[john fallon]

In the AKC FT ranks,you here a lot about Marking being of Primary Importance.
So in light of that, when using a blind to pre-qualify the team to run the land marks :shock: :? , unless ones dog or him/herself does something that would be outright failure or mandatory elimination ,how much weight can legitimately be given to the score on a blind ?
Using the Rules etc., to bolster your position would be nice :roll: :wink:
john

 

[labman52738]

It is all about how well the dog works with the handler and how well they follow directions. There is a lot of variables involved here.

 

[Howard N]

Two dogs do good marks on both marking series. The blinds separate them.

or

Dog one: 1st very good, 2nd crappy-almost dropped but marks save him, 3rd good, 4th very good.

Dog two: 1st good, 2nd good, 3rd good, 4th very good.

Who wins?

I gave the win to dog 2 'cause I didn't want to give a win to a dog that did a crappy, almost failing blind. Dog 2 didn't have a poor series. Damned if I know if the rule book would support me other than judges word is final. In my judgement a poor blind cost dog 2 one placement.

 

[paul young]

i see it the way you do, Howard. how could it be otherwise?-paul

 

[Nik]

The other important factor to consider is the role the handler plays in all of this vs the dogs natural ability and training. These dogs are taught to mark from the time they were puppies, handling doesnt start until later. That progression alone dictates a greater importance on marking ability. If the handler makes an error, chances are(not always) that it will be when handling. But when a handler makes a mistake when running marks that is when it can really affect the dog and the series. In addition memory, old falls, tight lines, retired or hidden guns and any number of marking concepts can make great dogs crumble. That is how you separate a winner vs a loser. You only get one winner, at least until next week.

 

[Ted Shih]

To a large extent the relative weight to be afforded between marks and blinds is up to the discretion of the judges

From the Rule Book

EVALUATION OF DOG WORK

Judging can never be precise; it is not an exact science, merely an art, and simply because there are so many shades of gray between black and white. At the risk of over simplification, it might be stated that the primary purpose of the of a retriever is to get the birds to hand as quickly as possible in a pleasing, obedient manner and all faults stem from a deviation from this.
....

Much can be achieved in attaining greater uniformity of judging through a uniformity in the definition of the various serious, moderate, and minor faults. Tables are included at the end of this section, wherein most of the various faults are catalogued .... However, the personal equation cannot be eliminated completely since each judge must determine the relative seriousness of individual faults, repetition of faults, or combinations of faults, which occur in the performance by dogs in a particular trial.

Section 22 of the STANDARD states:

The Judges must judge the dogs for (a) their natural abilities, including their memory, intelligence, attention, nose, courage, perseverance and style, and (b) their abilities acquired through training, including steadiness, control, and response to direction and delivery.

Natural abilities are of great importance in all stakes, whereas abilities acquired through training are of less importance in the Qualifying Stake than in those carrying championship points, and are of comparatively minor importance in the Derby Stake.

NATURAL ABILITIES

(1) Accurate marking, or memory of falls is of paramount importance.

....

ABILITIES ACQUIRED THROUGH TRAINING

The other group of attributes to be considered by Judges includes those abilities which dogs acquire through training. The importance of these acquired qualities varies in different stakes ... There should be expectation of full refinement in ?acquired attributes? in those stakes carrying championship points.

Roughly, I consider a blind to be worth a bird. In an AA stake, you typically will have a land triple (3 birds), a land blind (1 bird), a water blind (1 bird) and a water triple (3 birds) for a total of 8 birds. The blinds would therefore constitute - roughly 25% of a dog's work - 2 birds out of 8.

However - under me - you can fail a bird as a mark or as a blind. And failure means you are gone, regardless of your other work.

 

[B. A.]

So in light of that, when using a blind to pre-qualify the team to run the land marks :shock: :? , unless ones dog or him/herself does something that would be outright failure or mandatory elimination ,how much weight can legitimately be given to the score on a blind ?

John,

Did you intend for your question to focus on the questionable practice of running a land blind prior to running the land marks?

If so, I can't tell if the responses thus far are applicable (and I don't know the answer to your question).

 

[john fallon]

John,

Did you intend for your question to focus on the questionable practice of running a land blind prior to running the land marks?

Yes!
This Poll is about the practice of running a blind before the land marks, as a qualification to run them.

The question is, since FT's are to find the relative merits of retrievers in the field, again with marking being of primary/paramount importance.
Without taking points of the rules out of context, to tap-dance around their intent, is the score on a Blind run as the first series, legitimately accordant with the FT Rules etc., grounds to disallow a dog to run the marks?

