those casts for an appreciable distance.....regardless of the "degree" or distance at whatever yardage they were left or right of the line....
The "line is the line" is the term most often (and strategically, IMHO) used by judges when asked which points/cover/bushes must be gone over/around/through to get the bird. After that, how everything is scored is relative to what the dogs do.Keith by using your described judging approach as you noted in brief above, you would seem to ascribe by application to the corridor view even though you state the line is the line.
And I'm betting the judges chose not to explain "the line" prior to the test. When you walked up to the mat, the "line" defined itself and the hazards you mentioned were clearly off line.This spring I ran a open and the line was in water out on land right of dead tree left of bush etc.. the line was the line and iffin you missed um bye-bye.
I always amazes me how it doesn't to some folks....or at least they say it doesn't...... :roll:seemed quite clear to me....
Of course and thats the fallacy of the position that, "The Field sets the standard"K G said:In order for the dog's performance to be evaluated at the end, he needs to have run the whole trial.
When the stake is completed and the dog didn't finish the trial, he couldn't have "set the standard" for performance in a series that matters for evaluation of placements.
His page is gone at that point regards,