# Movement on Line



## John Gassner (Sep 11, 2003)

How much movement do believe should be allowed on the line, specifically for FTs? If the judges don't give any specific instructions, how much movement should the dog be allowed? Is the answer different if you use a painted line, ribbons or a mat?

What about the handler? How much movement should he/she be allowed after signaling for the birds but before the judge has called the dog's number?

If the dog creeps, can the handler creep too? 

What particular rules pertain to this? 


John


----------



## Breck (Jul 1, 2003)

Most judges deal with this by using a mat and specifying either dog or handler must be on the mat for all sends or sometimes instructions may be something like "4 out of 6 feet must be on the mat". LOL
Judging has gotten a little lax. Dogs should sit tractably at heel in the position designated and not be 6 to 10 feet out in front of the handler when the last bird goes down. Usually you have a handler barking heel a dozen times at a creeper until dogs' tail finally touches the mat and everybody thinks it's OK. Meanwhile the honor dog has to sit there and listen to this crap. I'd like it if judges would simply tell the handler to pick up their dog at that point or at a minimum the creepers who don't heel on the first command should be dismissed. 
The sport after all is meant for the Non-Slip Retriever no?


----------



## Jacob Hawkes (Jun 24, 2008)

If a dog can creep & still mark the birds, more power to them. If mine moves @ all, she's gone.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Maybe 10 years ago or more, I attended a judging seminar with a panel of Judy Aycock, Mitch Patterson, and Tony Snow, moderated by Ed Aycock.
Mitch said that he liked to require the handler to be on the mat. His rationale was that if the dog got ahead of the handler, the handler couldn't help the dog. That made sense to me, so I have used Mitch's system over the years. I have been happy with the results, and see no reason to change.

When a dog creeps out too far, I will require the handler to re-heel the dog.

I don't like creepers and whiners, but I won't drop them for it. Poor line manners are a minor, not a moderate or serious fault. I prefer to judge dogs by what they do in the field, not on the mat.

If problems with line manners persist, I might drop a dog. I haven't done it yet, though. I have dropped a dog's placement for line manner issues, though.


----------



## Janet Kimbrough (Aug 14, 2003)

Ted,

I like that thinking. With regards to if the dog goes out too far the handler can't help the dog.

Janet


----------



## Dman (Feb 26, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> Maybe 10 years ago or more, I attended a judging seminar with a panel of Judy Aycock, Mitch Patterson, and Tony Snow, moderated by Ed Aycock.
> Mitch said that he liked to require the handler to be on the mat. His rationale was that if the dog got ahead of the handler, the handler couldn't help the dog. That made sense to me, so I have used Mitch's system over the years. I have been happy with the results, and see no reason to change.
> 
> When a dog creeps out too far, I will require the handler to re-heel the dog.
> ...


I agree as well with this.


----------



## Goldenboy (Jun 16, 2004)

I've also weighed a dog's line manners in placing a dog. Once judged a dog in an Amateur stake that whined, loudly, in all four series on the mat, in the honor box and in the holding blind. The dog's work in the field was exceptional. When it came time to determine placements there was another dog that did similar, but not quite equal, work without the noise and received the blue. My co-judge and I felt that the accrued faults were of a nature to deny a win. Too bad. 

I used to feel that a dog needed to stay on the mat at all times but attended a judge's seminar once where John Russell voiced his belief that a creeper would ultimately penalize itself. I've worked hard on tractability at the line and feel that it is a very important quality. I'd like to see that trait encouraged, held up as an ideal behavior, and rewarded. However, like Ted, I now let them creep and only ask to have them re-heel once they pass a predetermined line in the field.


----------



## Goldenboy (Jun 16, 2004)

And to add more to my post. John Russell once encouraged me to set up my tests in such a fashion so as not to penalize dogs that possessed the qualities that I personally found most desirable. While I have worked hard to train a dog that would sit calmly at the line and work with me to watch the birds or run a blind, the quality that I like the most is a dog that feels that it must have every bird and is prepared to go to almost any length to get it. That, and a dog who can flat-out mark. I have chosen to make some concessions on line manners for those animals. Which is certainly not to say that there aren't many great dogs who sit calmly at line yet also possess tremendous desire and skill.


----------



## H2O_Control_guy (Jul 14, 2009)

Hi,
I've mostly run HTs, but that changes tomorrow. This statement seems to imply you can talk to the dog while the birds are going down. "Usually you have a handler barking heel a dozen times at a creeper until dogs' tail finally touches the mat and everybody thinks it's OK. " Is this different in FT vs HT? 

Thanks,


----------



## BBnumber1 (Apr 5, 2006)

H2O_Control_guy said:


> Hi,
> I've mostly run HTs, but that changes tomorrow. This statement seems to imply you can talk to the dog while the birds are going down. *"Usually you have a handler barking heel a dozen times at a creeper until dogs' tail finally touches the mat and everybody thinks it's OK*. " Is this different in FT vs HT?
> 
> Thanks,


This is after the judge has given the dogs number, and the handler is reheeling before sending the dog.


----------



## H2O_Control_guy (Jul 14, 2009)

Thanks that was what I thought the answer would.


----------



## Duckquilizer (Apr 4, 2011)

You could always save yourself a large headache and train to close to 0 movement as you can! Not even a butt muscle twitch!


----------



## 2tall (Oct 11, 2006)

Duckquilizer said:


> You could always save yourself a large headache and train to close to 0 movement as you can! Not even a butt muscle twitch!


Thats easy for you to say, you have a Dude pup!


----------



## Mick Presco (Feb 14, 2010)

*The issue isn't with the dog, but whether the hadler is moving right with the dog.*




John Gassner said:


> How much movement do believe should be allowed on the line, specifically for FTs? If the judges don't give any specific instructions, how much movement should the dog be allowed? Is the answer different if you use a painted line, ribbons or a mat?
> 
> What about the handler? How much movement should he/she be allowed after signaling for the birds but before the judge has called the dog's number?
> 
> ...


----------



## Labs a mundo (Mar 20, 2009)

John Gassner said:


> How much movement do believe should be allowed on the line, specifically for FTs? If the judges don't give any specific instructions, how much movement should the dog be allowed? Is the answer different if you use a painted line, ribbons or a mat?
> 
> What about the handler? How much movement should he/she be allowed after signaling for the birds but before the judge has called the dog's number?
> 
> ...


John, it's an interesting question, and one that probably has many opinions. As a judge i prefer to give a few intructions as possible. The handlers know the rules and so should the judges. If a mat is on the line it should be used by the handler because it's put their for their benefit. In my mind it doesn't require intruction. If your dog creeps it may interfer with his/her ability to mark a fall. 
As a handler it's your call on how to handle a dog on a mat. I'm willing to give a dog it's number even if he/she has crept. I would hope to see a handler re-heel and get their their dog under control, but it's their choice.
As a judge it's my responsibility to make a judgment on a repeated action. I wouldn't drop a dog for poor line manners, but you can be sure at the end of the day that a dog that demonstrates a repeated looseness on line will have a comment on the sheet.

What I believe to be most important is the question of standards. Is a creep acceptable for you? If it's OK for you, then don't worry about it. 

My preference is to use a mat as a training tool for my own level of accepted behavior. A creep is never acceptable for me and hope to never have one , especially, in a 4th series.


