[K G]

...if you encountered a judging situation like this:

Fighting (verbally) over setups on Friday...with your co-judge... :agrue:

Finding no common ground on important items like creeping, handling on marks, etc....with your co-judge...

Having a co-judge that believes that any handler running more than one dog would automatically start with a 2-pt deficit since they "have an advantage over the handler that only comes to the line once"? :?

Having a co-judge that announces to the handlers that they "...don't want to see dogs bumbling around out there and coming into a mark on the downwind side; this is a marking test and we expect dogs to go straight to their marks." The test is a walk-up triple, with the two memory birds exactly in-line, 50 yards apart with a 30 mph crosswind. :shock:


Announcing to the handlers that if your dog is not in the water on a mark by a specific patch of grass at the edge of a pond, you're "out"...and if you have to handle to get the dog into the water by that landmark, and you've already handled once, you're "out" as well... :bad-words:


Someone who, during the last series, was heard to say: "Let's get this over with...I'm tired of these people." :barf:


I'm fortunate that in the almost 19 years that I've been judging, I've never been paired with anyone as "anti-dog" and "anti-handler" as someone like this. Sounds to me like they need to do everyone a favor and stay out of the chair. :grab: !!!!!!!!!!

Keith Griffith

 

[Swampcollie]

I may want to remind my co-judge of this little piece of paper called a Judges Affirmation Letter, in which he agreed to abide by the Rules of the AKC.

 

[redline]

That's exactly why I don't do puppy stakes anymore! :shock:

 

[Uncle Bill]

This is beyond the pale in my estimation. It's beyond my comprehension that what you've described is allowed to judge in ANY program. How is it he was never discovered prior to this test?

He couldn't have gotten that bad that quick. One that opinionated can't even enjoy his own company, let alone make anyone associated with him feel comfortable.

Normally I don't bail, but I would in this scenario, just to save me from having to strangle someone.

UB

 

[Casey]

Someone like you describe is a detriment to the game and shouldn't be in a chair judging anything. His/her conduct should be reported to the Judges governing body in fairness to any handlers and dogs that may run across him in the future.

 

[john fallon]

Re: Forgot 2

2) Post his name on all the internet retriever lists. (AKA throw him under the internet bus.)

--
.

WHO,WHERE,WHEN :?: :?:
john

 

[rbr]

Well, after some questions regarding parentage and upbringing,
add 3 pts for every 2 the guy docs multi dog people,
go on with life and write a letter to the host club.

Then throw him under the bus.

Bert

 

[Lisa Van Loo]

Since I signed an affirmation letter, too, then I feel I have an obligation to that club, that trial/test, and those people who saw my name on the premium and elected to enter their dogs une=der me. Therefore, I would not choose to bail right from the get-go, although all my instincts may be screaming to do so!

Rather, I would appeal to the committee to step in and lend a hand. If the co-judge is that intractible, then the committee can remove him if he doesn't straighten out after discussion with them. In the final analysis, the committee CAN and SHOULD step in when things are not following the rules/regulations. I feel this is one of the tougher things facing committees, and one area that most committees turn a blind eye to, not wanting to get mixed up in a messy situation that may well have political ramifications.

Lisa

 

[Randy Bohn]

judge

Good answer Lisa considering your near future adventures!

 

[SueLab]

As a participant, not only should you contact the hosting club but I would definitely write a letter to the performing events of AKC outlining the events (I am sure the participants knew exactly what was going on). I would also venture to say that the word will get out and no one will want to run under that person again....I would give it one season and probably judging assignments will be pretty scarce.

With all of the fussing about how poor the MN tests and judges were/are, it would not surprise me to see harder/more unfair tests just to raise the standard by some who have no clue what they are setting up, how to judge fairly, and only have their interests in mind....building that reputation.

 

[Debbie]

If I were pitted with a Judge like that, it would be a nightmare.

My question is . . . Do I actually have the option of telling the Field Trial Committee that I refuse to judge and walk out on them at the last minute?

I have 2 Minor (Derby) and 1 Major (Open) judging points but they are from nearly 20 years ago. In today's game, I am considered a *newcomer*. My dog has 2 Derby places and one Qual JAM and we are running competitively in AA stakes, although we haven't finished any of the three Amat stakes we've run in. I'm sure this Judge would be well aware of all that and would try to ram his ideas down my throat and brush me and my ideas off like a fly.

You didn't say how many points this Judge had or how much experience s/he had or whether this was HT or FT, but I am just guessing that s/he's been around the FT game long enough to have run in AA stakes where s/he felt s/he was royally screwed and long enough to have accumulated enough points where s/he felt s/he was the "more experienced" judge and, as such, should run the show. Correct me if my guess is wrong.

If I caved in to all this Judge's demands and quirks just to get the stake going, I can see two things happening to me personally. First - if the handlers know how this person was - I could get the reputation of being a spineless co-judge with no opinions of my own. Second - if the handlers did not know how this person was - I could get the reputation of being the a$$hole Judge. Either way, you can bet no amount of my trying to explain the situation "after the fact" would mediate the opinions of me and my judging abilities formed during the trial.

In my first three judging assignments, there were never any pre-trial disagreements about setting up the tests and we discussed how to handle things like creeping and no-birds. Now there were disagreements during the trial about how to judge certain dogs. We amiably discussed these dogs and how each of us judged them. I won some arguments, my co-judge won some. But I left each trial able to sleep at night knowing that I had done my best and was able to stand up to an 8-point judge and work with him as an equal - not his "underling".