Keeping in mind that the relative merits, even of the work on the Blind, cannot be found until all entered dogs have run the Blind.

john

 

[Ted Shih]

Failure is failure, whether it occurs in the first, second, third, or fourth series.

You fail, you are gone.

 

[john fallon]

Of course IF you fail you are gone, but Realistically, can 60%+ of the entered dogs fail the first series blind and not get to see the marks, much less have the relative merits of their work be evaluated :shock: :roll: :roll:
BTW Ted, is a bad bird in the water marks an eliminating failure also ?
As for a bad bird in the First series.
The Rules etc say they could/ should be looked at further since they have time to redeem themselves :wink:

Gotta go train,
john

 

[Ted Shih]

John

You seem to have changed inquiries in mid stream. You also seem to abandoned your request that posts in response to your question reference the Rule Book

Your initial question asked:

(a) Can judges run blinds before marks; and
(b) How much weight should be given for blinds.

The answer to the first question is ?yes,? the judges can run blinds before marks. Why? Nothing in the Rule Book requires that judges run marks before blinds. According to the Rule Book, the ?planning of tests is the responsibility of the judges.?

Do I like running a land blind instead of marks in the first series? No
But, that is a different question than can the judges run a land blind as their first series test.

The answer to the second question is that judging is ?not an exact science, merely an art? and that the each judge must make his/her own subjective decision about a retriever?s merits, within the context of the Rule Book?s catalog of serious, moderate and minor faults. As the Rule Book says, the ?personal equation cannot be eliminated completely. ?

In short, it is up to the individual judges to make a decision about the relative weight to be given blinds - with the acknowledgment that they are to give greater weight to ?natural abilities? (i.e. marking) than to ?abilities acquired through training? (i.e. control exhibited through the running of a blind.

As for the first question you have now added to the mix, do the Rules permit a set of judges to eliminate 60% of the dogs in a first series land blind - the answer is also ?yes.? As the Rule Book states

To the extent that time permits, Judges should be generous in their "callbacks" for additional series. No dog should be eliminated from further competition unless it is the consensus of the Judges that it would be impossible for him to "place" in the stake, even though his work in all succeeding series was perfect. For example: Other things being equal, a specific fault, such as failure to mark the "area of the fall," should merit the same penalty in a late series as had been assessed for it in an early series. Actually, the fault committed in the first series may not justify elimination, as there is no certainty at that time that every other dog may not commit an equally serious fault before the stake is completed. However, commission of that fault in the first series, alone, may conceivably justify his elimination before the last series is begun, simply because there are several other dogs in competition which, thus far, have not committed any faults and many others whose fault was less serious. Because so little additional testing is contemplated in order to complete the stake, the Judges would be justified in concluding that such an error in the first series, alone, would preclude all probability of that dog being placed in the stake.

The reality is that judges rarely run blinds in the first series unless time is an issue. And that poor performance on a first series land blind in a large Open or Am - or for that matter a Qual - may mean that a given dog cannot place in the eyes of the judges.

Do I like the fact that large Open or Amateur stakes that use a land blind in the first series frequently drop a large number of dogs before the marks? No

However, as described below, I think it is often a sad consequence of having too many dogs to run in too little time. I will say I have not seen numbers anywhere near 60% of the dogs being dropped on the first series land blind.

Have you? If so, how often?
Or is this just a number you pulled out of the air?

As for the second question you have added to the mix, that being should a failure in first series land marks bear the same weight as failure in fourth series - the Rule Book states:

Other things being equal, a specific fault, such as failure to mark the "area of the fall," should merit the same penalty in a late series as had been assessed for it in an early series.

Of course, the key conditional phrase is ?other things being equal?, which they almost never are. So, again, it is difficult to answer your new question without further details.

As for the third question you have added to the mix, that being whether judges should drop 60% of the dogs on a first series land blind, you have provided so little information as to make the question unanswerable.

Again, I wonder whether the 60% number is a real one.

Nevertheless, generally speaking, judges run land blinds in the first series when there are sufficiently large numbers of dogs to cause concern over the club?s ability to complete an Open in three days or an Amateur in two days. Sometimes judges faced with these numbers make the decision to run blinds first because they provide a quick means of cutting the field to manageable size.

Nothing in the Rule Book prohibits their decision to do so. Nor am I willing to condemn judges who decide to do so without greater understanding of the circumstances with which they are faced.