----------



## Breck (Jul 1, 2003)

*STANDARD PROCEDURE FOR NON-SLIP*
*RETRIEVER TRIALS*
In order that trials may be conducted as uniformly as
practicable, standardization of objectives is essential and,
therefore, all Judges, guns, contestants and officials who
have a part in conducting trials should be familiar with and
be governed so far as possible by the following standard:
BASIC PRINCIPLES
1. The purpose of a Non-Slip Retriever trial is to determine
the relative merits of Retrievers in the field.
Retriever field trials should, therefore, simulate as nearly
as possible the conditions met in an ordinary day’s shoot.
Dogs are expected to retrieve any type of game bird
under all conditions, and the Judges and the Field Trial
Committee have complete control over the mechanics
and requirements of each trial. This latitude is permitted
in order to allow for the difference in conditions
which may arise in trials given in widely separated
parts of the United States, which difference may well
necessitate different methods of conducting tests.
No live game bird, or any other species of bird or fowl,
shall be used in a test while under any form of restraint
or physical impairment at any sanctioned, licensed, or
member club event for Retrievers.
26
2. *The function of a Non-Slip Retriever is to seek and*
*retrieve “fallen’’ game when ordered to do so*. *He*
*should **sit quietly on line** or in the blind, walk at heel, or*
*assume any station designated by his handler until sent*
*to retrieve.* When ordered, a dog should retrieve quickly
and briskly without unduly disturbing too much
ground, and should deliver tenderly to hand. He should
then await further orders.
Accurate marking is of primary importance. A dog
which marks the fall of a bird, uses the wind, follows a
strong cripple, and will take direction from his handler
is of great value.


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

Breck, as long as we're quoting the rule book, I thought it might be helpful to post up the list of faults.

You implied earlier that you would have a handler just pick up it's dog for poor line manners. Is elimination from the stake warranted based on the category that particular fault is in? How "severe" must the infraction be to put it into the serious fault category? 

Man, I have a terrible time editing and formating posts with this new and improved interface...




> *I. SERIOUS FAULTS. (Serious faults listed cover all those instances where the Standard describes conduct of the dog which in and of itself justifies elimination from the stake. There are in the Standard three descriptions of handler misconduct justifying elimination from the stake i.e., blocking a dog’s view of a mark, throwing objects to encourage water entry and carrying exposed training equipment and other excessive restraint of the dog. While these are certainly to be enforced, they are not listed here under serious faults demonstrated by retrievers. The failure to list handler misconduct under serious faults in no way means that such misconduct is less serious or does not justify elimination from the stake.)
> *
> 1. Repeated evidence of “poor nose.’’
> 2. Failure to enter either rough cover, water, ice, mud, or any other situation involving unpleasant or difficult “going’’ for the dog, after having been ordered to do so several times.
> ...





> 3. Poor line-manners; “ heeling’’ poorly; not
> immediately taking and staying in the position designated; dropping a bird at delivery; jumping after a bird; not remaining quietly on-line after delivery.
> 4. Slow pick-up of a dead bird (except when fluttering or badly shot-up); dropping bird; handling game in a sloppy manner.
> 5. Unsteadiness on-line, including creeping.
> ...


----------



## Breck (Jul 1, 2003)

"







The issue isn't with the dog, but whether the hadler is moving right with the dog."
I haven’t seen handlers actually “follow” a bad creeper very far. Maybe they’ll take a step or two forward, since dog has trained them heel means to stay in step with the dog not vice versa, but if dog continues to creep these handlers will generally stop moving forward and let the dog go.
On the other hand you will see handlers who will step over, behind, and dance circles around the dog while barking commands.


----------



## Breck (Jul 1, 2003)

Yea Buzz I know where you're coming from, but in my opinion a dog that does not assume the position, ie sit at heel right here on this black mat, could be considered "out of control" if he does not. A Major Fault.
Anyway, in Field Trials judges don't necessarily need to justify eliminating dogs by citing elimination faults from the rule book.


_6. “Out-of-control,’’ i.e., __*paying no attention to many whistles*__ and directions by the handler._
_In my opinion this can interpreted as __"paying no attention to many commands" __as in handler commanding "heel" 20 times after judges as creeping dog to heel. No different than a cast refusal really. _


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

Breck said:


> Yea Buzz I know where you're coming from, but in my opinion a dog that does not assume the position, ie sit at heel right here on this black mat, could be considered "out of control" if he does not. A Major Fault.
> Anyway, in Field Trials judges don't necessarily need to justify eliminating dogs by citing elimination faults from the rule book.


If it takes 10 "heels" to get a dog on the mat, sure you could say it's out of control... No, you don't need to justify a drop based on elimination faults, but I think that when I judge, I like to keep things in perspective by referring to the list of faults so I'm not unfairly penalizing dogs based on my personal prejudices.


----------



## John Gassner (Sep 11, 2003)

Some really good responses so far! I think we all want a dog with a "ton of go" that also exhibits a "ton of whoa".

I personally don't like reading too much into the rules and making my own. I don't drop, or even ding dogs for minor line movement or slight creeping. A dog should want to reposition itself to best see the birds fall. Our job as handlers and trainers is to not let them get too carried away with this and strike some balance.

I can find plenty of "faults" with dogs not being perfect on the line or in the field. My job when judging is to find the one with the most positives such as marking. I try not to crucify dogs that give a little whimper on the send or take a half step in front of the handler to better see the birds fall.

Mick has hit on my real question. I know how most of what I consider good judges feel about dog generated infractions.

What I really want to know is how much movement should be allowed by the handler after they have signalled for the birds and before being released by the judges? If the dog creeps 5 feet, should the handler be allowed to creep with the dog? What about dogs swinging for the flyer second, when the flyer is actually third bird down? 

I recently witnessed an AA stake where several handlers walked up several steps in order to block out the flyer station after calling for the birds. One handler went so far as to walk around his dog and then block out the flyer by getting to that side after calling for the birds. Another handler actually stepped on her dog's tail accidentally while miving around to block the flyer.

I know how I feel about this and how I will handle it should it happen to me in the future. I am curious as to how others view this. What rules are you using to form your position?


John


----------



## Breck (Jul 1, 2003)

If you saw handlers doing that the judges should have immediately asked the handler to put the lead on their dog and excuse them.
This is one area where the handlers actions, not the dogs warrants elimination from the stake. Block dogs view of a fall and you're history. This includes while on honor.


----------



## John Gassner (Sep 11, 2003)

Breck said:


> If you saw handlers doing that the judges should have immediately asked the handler to put the lead on their dog and excuse them.
> This is one area where the handlers actions, not the dogs warrants elimination from the stake. Block dogs view of a fall and you're history. This includes while on honor.


I agree with the "block the view of the fall and you're history. The difference is, the handler did not block the view of the fall, just the view of the flyer station before the bird was thrown/shot. 

For example; middle bird thrown first, dog watches bird and then swings (incorrectly) to flyer. Handler blocks view of flyer station so that dog will focus on bird #2 which is right-hand bird. Handler then allows dog to see bird #3 which is left-hand flyer. 

John


----------



## Breck (Jul 1, 2003)

I didn't read your original post close enough. As long as they're not blocking the view of an actual fall I guess it's OK but if they touch their dog it could be an issue. 

To your original question I don't recall if the rules address excessive movement of the handler as in following a creeper or whatever. I sure don't like watching handlers or dogs that are all over the place but admit I did get a kick watching the antics of a dog named Lefty on the line.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

This is what the Rule Book (page 28) says




> 10. When on line, a handler shall not place his dog or himself so that the dog’s full vision of the bird is *blocked as it falls.* This applies to the working dog and the honoring dog. Violation of this provision, if determined by the Judges to be deliberate, is sufficient cause to justify elimination from the stake.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

John Gassner said:


> What I really want to know is how much movement should be allowed by the handler after they have signalled for the birds and before being released by the judges? If the dog creeps 5 feet, should the handler be allowed to creep with the dog? What about dogs swinging for the flyer second, when the flyer is actually third bird down?
> 
> I recently witnessed an AA stake where several handlers walked up several steps in order to block out the flyer station after calling for the birds. One handler went so far as to walk around his dog and then block out the flyer by getting to that side after calling for the birds. Another handler actually stepped on her dog's tail accidentally while miving around to block the flyer.
> 
> John


If you require that the handler stand on the mat, you eliminate alot of this stuff.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

John Gassner said:


> One handler went so far as to walk around his dog and then block out the flyer by getting to that side after calling for the birds. Another handler actually stepped on her dog's tail accidentally while miving around to block the flyer.
> 
> John



Are you advocating penalizing a dog for his/her handler's clumsiness for stepping on the dog's tail? I don't think I want to go there.