If this happened to me during the pre-trial setups, I would want to nip this problem in the bud. I would go to the Event Committee and tell them what was happening and ask that one of us be replaced immediately knowing full well that even if that person would agree to the Committee to do things "better" that during the trail his/her evil side would come out and s/he'd act just like you described. I would not want to let the trial get started and then get so upset with his antics that I'd walk out then.

I'd rather get the reputation of caring about the game enough to try to set up good tests and then judge them fairly based solely on the dog's performance and not some reconceived notion about multiple-dog handlers or nitpicky lines to the right or left of a 6-inch bush or whatever. Even if that meant I'd have to "quit" before the trial started and put the club in a bind having to find a replacement Judge.

Twenty years ago, we handlers were talking about the AKC creating some type of Judge Evaluation database to try to avoid just such incidents. That never happened, but I know many of us have our own personal little book on judges and we need to use it to refuse to run under people like this one and send out our own message. Hopefully, the word will spread in time and clubs will just stop asking him to judge.

Debbie

 

[crackerd]

C'mon, Keith--one (1) judge, one (1) assignment, for this litany of dystopian a$$ininity?

Got to be a composite drawn from Fox's rumored new show "When Good (or Not So Good) HT Judges Go Bad."

MG

 

[rbr]

Dystopian Assininity? Hmm. Off breed guys talk funny.

Bert

 

[Gerard Rozas]

Sorry for your terrible weekend Keith.

I have only one judging experience like that, and it was like my second trial I judged. I lived through it and actually learned a lot from it. What not to do.

Keith - rest assured that an assignment to judge with you still is a wonderful opertunity to learn about the game, about sitting in the chair, and about how to treat people and dogs fairly. And that is what it is all about. Don't let one bad apple ruin the game for you because an assignment only lasts 48 hours - then its time to move on.

I would not quit an assignment just because of an @#SHOLE I am judging with because this punishes the club and all the participates instead of punishing the person in question.

Don't know if any of the pages in the rules dealing with misconduct might apply, but that is an option.

Only sure thing is to add his name to the little black book.

 

[subroc]

Keith

Is this an actual example of a judging experience that you are aware of or a rhetorical question?

Joe Miano

 

[rbr]

Joe , I think it's a "what I did this weekend" report.
So anyone who ran the test knows who we are talking
about , right?

Bert

 

[K G]

Some of you guys/girls are an absolute HOOT! That's one of the many reasons I absolutely love this place! !

This situation that I described was very real, but did not happen to me. The troublemaker in question was the judge with less judging experience but probably more actual dog experience. Whether it was a field trial or hunting test matters not.

Gerard, you know me well enough to know that I wouldn't have stood for any of that situation! :wink: ! Life is too short and the memory of the folks that run field trials and hunting tests is way too long to have to be a part of a disaster like that!

Win-e wrote:

My question is . . . Do I actually have the option of telling the Field Trial Committee that I refuse to judge and walk out on them at the last minute?

The answer is yes, you do have that option...but it had better be chosen as the absolutely last resort.

On the field trial/HT secretary's report there is a line that says words to this affect: "Were there any judges who did not fulfill their assignment?" The event secretary would have to answer "yes" and then go into copious detail about why you left. As long as the event committee has been brought into the mix to deal with the situation, and you have mitigating circumstances that would substantiate your resignation, you'd have that option. You'd also need to write a letter detailing your reasons for resigning so that the HTS/FTS could include it in their report.

The bottom line is that we preserve the good of the sport. Two judges whizzin' on each other (metaphorically, Shayne/Chris/Chris!) all weekend is not good for the game, either of the games. If the committee cannot/will not bring things into line, somebody needs to step away. BTW, the committee/club would pay dearly for not attempting to mediate the situation where someone walked away.

That said, I have never heard of a situation that couldn't be dealt with before it came to the situation I described or someone walked away. Some people are just too self-important and need to be king/queen for a day, but nobody is bigger than "The Game."

Good discussion, folks. Keep it going!

Keith Griffith

 

[rbr]

And we remain in the dark with our black books open and
pencils sharpened.

Bert

 

[Lisa Van Loo]

I was at a hunt test a few years back where a similar situation was unfolding. It was no secret that the two judges were locking horns all weekend. It's also no secret who the @sshole was in the equation.

The best way to deal with it is to be gracious, and stand on the rules/regs.

Firstly, call the committee into it. Since the issues cropped up during set-up, this could be dealt with without the prying eyes/ears of all the contestants. It would also save time. Fighting the little turf war after each dog runs is a HUGE time sink.

If the committee couldn't mediate, then the second thing would be option 4, soldier through, then write your letter to the club secretary, to include in their report. Again, stand on the Rules/Regs, NOT what you feel or believe.

I would not leave a club flat-footed without a judge (me OR my co-judge), unless that was absolutely, positively the lastresort. For me, I would have to feel physically in danger (like, is the guy/gal going to slug me?) before I would back out of an assignment at the last second.

Lisa

 

[Canman]

The real question is whether Keith and Mike can make it through Tar Heel with their 100+ Open with out killing each other. What is the final entry number anyway?