[john fallon]

Since in the Derby Marking is "ALL" important.
First series Land, all dogs that did not Handle or Pickup or have any other cause for elimination fault, would get to run the second series which would be water marks by Mandate .
By doing so all dogs would have demonstrated their Marking ability or lack thereof on both land and water.
At that point evaluate all of the dog work and drop any dog whose remaining work, if perfect, when compared to the rest of the field with similar work in the last two series, would not get a placement.
Do the third series , probably land, similarly evaluate then go on to a second water series.
john

 

[Gerard Rozas]

1st series - triple with two retired, wipeout flyer.
2nd series - two down the shore where the short bird lands less than 20 ft from the long guns chair - out of order of course.

No need for any more - you are done.

 

[achiro]

1st series - triple with two retired, wipeout flyer.
2nd series - two down the shore where the short bird lands less than 20 ft from the long guns chair - out of order of course.

No need for any more - you are done.

That would cut derby numbers down a lot 'cause nobody'd want to play! :lol:

 

[john fallon]

1st series - triple with two retired, wipeout flyer.
2nd series - two down the shore where the short bird lands less than 20 ft from the long guns chair - out of order of course.

No need for any more - you are done.

That would only have to happen on Sunday, where the Open/Derby judges had just judged a 90+/ - dog Open and just wanted to get home.
john

 

[Shayne Mehringer]

The "dog can no longer place" theory does not apply to the derby.

1. You NEVER know who is going to completely blow up in the last series, so there is no way to say a dog can no longer place - in a derby where there is only marking and handling is not allowed, per the rules.
2. Every dog that gets all the chickens in a minor stake deserves a JAM - handling in the last series of a Q may or may not warrant a JAM

Shayne

 

[Steve Amrein]

John,
Come to riverking and watch. Next weekend Stan (judge in nationals) and myself are judging Should be fun. Thats the way all derbys should be. There is no need to be mean and the young dogs can goof up enough themselves. Besides jam ribbons are cheap.

 

[john fallon]

1. You NEVER know who is going to completely blow up in the last series, so there is no way to say a dog can no longer place - in a derby where there is only marking and handling is not allowed, per the rules.

Shayne

Shayne, that would even be better if you had enough time .
Let them all run them all then sort it out at the end :wink:

Steve wrote

John,
Come to riverking and watch. Next weekend Stan (judge in nationals) and myself are judging Should be fun. Thats the way all derbys should be. There is no need to be mean and the young dogs can goof up enough themselves. Besides jam ribbons are cheap.

Steve, I'm glad to hear that!
john

 

[Franco]

1st series - triple with two retired, wipeout flyer.

What about running the blind off the backside of one of the retired guns? Simple enough for an older Derby pup! :wink:

And, lets do away with the land work and see who the real water dogs are!

 

[Shayne Mehringer]

Let them all run them all then sort it out at the end :wink:

Thats my take on how derbies should be.

Shayne

 

[paul young]

not sure everyone sees it this way.

a couple weeks ago my co- judge and i judged a derby with 40 or so dogs and called back every dog that got the chickens. then we awarded jams to all who completed the last series.(13 of 'em)

later that week i learned many were unhappy with the derby.

perhaps we were too generous. :roll: -paul

 

[Gerard Rozas]

What I really want to say about what a Derby should be

Marty wrote:

Quote:
i havent been at this long, but seems to me like derby judges want everyone to get through the first series and 7 to get to the end. it gets however tough it has to be to get the other 25 dogs picked up.


That sounds to me like a good derby.

1. You want everyone to get to play a series or two.

2. You want the dogs to eliminate themselves instead of dropping dogs with "two gun hooks" or "two hunts" like some derbys.

3. Everyone in the last series SHOULD have the oppertunity to finish in the money, even win.

4. In order for #3 to be true, the last should be tough enough to push every dog in the field - ie the leader has to earn his blue ribbon. And dogs that are bleeding got a shot at glory.

5. You don't end up with 10 people that think they won and the results are a lottery - the winner and places are fairly obivious.