As for stepping over a dog to block a flyer ... it looks awkward, but where does the Rule Book address it?
Moreover, given how some judges like to put a flyer up close and tight to a longer bird, so that the dogs are distracted from the long bird, I might want to figure out how to do the step over myself.


----------



## Jacob Hawkes (Jun 24, 2008)

I'm having a very hard time with a creep being a major fault. Sorry, but that's just not @ all how I view it. They usually hurt theirselves. Others have this incredible set of peepers that can get away with it. I personally want & expect my girl to not flinch a muscle while on line. I'd have a hard time dinging a dog for creeping. Now if this dog was extremely vocal, it would be noted. That said, show me good to great work in each series. I'd be much more concerned about bringing total failures back to the next series & them placing, than a dog that doesn't stay on the mat.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Jacob Hawkes said:


> I'm having a very hard time with a creep being a major fault. Sorry, but that's just not @ all how I view it.


​How does the Rule Book view it?


----------



## Jacob Hawkes (Jun 24, 2008)

Could be a minor to medium fault. Unless the dog was extremely vocal, I wouldn't fault the dog. If I can't come up with more separation than what a dog does online, I shouldn't be judging. Just my opinion.


----------



## John Gassner (Sep 11, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> Are you advocating penalizing a dog for his/her handler's clumsiness for stepping on the dog's tail? I don't think I want to go there.
> 
> As for stepping over a dog to block a flyer ... it looks awkward, but where does the Rule Book address it?
> Moreover, given how some judges like to put a flyer up close and tight to a longer bird, so that the dogs are distracted from the long bird, I might want to figure out how to do the step over myself.


No I am not advocating anything about accidentally stepping on or touching a dog. Not so sure about handler moving so much that they can't help but come in contact with the dog. Dog bumping into a handler is nothing. Handler bumping into dog probably nothing unless the handler is moving around so much that it becomes inevitable. 

I realize there is nothing that spells this out exactly. AKC officials have expressed opinion about intimidation. It's just an opinion, but I hate using intimidation or threatening gesture as a catch all when nothing else quite fits. A member of the RAC has also weighed in saying this should not be permitted.

My question remains; How much is too much movement, or what is allowed by the handler? Surely Ted, there is a point where it becomes excessive? As I mentioned earlier and you restated, the blocked view of a bird as it falls does not pertain. My thoughts are along the line of keeping hands quietly by your side part of the book. I would think this might also include your body which your hands and arms are attached to? 

I know foot shuffling is commonly employed to help get a dog to swing its head while on the line and the birds have been called for. How much is too much or is there maybe no such thing?

Ted I agree with the mats to a degree. They are a great starting point but they don't prevent creeping or movement by dog or handler. Most dogs tend to be more obedient when a mat is present. This may be enough reason for judges to consider not using one sometimes. If the handler and or dog returns to the mat before the dog is sent to retrieve the birds then they have merely crept and not broke!

John


----------



## Breck (Jul 1, 2003)

Next time you have several wild childred in your line up try this. Have dogs honor just before they run, in the holding blind, off lead, no talking. Half of em probably wont be able to stand it. Lol


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

John

I think that there is a difference between what I like and what the Rule Book establishes. I like a dog that sits and watches the birds without a lot of drama. I like a handler that is quiet and graceful on the line. But, that is my personal preference. Others differ. To me, these are tie breaker issues, not call back issues. However, if I saw a dog that was unruly, noisy and a general pain in the butt in three series - I might express my opinion to my co-judge that the dog should not see a fourth series - in the same vein as I would treat a dog with poor style. Repeat offenses make minor faults, moderate, then serious faults. 

To the extent that the RAC or the AKC thinks that the Rule Book prohibits the "dance", etc. - I disagree. Of course, we could always change the Rule Book, but that would only continue what I believe to be the RAC's path of over management.

I am far more concerned about issues of dog safety, visibility of guns and birds, the ability of dogs to hear and see their handlers, and the ability of handlers to see their dogs, than I am about these issues. If we were going to legislate, I would argue for legislation about these fundamentals rather then handler/dog movement.

Overall, I think that the handlers who are bouncing all over the line, are not particularly effective. They aren't usually around by the fourth series - if the tests are sufficiently difficult. So, I am not inclined to toss them for line manner issues, but rather let them self eliminate for performance in the field issues. There are very few dogs that can deal with really tough tests without handler assistance. If the dog is 10 feet ahead of the handler when it is time to send, and the handler must be on the mat, well, no more Jockey influence. 

If you wanted a basis in the Rule Book for elimination - as opposed to downgrading a dog's performance, you could look to page 32 of the Rule Book




> The Judges may require that dogs which have so jumped or crept forward be brought back to heel before being sent for their birds. A handler so ordered should bring his dog to a position satisfactory to the Judges and remain with him in such position until his number is called. In tests including honoring, care should be exercised to treat creeping, on the part of either dog, in a manner not grossly unfair to the other.



Frankly, if I thought the honoring dog/handler were making such a commotion as to interfere with the working dog, I would tell the handler to honor on lead, and drop the dog

As for the mat, I like it because it is uniform

If you say both feet on the mat, there is no confusion (or game playing) Before mats came into vogue, I remember using painted rocks to establish the line and watching pros moving them to widen the strike zone. The first time it happened, I thought it was accidental. The next time, I knew it was deliberate and told the pro to knock it off. 

I have done the tufts of grass with tape on them, only to watch the pros "accidentally" step on them to widen the strike zone. 

Who needs to police that stuff

Also, if the dogs get wet, the mat helps you keep the handling area from becoming a bog

So I am a mat man.


----------



## Bridget Bodine (Mar 4, 2008)

Jacob Hawkes said:


> Could be a minor to medium fault. Unless the dog was extremely vocal, I wouldn't fault the dog. If I can't come up with more separation than what a dog does online, I shouldn't be judging. Just my opinion.


So you only judge part of the dog's performance?? Are the dogs not judged from the time the judge says come on down?


----------



## junbe (Apr 12, 2003)

Earlier this month I judged an Open with over 70 starters. The line manners of both the dogs and handlers were very good. Not one dog was asked to reheel. I use the mat with the instructions in the last holding blind. Handlers on mat during all marks. Dogs are to be sent from the mat on blinds. 
If a problem did arise, I would use the rule book as guidance in my decision. Under Trial Procedures you will find “When coming to line to be tested, and while on line, the dog and handler should assume such positions as may be directed by the judges.” Also you will find “When ordered to retrieve, the handler shall direct his dog from any position designated by the judges.”
In Line Manners, you will find “During the period from the moment the handler signals readiness for the birds to be thrown until the dog’s number is called, the handler of the working dog or honoring dog shall remain silent.” I may add the handler cannot initiate any noise, both vocal or otherwise, which may include jiggling a choke chain in their pocket, buzzing a mini-prod in their pocket, or stomping their feet. Also you will find no handler shall … or use any other equipment or threatening gestures in such a way as a threat in steadying or CONTROLLING A DOG. 
In the Recommendations, that includes faults, you will find the following statement: “The faults included in this classification are those which are observed most often at retriever trials. Others may occur and this classification may serve as a helpful guide on these occasions as to determine the relative importance of such offenses. Finally, the primary consideration of judges in respect to the importance of the faults listed here, as well as others which may occur, is to determine to the extent to which any of the such infractions would detract from the full enjoyment of ‘an ordinary day’s shoot.’”
All of these problems should be discussed with the co-judge prior to judging and the degree of penalty that would be assessed.