 

[MooseGooser]

Ted

I bet you dont hunt and peck when you type do you! :lol:



Gooser

 

[Doug Main]

However, as described below, I think it is often a sad consequence of having too many dogs to run in too little time. I will say I have not seen numbers anywhere near 60% of the dogs being dropped on the first series land blind.

While not quite a 60% failure rate, I'll bet that in the Am I ran this month over 50% of the dogs that ran it never picked up a bird. The blind wasn't a seperate series. Basically a California double except you ran a blind 1st after the marks were thrown. Just over 30% were called back including handles on the marks.

There was some speculation from the gallery that the size of the entry was a factor in the test design.

 

[Roger Perry]

[/b], can 60%+ of the entered dogs fail the first series blind and not get to see the marks, john

Yes ! I have seen where in an Amateur stake a double was thrown and you had to pick up a blind before picking up the marks. If you failed the blind, you did not get to pick up the marks.

 

[Gerard Rozas]

Lots of reasons for running blinds first - so never say never -

Example:

Open in Feb in the Spillway a few years ago. Friday morning temps hover around 40F with rain blowing sideways. Supposed to be that way all day. Judges with enthusiastic approval from the FT committee decided to run a land blind first. That way they could get by with only a couple of birdboys out in the weather. Would replace the blind planter every 10-15 dogs. Saturday morning dawns sunny and clear and the Open did their land marks.

 

[Doug Main]

Lots of reasons for running blinds first - so never say never -

I like what Dennis Bath told me once. "Personally, I would never set up that type of test. . . . . . Well, I shouldn't say never. I used to say I would never retire a gunner. See how well that worked out." :lol: :lol:

 

[EdA]

In the AKC FT ranks,you here a lot about Marking being of Primary Importance.

while marking is of primary importance, trained qualities as exhibited by running good blinds should not be ignored, rather they should be rewarded.

I have known some outstanding judges who judge blinds pass/fail for the purposes of call-backs, however in the final accounting those judges evaluate the blinds individually. I believe that blinds should be evaluated and judged, there are times when the differences in blinds constitute the difference in placements.

In the final accounting I compare dog to dog series to series to arrive at placements, if 2 dogs have similar work, but one's marks are better, then the one with better marks gets the nod, if, on the other hand, their marking is similar and one not distinguished from the other the one with the better blinds gets the nod.

And as I have stated many times, judging blinds is not complicated, the performance should be pleasing to the viewer, overcasting and hacky blinds are not pleasant to watch. The dog should maintain a relatively tight corridor while carrying individual casts for a significant distance and that task should be performed with a happy if not enthusiastic attitude in concert with the handler. Variations from such a performance should be evaluated in comparison to what the other dogs have done. I have heard of the "must cross the line to the blind" formula, but I have never understood how crossing some imaginary line is superior to closely paralleling it for most or all of the blind.

JMHO 8)

 

[john fallon]

I will say I have not seen numbers anywhere near 60% of the dogs being dropped on the first series land blind.

Reportedly, here is a trial with near the 60% failure rate in the first series, 75% for the combined 1st and 2nd :shock: .
http://retrievertraining.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=22538
This kind of test for even the noblest of reasons is a pariah.


You don't have to read very far to find what the Judge is supose to do
All else revolves around this.

The "Standard Procedure for Non-Slip Retriever Trials" clearly defines the responsibility of Judges, in the first sentence of its "Basic Principles," namely: "to determine the relative merits of retrievers in the field . . ." and, further, while they are performing tests which "simulate as nearly as possible the conditions met in an ordinary day's shoot."

Tap-dance around it if you will, but at the end of the day be it 45 entries or 105, the purpose of the FT remains the same.
If one wants to change the basic tenets of the game, change the above quoted passage :wink:



All's (not) fair in love, war and large FTs regards,
john

 

[Ted Shih]

While not quite a 60% failure rate, I'll bet that in the Am I ran this month over 50% of the dogs that ran it never picked up a bird. The blind wasn't a seperate series. Basically a California double except you ran a blind 1st after the marks were thrown. Just over 30% were called back including handles on the marks.

There was some speculation from the gallery that the size of the entry was a factor in the test design.

Doug

How often have you seen this occur? In how many trials that you have run?

How many dogs in the Am at the trial you were running?

Did you think the callbacks were improperly harsh?

Ted

 

[Lisa Van Loo]

"simulate as nearly as possible the conditions met in an ordinary day's shoot."

Seems to me we left behind the letter and the spirit of that passage long, long ago!

Or do we only rail about adhering to those parts we wish, and say "That's just progress" about the rest?

Just Found My Big spoon Regards,

Lisa