 

[john fallon]

What do you folks think of going to water in the 2nd series?
john

 

[K G]

Gerard Rozas wrote:

5. You don't end up with 10 people that think they won and the results are a lottery - the winner and places are fairly obivious.

Yes, I'd rather them be obvious than oblivious...like some judges I've known! :wink: (just playin', Gerard!)


john fallon wrote:

What do you folks think of going to water in the 2nd?

I think it's great if it's readily available and makes sense logistically. In my perfect judging world, I'd love to be able to do land/water/land/water, with four separate setups, then to water again if necessary.

However, I'd seriously consider not judging any more Derbies (one of my favorite stakes to judge, by the way! ) if it were mandated that water was to be run as a second series.

If there were 10 new rules that needed to be written (and there aren't, IMHO), that one would be 11th, again IMHO.

Keith Griffith

 

[Ted Shih]

I think it is easy to forget that judging is an art, not a science.

In science, there are laws which must be obeyed.

In art, there are guidelines, which mostly must be followed.

In my opinion, the more we establish rules for the manner in which tests must be conducted, the more mediocrity we are likely to encourage.

 

[Tim West]

Heres what I think should be in the rules for Derbies.....

"Hooking a gun should not be grounds for disquailification".

And

If a dog handles, it is NOT automatically disqualified.

 

[Ted Shih]

I believe that judges ought to do all they can - time permitting - to carry dogs in the minor stakes.

It has been several years since I have run the minor stakes. This year, with Mootsie, Fly, and Buffy, I have started running the Q and Derby again.

High points

Seeing all the fresh faces, excited about simply getting to the next series

Seeing all the fresh faces, rooting for everyone to succeed

Seeing all the young dogs, full of piss and vinegar, flying here and there

Running under judges who wanted to let everyone play

Low points

Running under judges who were clearly last minute decisions

Running under judges who thought that they were judging the AA stakes

Running under judges who knew nothing about the Rules (Mootsie got dropped once for running behind a gun. I was told that Fly had a Q won but that "because he hunted a blind," the judges couldn't even give him a Jam. Note: the water blind was 30 yards from the long retired bird, Fly winded the blind, checked it out and left and got the long bird. Hunted the blind?)

I think that - with sufficient time and terrain - good judges can find a way to separate dogs without eliminating them

 

[K G]

Ted Shih wrote:

I think that - with sufficient time and terrain - good judges can find a way to separate dogs without eliminating them.

I agree wholeheartedly....but those are three variables that with a leak in any of the three can throw that theory straight out the door... :roll:

Keith Griffith

 

[redline]

1st. make the first series do-able. Not the hardest test.
2nd If land make it pretty hard def harder than 1st.
If water make sure you have the time. Again naturally harder because
it's water. Leave room for the last series water which should be the hardest
test.
3rd Harder than 1 & 2. Like a water blind eliminate the weak dogs get the numbers down for the water.
4th Time for the big dogs to be to step up and take it.
Two long swims wide with an obstacle or a temptation. see who will stay in the water make the swim. We find out not who the pin point markers are but whose got the kahoonees(sp?)
All doubles trying to do all possible configurations of throws and distances.
Of course using factors as much as possible.
My criticisms of some derbies are either they were too easy or they start way to hard. Unless your doing the derby at NORCO LA in Feb then all rules are off, start very hard get harder.
My 2 cents Jan

 

[john fallon]

.
However, I'd seriously consider not judging any more Derbies (one of my favorite stakes to judge, by the way! ) if it were mandated that water was to be run as a second series.
Keith Griffith

Keith,
Just curious why you feel so strongly ,since if left on your own ,and the opportunity availed itself, you would do it that way anyhow.
john

 

[wutadog]

I think that - with sufficient time and terrain - good judges can find a way to separate dogs without eliminating them

Aarrgghhhh! Keith...you beat me to this quote!
Most sensible thing I've heard on this board in a long time....Ted....you're HIRED!
Dave

P.S. John, I think the second series in the water is a sound idea, but quite often, the logistics of the trial do not permit it. The downfall of a "minor" stake.