Jack
,


----------



## Jacob Hawkes (Jun 24, 2008)

Bridget Bodine said:


> So you only judge part of the dog's performance?? Are the dogs not judged from the time the judge says come on down?


As I stated earlier, I expect mine to not flinch a muscle. When she does move, she's gone, AKA she broke. A little creep or a big creep does not really concern me that much. Now a dog that's vocal (Not a little whining. That's totally different.) to an annoyance is another thing for myself. Do I prefer watching dogs sit still or just a tad bit of movement? You bet. I certainly care more about marking & blinds than a little animation on the line.


----------



## Wade Thurman (Jul 4, 2005)

Ted Shih said:


> If you require that the handler stand on the mat, you eliminate alot of this stuff.



Ted,

I like what Mitch had to say about the Mat and your feelings are well taken. 

Are you more stringent on your use of the Mat in the AA stakes or in ALL stakes? I'm curious to get your thoughts on the use of the Mat in the Minors.

Thanks


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

think of the mat like the batters box in baseball terminology...you can move up and back, side to side on either side of home plate (the dog), stepping out of the batters box could lead to being called out by the umpire (judge)


----------



## jeff evans (Jun 9, 2008)

Breck said:


> Next time you have several wild childred in your line up try this. Have dogs honor just before they run, in the holding blind, off lead, no talking. Half of em probably wont be able to stand it. Lol


The first open I ever ran Bert Carlson was judging and he did just what you said. Dog honored before he retrieved, watched the birds then went back to the hold.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

John Gassner said:


> No I am not advocating anything about accidentally stepping on or touching a dog. Not so sure about handler moving so much that they can't help but come in contact with the dog. Dog bumping into a handler is nothing. Handler bumping into dog probably nothing unless the handler is moving around so much that it becomes inevitable.
> 
> I realize there is nothing that spells this out exactly. AKC officials have expressed opinion about intimidation. It's just an opinion, but I hate using intimidation or threatening gesture as a catch all when nothing else quite fits. A member of the RAC has also weighed in saying this should not be permitted.
> 
> ...


I have always been curious as to how the "dragging foot shuffle" technique evolved. To me it is often excessive and unnatural, but by common practice it is just ignored and assumed to be an accepted handling technique. Since it seems to be acceptable, I do it myself to little effect when my dog has locked on the flayer while memory bird #2 is being thrown off to the right. I really don't know how much would be too much, but it has been my experience that if a handler is going crazy with the shuffle, it's because his dog is paying no attention to him and is about to eliminate himself due to poor work anyway.

Regarding the mat, I like it both as a handler and a judge, but like you, I noticed something last week where they did it the old way with ribbons on bushes instead of a mat. Both of my dogs who are usually rock steady on a mat, didn't have that solid reference line and crept a bit on me. Not too much, just a little, but enough for me to notice.

John


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

John Robinson said:


> Regarding the mat, I like it both as a handler and a judge, but like you, I noticed something last week where they did it the old way with ribbons on bushes instead of a mat. Both of my dogs who are usually rock steady on a mat, didn't have that solid reference line and crept a bit on me. Not too much, just a little, but enough for me to notice.
> John


Yep the foot dragging/shuffling is accepted practice no matter how annoying. 

As a competitor I like the mat.
1. Since we train with one the dog knows where the line is
2. The mat is helpful in lining the dog on blinds
3. Provides good footing particularly on water tests

The biggest issue I have with the mat is overzealous judging of what happens there. Since many of us are older, heavier, and less agile than we once were the contest should be what happens in the field not how accomplished our footwork is. I have heard of the use of ridiculously small mats (2'X2'). The mat should be large enough for a large person with a large dog to comfortably fit on the mat, perhaps a minimum of 3 feet by 4 feet.

As a judge I am not fond of using a mat other than to provide secure footing on marking tests involving water.
1. It aids the handler and the dog in identifying the line and lining the dog
2. I prefer to watch what the dog is doing rather than where the handler's feet are
3. It is always interesting to watch people try to find perfect spot to send the dog from on difficult marks


----------



## MIDTNGRNHEAD (Jun 17, 2004)

I don't think anyone has hit on the first thought that came to my mind when I read the title to this thread. In multiple hunt tests this spring, the marks have been thrown where the dog had to turn 180 degrees between marks. How are dogs to be rock solid at the line when the tests are set up to make the dog get up and turn completely around to see one of the marks. Recently in one master test, in two of the three series, the dogs had to make a 180 degree swing. So much for no line movement.


----------



## Breck (Jul 1, 2003)

MIDTNGRNHEAD said:


> I don't think anyone has hit on the first thought that came to my mind when I read the title to this thread. In multiple hunt tests this spring, the marks have been thrown where the dog had to turn 180 degrees between marks. How are dogs to be rock solid at the line when the tests are set up to make the dog get up and turn completely around to see one of the marks. Recently in one master test, in two of the three series, the dogs had to make a 180 degree swing. So much for no line movement.


That right there is reason enough to teach your dog to pivot with you L or R while remaining in the Heel/Sit position. That means in your 180 deg swing if you had a boy dog his nads would pretty much stay in contact with the ground while moving with you......
Dont allow your dog to get up until you send him.


----------



## Breck (Jul 1, 2003)

Regarding the mat. I think one could make the argument that the mat is a "training aide".


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Breck said:


> Regarding the mat. I think one could make the argument that the mat is a "training aide".


You certainly could make that argument and I would agree to the extent I saw my two dogs behaving differently with and without one. Personally I like them as a judge and handler; as a judge it usually keeps the line cleaner especially in mud or wet weather, it is also easier and more clear cut to say handler on the mat for marks, dog on the mat for blinds, as a handler my dogs seem to understand the line better. When I judge I am rooting for the dog and want to give them every chance to sit calmly on-line and watch the birds go down, there will be plenty of stuff to judge in the field if I placed my birds well.

John


----------



## BBnumber1 (Apr 5, 2006)

Breck said:


> Regarding the mat. I think one could make the argument that the mat is a "training aide".


Except that the handler is not bringing the mat to the line. This falls under the same category as wingers, blind markers, holding blinds and a multitude of other things supplied for the test


----------



## Ken S. (Feb 2, 2005)

As a judge, I don't put too much emphasis on the line itself. It is a reference point to me, and as Ed points out a mat can be helpful on water series. I have never seen a situation where a foot or two one way or another materially affects the dogs work (absent some trick test). Where you are at the line usually has little to do with what happens in the field. No one wants there dogs to creep or otherwise be unruly, we try to train the best combination we can. Sometimes you get what you get. I don't usually care a lot about creepers as the behaviour usually sorts itself out in other ways - they will miss a mark, not stop on a blind, etc. I will make note of it if excessive, but like I said these things usually work themselves out on their own. I have never had a handler go way out to meet the dog, but particularly with some more senior handlers they move in general around the area of the mat.


----------



## Wade Thurman (Jul 4, 2005)

EdA said:


> Yep the foot dragging/shuffling is accepted practice no matter how annoying.
> 
> Ed,
> 
> ...


----------



## John Lash (Sep 19, 2006)

The OP was not about mats or creeping... If a dog moves up a couple steps and looks at the wrong bird, what do you do if a handler moves up and blocks the dog's view of said bird?

Is it (a) smart handling or (b) not allowed?


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

I say let a creeper creep. It generally takes care of itself by the dog missing marks. You can put a premium on it by requiring all sends from the mat, i.e., handler on mat. Judge the dog work in how the dog marks & handles.

And let's not forget, we're sending dogs on 400-500 yd marks these days versus under 200 when the rules were written. So we are breeding dogs who will go that distance. And just to remind folks, the top points dog for 2011 rarely sits at the line...yet he's has few peers in the game.

And to put things in prospective for the technocrat, are you equally critical of the pig that sits like an angel at the line but walks to marks & on blinds? The rules quoted here to justify harse judgment of the creeper, speak critically of a dog with no style. Point is, keep things in prospective.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

I think it is possible to have a high roller that sits quietly on the line. I think it is possible to have an excellent marker with excellent line manners. Obedience, style, and marking are not mutually exclusive. The best marking dog that I have ever seen - FC/AFC Trumarc's Lean Cuisine - was a rock on the line. 

As I have said before, I think the focus of judging should be on what happens in the field. But, I also think that we ought to pay attention to line manners. I would ding a dog with persistent creeping, voice, etc. issues.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

John

I thought you were going to tell us what you would do ... and why?

Ted


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

John Lash said:


> The OP was not about mats or creeping... If a dog moves up a couple steps and looks at the wrong bird, what do you do if a handler moves up and blocks the dog's view of said bird?
> 
> Is it (a) smart handling or (b) not allowed?


If you have advised the handlers that they are to remain on the mat, their moving off the mat for any reason would be grounds to drop them. I have reminded them in a quiet voice, "handler on the mat" when I have seen handlers "forget" the instructions.

John


----------



## Jacob Hawkes (Jun 24, 2008)

Ted Shih said:


> I think it is possible to have a high roller that sits quietly on the line. I think it is possible to have an excellent marker with excellent line manners. Obedience, style, and marking are not mutually exclusive. The best marking dog that I have ever seen - FC/AFC Trumarc's Lean Cuisine - was a rock on the line.
> 
> As I have said before, I think the focus of judging should be on what happens in the field. But, I also think that we ought to pay attention to line manners. I would ding a dog with persistent creeping, voice, etc. issues.


On the flip side, Pearl is known for not quite being a statue, but she's an incredible marker. As far as sheer marking ability, I don't think there's a better one. I know I'm not the only one who has that opinion.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Jacob Hawkes said:


> On the flip side, Pearl is known for not quite being a statue, but she's an incredible marker. As far as sheer marking ability, I don't think there's a better one. I know I'm not the only one who has that opinion.


But how much better could she be minus the creeping?


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Jacob Hawkes said:


> On the flip side, Pearl is known for not quite being a statue, but she's an incredible marker. As far as sheer marking ability, I don't think there's a better one. I know I'm not the only one who has that opinion.


There are all kinds of good-great marking dogs and what you have is what you have. My now retired Yoda was a fantastic marker, but he had to watch the birds go down in order to mark them. A fairly common occurance for me and Yoda was for Yoda to heel to the mat, sit at my side calmly as I pointed out the guns, then creep one foot forward of the mat or line as soon as I signaled for the birds. This drove me crazy as I was unable to help him, with me standing behind him and frozen on the mat. There were two kinds of dogs I was very jealous of back in the day, 1) the "steady Eddie"willing partner like Carbon or Beau and 2) the the wild but uncanny markers like Ninja, who didn't have to watch birds be thrown in order to pin them. As much as I repect dogs like Ninja and Cosmo, the Steady Eddie great markers are easier on my blood pressure.

John


----------



## Jacob Hawkes (Jun 24, 2008)

EdA said:


> But how much better could she be minus the creeping?


I am right there with you. I, along with several others, wish that she would stay still. As far as how much better, I would do nothing but speculate if I tried to answer that. No doubt she would be better.


----------



## Jacob Hawkes (Jun 24, 2008)

John Robinson said:


> There are all kinds of good-great marking dogs and what you have is what you have. My now retired Yoda was a fantastic marker, but he had to watch the birds go down in order to mark them. A fairly common occurance for me and Yoda was for Yoda to heel to the mat, sit at my side calmly as I pointed out the guns, then creep one foot forward of the mat or line as soon as I signaled for the birds. This drove me crazy as I was unable to help him, with me standing behind him and frozen on the mat. There were two kinds of dogs I was very jealous of back in the day, 1) the "steady Eddie"willing partner like Carbon or Beau and 2) the the wild but uncanny markers like Ninja, who didn't have to watch birds be thrown in order to pin them. As much as I repect dogs like Ninja and Cosmo, the Steady Eddie great markers are easier on my blood pressure.
> 
> John


Because of Ninja's well known marking ability & pedigree, I really would love to see breedings with him & a few super nice bitches from down here take place.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Jacob Hawkes said:


> Because of Ninja's well known marking ability & pedigree, I really would love to see breedings with him &* a few super nice bitches *from down here take place.



Are they calm?;-)


----------



## Jacob Hawkes (Jun 24, 2008)

Of course. Very good line manners.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

John Gassner said:


> What about the handler? How much movement should he/she be allowed after signaling for the birds but before the judge has called the dog's number?
> 
> John


We spent much more time on movement of the dog than movement of the handler, while not specifically addressed the following paragraph gives us some guidance.

"During the period from the moment when the handler signals readiness for the birds to be thrown until the dog’s number is called, the handler of the working or honoring dog shall remain silent. Also, in all marking tests during such period, the handler’s hands shall remain quietly in close proximity to his body. A handler who projects his hand during such period, whether for the purpose of assisting his dog to locate a fall or otherwise, should be considered to have used a threatening gesture, and his dog penalized accordingly."

We have discussed shuffling/dragging of feet as being tolerated historically but little if any discussion about handlers moving or changing their position during the above period. I think any significant movements by the handler, i.e. stepping over the dog from one side to the other or other similar gross changes of position during this period, can legitimately be construed as a "threatening gesture" intended to keep the dog from breaking and should not be tolerated.

What about patting your leg in an effort to change the dog's focus? Is this permissible under the rules? I was tossed from the last series of an Open on a water quad 25 years ago for doing this yet have seen it tolerated by some judges, what say you?


----------



## Vicki Worthington (Jul 9, 2004)

I guess it might be like everything else...relative. Some judges will allow some movement, others tolerate less. I prefer the handler to remain quietly beside the dog and movement to be subtle and hands to be quiet and close to the body. I don't mind a half step back to allow the dog a better view of a bird.


----------



## Vicki Worthington (Jul 9, 2004)

*Movement*

I can still remember the first time I saw "excessive" movement on the line. 2-sided heeling had just become the norm & the handlers were trying to figure out which side to send from on all birds. That said, the handlers (yes there were several) decided to move from side-to-side of the dog as each bird fell, depending upon the direction it was thrown! Can't tell you how fast I wanted that to stop! The second instance was having the handler creep with the dog! That inspired my handler on the mat rule, which I'm sure is not unique to me.


----------



## Wade Thurman (Jul 4, 2005)

EdA said:


> But how much better could she be minus the creeping?


River Oaks Rascal had a bit of a creeping issue, hahaha. How much better do you think he would have been?

To answer your "what say you" question regarding hand movement, it is stated on the 3rd sentence of your quote. I believe that foot dragging should some how be construed in that same manner. If you get tossed for slapping your inner thigh how is that any different than an obnoxious foot dragging/waddle by a handler?


----------



## jeff evans (Jun 9, 2008)

EdA said:


> We spent much more time on movement of the dog than movement of the handler, while not specifically addressed the following paragraph gives us some guidance.
> 
> "During the period from the moment when the handler signals readiness for the birds to be thrown until the dog’s number is called, the handler of the working or honoring dog shall remain silent. Also, in all marking tests during such period, the handler’s hands shall remain quietly in close proximity to his body. A handler who projects his hand during such period, whether for the purpose of assisting his dog to locate a fall or otherwise, should be considered to have used a threatening gesture, and his dog penalized accordingly."
> 
> ...



I feel any movement made after you call for the birds to change the dogs focus on a bird should be automatic dismissal! I don't even like the squeaky shoes, I also don not interpret this as intimidation but simply cheating! It is communication no different than saying " no here.". Your saying something by squeaking the shoes or tapping your leg. If a dog doesn't swing with the handler to see a mark... well that's the nature of multiple marks! I saw this at a trial recently, out of order flier, dog locked on flier and wouldn't swing to the last bird down, handler said "no here," one judge and the gallery heard it and the other judge did not hear it, they still gave him a number. In my eyes that was the WHOLE ENTIRE test, no bird over 180yds and this was an amateur. If we're not willing to allow handlers to eliminate themselves by blatant rule violations then were making this much more difficult than it needs to be and develops the thoughts of politics and so on. Ed, how do you feel, do you think they were justified in dropping you for tapping your leg? Do you think tapping, talking, or squeaking the shoes is acceptable?


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

jeff evans said:


> *I feel any movement made after you call for the birds to change the dogs focus on a bird should be automatic dismissal!* I don't even like the squeaky shoes, I also don not interpret this as intimidation but simply cheating! It is communication no different than saying " no here.". Your saying something by squeaking the shoes or tapping your leg. *If a dog doesn't swing with the handler to see a mark*... well that's the nature of multiple marks! I saw this at a trial recently, out of order flier, dog locked on flier and wouldn't swing to the last bird down, handler said "no here," one judge and the gallery heard it and the other judge did not hear it, they still gave him a number. In my eyes that was the WHOLE ENTIRE test, no bird over 180yds and this was an amateur. If we're not willing to allow handlers to eliminate themselves by blatant rule violations then were making this much more difficult than it needs to be and develops the thoughts of politics and so on. Ed, how do you feel, do you think they were justified in dropping you for tapping your leg? Do you think tapping, talking, or squeaking the shoes is acceptable?


You are saying two different things in the same breath....either you are for allowing a handler to move or you are not, a dog can't swing with the handler if the handler is not moving??

FOM


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

jeff evans said:


> I feel any movement made after you call for the birds to change the dogs focus on a bird should be automatic dismissal! ?



Some questions

1. Is this position supported by the Rule Book?
2. Imagine this scenario.

Birds are shot around the horn, left to right. Dog is on my left. 
I have the dog sit on the mat, aligned to 2 o clock.
I step on the dog, and dog moves its head (feet are planted) to look at left hand bird at 10 o'clock.
I signal for birds. Dog watches left bird go down. I move my right foot, and pivot, opening up the middle bird at noon. Middle bird falls. I move my right foot again, and pivot, opening up for flyer at 2 o clock. 

I wait for number. Then my hand comes down and I send.

My hands have remained by my side. I have not shuffled my feet across the mat to grab the dog's attention. I have not spoken to the dog.

Do you want to eliminate me for "cheating"

What is your reason - either supported by the Rule Book or not - for doing so?


----------



## jeff evans (Jun 9, 2008)

Ted Shih said:


> Some questions
> 
> 1. Is this position supported by the Rule Book?
> 2. Imagine this scenario.
> ...


I must clarify, you all have much better computer communication skills than I! I am referring to a hanlder using another body part other than your body as "push" "pull". In instances where the dog does not follow the handlers BODY movement, the handler softly taps his leg, or quietly says "no here," or scuffs his feet, ect. I often see such antics but they go unmentioned or addressed. I see what I mentioned as communication with the dog when the handler should be standing quietly with hands at side. If someone wants to push the line and look for what supports their interpretation more power to you. I'll continue to use my best judgment and do my best to do what I feel is sportsmanlike. Out of order fliers ect require much training as you all know, and a dog that is conscious of their handler. I have one that doesn't see every bird fall because he's a high driving dog but I don't invent a new "dance" with intention of pulling the focus of the dog to the bird they should be watching. That's all.


----------



## Ray Kirkpatrick (Sep 24, 2010)

"the quality that I like the most is a dog that feels that it must have every bird and is prepared to go to almost any length to get it."

I love it, my kind of dog!


----------



## HiRollerlabs (Jun 11, 2004)

I am interested in judging thoughts on this dog.

Working dog is returning with the bird, sitting down on the honor mat and delivering the bird to hand. The next dog to run, bursts out of the holding blind, runs forward and jumps into the water that is 15-20 feet in front of where the judges are standing. The handler is still in the holding blind, calling the dog back. The dog goes back to the holding blind, and runs out again without his handler. Handler gets dog under control, comes to the line and maintains control while the marks go down. Dog is released for retrieves, and the honor dog is released.


----------



## Wade Thurman (Jul 4, 2005)

HiRollerlabs said:


> I am interested in judging thoughts on this dog.
> 
> Working dog is returning with the bird, sitting down on the honor mat and delivering the bird to hand. The next dog to run, bursts out of the holding blind, runs forward and jumps into the water that is 15-20 feet in front of where the judges are standing. The handler is still in the holding blind, calling the dog back. The dog goes back to the holding blind, and runs out again without his handler. Handler gets dog under control, comes to the line and maintains control while the marks go down. Dog is released for retrieves, and the honor dog is released.


What did Carl say about this dog? I'm guessing Carl would say "have a nice ride home".

I'm not sure the dog would come to the line unless it was in a puppy stake at the Blackhawk Club Trial.

GOOD LUCK the next 2 weekend at your home clubs!!


----------



## helencalif (Feb 2, 2004)

Breck said:


> "
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I have seen FC/AFC dogs who have crept out 10 ft., come back a few feet on the re-heel, dance around out of control, and then the handler would move out to the dog and send it from 7 - 10 ft. from the line. A few dogs were/are famous for this behavior. Whether to drop or not to place is up to the judges and what they will or will not tolerate.

Some will drop, some will withhold the blue or lower a placement for this behavior, some judges don't care. Those who have dogs with these problems soon know who the more tolerant and the less tolerant judges are.

Helen


----------



## helencalif (Feb 2, 2004)

Breck said:


> If you saw handlers doing that the judges should have immediately asked the handler to put the lead on their dog and excuse them.
> This is one area where the handlers actions, not the dogs warrants elimination from the stake. Block dogs view of a fall and you're history. This includes while on honor.


And "accidentally" stepping on a dog's tail? Could that be handler intimidation...???


----------



## Aaron Homburg (Sep 23, 2005)

*Scratching the matt, tapping your leg, taking a step one way or another when your dog has popped, they are all things handlers do that I take notice of while judging. Dog moving on line doesn't bother me as much, I figure if they are moving they probably don't see the birds as well.

Don't like Honor's regards,

Aaron*


----------



## helencalif (Feb 2, 2004)

Ted Shih said:


> As I have said before, I think the focus of judging should be on what happens in the field. But, I also think that we ought to pay attention to line manners. I would ding a dog with persistent creeping, voice, etc. issues.


I agree with you to a point, Ted, about focusing on what happens in the field. But ... how many dings do you allow? All 4 series? I am curious to know your toleration level for creeping (I am not saying a step or two off the mat, it's being out 5 ft. or more and not coming back to the mat or designated line when sent.) 

Vocal... how much? A whine, a yip, or whine, whine, whine from the holding blind to the line, on the line with plush ups and dancing around? Seems to go hand in hand with some high rollers. What's your toleration level for voice and this behavior? How many dings?

Just curious about toleration level. You don't have to defend it. I know that every judge has their own toleration level and what is a minor ding for some is a major ding (or a drop) for others. Some will drop after the first series, some will carry to see if the behavior is consistent. Some will withhold the blue, some will give lower placements. 

Helen


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

helencalif said:


> And "accidentally" stepping on a dog's tail? Could that be handler intimidation...???


I stepped on my dogs tail and it was a complete accident! It screwed him up too, he looked at me vs. watching the bird as well as he should of....oops


----------



## Rnd (Jan 21, 2012)

Just a thought: Has the marking and handling ability of these dogs come so far that we need to find separation of placements based on line manners?????

Randy


----------



## jeff evans (Jun 9, 2008)

Aaron Homburg said:


> *Scratching the matt, tapping your leg, taking a step one way or another when your dog has popped, they are all things handlers do that I take notice of while judging. Dog moving on line doesn't bother me as much, I figure if they are moving they probably don't see the birds as well.
> 
> Don't like Honor's regards,
> 
> Aaron*


I would like to know how tolerant folks are about tapping leg, scuffing feet, or using hand in any way for that matter while marks are being thrown? Is this a major or minor fault or no fault at all? I personally don't think it's allowed but again we see it weekend and weekend out so is this something that depends on "who" you are or is it "generally tolerated?" Ed mentioned getting thrown out for tapping his leg, Aaron mentioned taking notice of tapping or other similar actions. I couldn't understand if Ted was referring to stepping on the dog as in stepping on his foot or tail? Folks that do alot of judging, what's your general opinion on this?


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Jeff

I said that I would not penalize a handler for clumsiness ... whether that be stepping on a dog's tail or foot. I suppose it's possible, but I have yet to see a handler step on a dog in order to enforce line manners

Ted


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

helencalif said:


> And "accidentally" stepping on a dog's tail? Could that be handler intimidation...???



The word "intimidation" is nowhere to be found in the Rule Book. However, it has found its way into popular judging lexicon. Rather, the Rule Book refers to "threatening gestures"

But, here are the nitty gritty questions:
1. Has anyone seen this happen in competition?
2. Do people really believe that handlers step on their dogs to gain a competitive advantage?


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

jeff evans said:


> I would like to know how tolerant folks are about tapping leg, scuffing feet, or using hand in any way for that matter while marks are being thrown? Is this a major or minor fault or no fault at all? I personally don't think it's allowed but again we see it weekend and weekend out so is this something that depends on "who" you are or is it "generally tolerated?" Ed mentioned getting thrown out for tapping his leg, Aaron mentioned taking notice of tapping or other similar actions. I couldn't understand if Ted was referring to stepping on the dog as in stepping on his foot or tail? Folks that do alot of judging, what's your general opinion on this?


I do a fair amount of judging, I would say that most handlers know they can't tap their leg, snap their fingers, use their hand in any way, or say anything after they have signaled to the judge they are ready, if they do so they will most likely be dropped on the spot. Regarding other movement, I think that as long as the handler stays on the mat or behind the line, quietly and subtly stepping up and back to push-pull the dog with them as the birds go down, is just good handling and totally within the rules. 

On the other hand, the "foot dragging- pull the dog back" technique seems to me to be a violation that rule that says the handler should stand quietly by the dogs side, but is a generally accepted practice that every judge I have seen, including me lets slide. My true feeling on the foot dragging subject is that I don't mind a subtle quiet dragging as the handler steps back and the dog goes with him, while the panicky, exaggerated rapid foot drag is ineffective as that dog is typically way out in front of the handler locked on the flyer and paying no attention at all to the handler, so that dog-handler team will be penalized in the field with poor marking.

John


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

helencalif said:


> I agree with you to a point, Ted, about focusing on what happens in the field. But ... how many dings do you allow? All 4 series? I am curious to know your toleration level for creeping (I am not saying a step or two off the mat, it's being out 5 ft. or more and not coming back to the mat or designated line when sent.)
> 
> Vocal... how much? A whine, a yip, or whine, whine, whine from the holding blind to the line, on the line with plush ups and dancing around? Seems to go hand in hand with some high rollers. What's your toleration level for voice and this behavior? How many dings?
> 
> ...


As Lisa Van Loo would say "It depends"
I am not prepared to say - a 4 foot creep is ok, a 10 foot creep is not. Or 3-4 foot creeps are bad, but a 25 foot creep is not
Did the dog's poor line manners affect the performance of another working dog?
Did the dog's poor line manners make me miserable - to the point that I could not imagine spending a day hunting with the dog, no matter how spectacular their performance in the field was?
I don't think that these things are quantifiable.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

jeff evans said:


> I would like to know how tolerant folks are about tapping leg, scuffing feet, or using hand in any way for that matter while marks are being thrown? Is this a major or minor fault or no fault at all? I personally don't think it's allowed but again we see it weekend and weekend out so is this something that depends on "who" you are or is it "generally tolerated?"



It depends upon the judge. 
I don't think that judges give people a break because of their "status"
I do think that judges give older handlers more slack.

I once judged when a number of older handlers were saying "here, here" when the birds were being shot.
I wanted to drop them - seniority status and all - but, my co-judge refused


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

John Robinson said:


> I do a fair amount of judging, I would say that most handlers know they can't tap their leg, snap their fingers, use their hand in any way, or say anything after they have signaled to the judge they are ready, if they do so they will most likely be dropped on the spot. Regarding other movement, I think that as long as the handler stays on the mat or behind the line, quietly and subtly stepping up and back to push-pull the dog with them as the birds go down, that is just good handling and totally within the rules.
> 
> On the other hand, the "foot dragging- pull the dog back" technique seems to me to be a violation that rule that says the handler should stand quietly by the dogs side, but is a generally accepted practice that every judge I have seen, including me lets slide. My true feeling on the foot dragging subject is that I don't mind a subtle quiet dragging as the handler steps back and the dog goes with him, while the panicky, exaggerated rapid foot drag is ineffective as that dog is typically way out in front of the handler locked on the flyer and paying no attention at all to the handler, so that dog-handler team will be penalized in the field with poor marking.
> 
> John


I agree with this. I accept one subtle drag. But, not the repeated chicken scratching that you sometimes see.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> I agree with this. I accept one subtle drag. But, not the repeated chicken scratching that you sometimes see.


What about the handler stepping over the dog or changing sides after calling for the birds but before his/her number is called?


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

It's not aesthetically pleasing to me, but I don't know what I would do with it.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> It's not aesthetically pleasing to me, but I don't know what I would do with it.


One could certainly make a legitimate argument that it constitutes an attempt to keep the dog from breaking.


----------



## jeff evans (Jun 9, 2008)

John Robinson said:


> I do a fair amount of judging, I would say that most handlers know they can't tap their leg, snap their fingers, use their hand in any way, or say anything after they have signaled to the judge they are ready, if they do so they will most likely be dropped on the spot. Regarding other movement, I think that as long as the handler stays on the mat or behind the line, quietly and subtly stepping up and back to push-pull the dog with them as the birds go down, that is just good handling and totally within the rules.
> 
> On the other hand, the "foot dragging- pull the dog back" technique seems to me to be a violation that rule that says the handler should stand quietly by the dogs side, but is a generally accepted practice that every judge I have seen, including me lets slide. My true feeling on the foot dragging subject is that I don't mind a subtle quiet dragging as the handler steps back and the dog goes with him, while the panicky, exaggerated rapid foot drag is ineffective as that dog is typically way out in front of the handler locked on the flyer and paying no attention at all to the handler, so that dog-handler team will be penalized in the field with poor marking.
> 
> John


Thanks for taking the time to answer my question. I see it the way you do! Good handling is good handling the other stuff that we discussed is cheating in my mind! Which brings me back to "we see it weekend and weekend out" statement. We do see it very often, at least I do. Ted mentioned a judging assignment and wanting to throw guys out for saying "here, here" after they called for the birds and his co judge would not agree. Do you need to have agreement for a major fault and blatant rule violation from your co-judge? Do you call the field trial committee? These are some glaring observations I have seen in my 6 years playing this wonderful game and I have to admit it gives an impression that politics may be an issue. Ted mentioned it he didn't think the persons "status" mattered but I disagree after reading his example judging assignment. There's a simple set of rules we have to follow as handlers and a simple set of rules the dog needs to follow, no room for interpretation yet we still have problems around some of these rules. Ed, I think stepping over the dog while the birds are being shot is a blatant no room for interpretation rule violation and is most certainly referred to in the rule book. Whether a judge thinks that's ok is my exact point. Thanks guys!


----------



## jeff evans (Jun 9, 2008)

EdA said:


> One could certainly make a legitimate argument that it constitutes an attempt to keep the dog from breaking.


In my mind its even more simple than that..."is the handler standing quietly?" The intention of the handler shouldn't matter, the actions should.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

EdA said:


> One could certainly make a legitimate argument that it constitutes an attempt to keep the dog from breaking.



You could argue it, but I don't buy it. It sounds like the handler was trying to get the dog to focus on a bird, not to keep the dog from breaking. I don't like it, but I still don't know what to do with it


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

jeff evans said:


> Do you call the field trial committee? !


​Life is too short.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

jeff evans said:


> In my mind its even more simple than that..."is the handler standing quietly?" The intention of the handler shouldn't matter, the actions should.


What penalty would you a assess and would rule violation would you use as the basis for that penalty?


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> You could argue it, but I don't buy it. It sounds like the handler was trying to get the dog to focus on a bird, not to keep the dog from breaking. I don't like it, but I still don't know what to do with it


If you believe that a violation of the rules has occurred you need a rule basis for it, to me the only applicable one is that it constitutes a threatening gesture for which there is a specific penalty. There is no specific penalty for I don't like it or it was not in keeping with the standard.


----------



## jeff evans (Jun 9, 2008)

Ted Shih said:


> ​Life is too short.


What about the true amateur that drove 500 miles, trained his ass off, has one dog, spent $10,000 to run trials that year and is beat by a person that has multiple dogs, spends $100k a year to run trials, and is blatantly cheating and using his "status" because he knows no one will enforce it? We're certainly not turning entries away right now and this attitude may be fundamental in the reason? I disagree with "lifes to short" and feel that "life's to short to not call the field trial committee"


----------



## jeff evans (Jun 9, 2008)

EdA said:


> If you believe that a violation of the rules has occurred you need a rule basis for it, to me the only applicable one is that it constitutes a threatening gesture for which there is a specific penalty. There is no specific penalty for I don't like it or it was not in keeping with the standard.


Ed, sorry for the cross talk but is that handler "standing quietly?" it's really that simple.


----------



## jeff evans (Jun 9, 2008)

EdA said:


> What penalty would you a assess and would rule violation would you use as the basis for that penalty?


What penalty would you asses for tapping the leg, snapping fingers, or using hand gestures? The same one applies to stepping over the dog. The handler is not "standing quietly with hands close to body." it's in the same paragraph and is referenced there. It doesn't matter what his intention is and determining that is not relevant, it's WHAT that handler did that matters. Does the book have to say "you cannot step over the dog" to clarify this? Doesn't "standing quietly with hands close to body" say that?


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Actually the referenced paragraph does not mention "standing quietly" but that the handler should remain quiet with his hands in close proximity to his body. That any divergence from this posture constitutes a "threatening gesture" and should be dealt with accordingly so leg tapping and finger snapping are clear indisputable violations.Conversely there is no such language regarding handler movement, i.e. foot shuffling or dragging or changing the position of the handler relative to the dog so if we are to penalize such actions what rules have been broken and what penalties are allowed.

So my questions are:
1. Should foot shuffling or dragging be penalized?
2. Should stepping over, in front of, or behind the dog to change sides prior to the number being called be penalized?
3. If the answer to either or both questions is yes what specific rule has been violated and what penalty for such violation is appropriate?


----------



## jeff evans (Jun 9, 2008)

EdA said:


> Actually the referenced paragraph does not mention "standing quietly" but that the handler should remain quiet with his hands in close proximity to his body. That any divergence from this posture constitutes a "threatening gesture" and should be dealt with accordingly so leg tapping and finger snapping are clear indisputable violations.Conversely there is no such language regarding handler movement, i.e. foot shuffling or dragging or changing the position of the handler relative to the dog so if we are to penalize such actions what rules have been broken and what penalties are allowed.
> 
> So my questions are:
> 1. Should foot shuffling or dragging be penalized?
> ...


The answer is clearly stated...is the handler "remaining quiet?" does "quiet" only refer to a noise? The Webster dictionary has the answer and stepping over the dog is not "remaining quiet." I would ask "why" would a handler need to drag or squeak his shoes? The answer to the why should answer the question. What's the difference of "talking" to tapping the leg? It's the same thing as saying to the dog " hey dummie look here." no? You said that snapping, or tapping is clearly indisputable so how's that any different than stepping over the dog and is your definition different than websters definition?


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

It is not my intent to debate, we substantially agree but we have a book, Field Trial Rules and Standar Procedures for Retrievers. I think too many ignore or just make up their own rules to suit their own tastes. The rule book makes allowances for interpretation of the rules but not revisions or just making the words suit our preferences. It is not my definition or any dictionary definition the rule book simply makes no mention of specific handler violations other than vocal, hand placement, and blocking the dogs view of a fall. Therefore if we are to penalize the handler for something not specifically covered then we should be prepared to give an appropriate penalty and defend that penalty within the context of the rules. You seem to have answered questions 1 and 2 but not 3. If you are going to penalize handlers for these actions what penalty are you going to give and what specific rule violations do those actions fall under?

I personally do not like people using their caps to hand on blinds but there is nothing illegal about that so no penalty.


----------



## jeff evans (Jun 9, 2008)

EdA said:


> It is not my intent to debate, we substantially agree but we have a book, Field Trial Rules and Standar Procedures for Retrievers. I think too many ignore or just make up their own rules to suit their own tastes. The rule book makes allowances for interpretation of the rules but not revisions or just making the words suit our preferences. It is not my definition or any dictionary definition the rule book simply makes no mention of specific handler violations other than vocal, hand placement, and blocking the dogs view of a fall. Therefore if we are to penalize the handler for something not specifically covered then we should be prepared to give an appropriate penalty and defend that penalty within the context of the rules. You seem to have answered questions 1 and 2 but not 3. If you are going to penalize handlers for these actions what penalty are you going to give and what specific rule violations do those actions fall under?
> 
> I personally do not like people using their caps to hand on blinds but there is nothing illegal about that so no penalty.


I understand your intent is not to debate yet feel discussions like this help distinguish what the intent of the rules are. So thank you for your dialogue. The definition of "quiet" is not only the verb tense but also a "state" of being quiet and excessive movement is not a "state" of being quiet. So stepping over the dog, tapping, foot squeaking, finger snapping, talking, ect. are addressed in the phrase "handler is to remain quiet with hands close to body." If I am completely wrong then let's look at the intent of such movements? Why would a handler excessively move or not "remain quiet?" the answer lies somewhere between the definition and intent of the handler. Im not a judging expert, far from but think this is a major fault and an immediate pick up is warranted. Please clarify if I am wrong. Thanks for the discussion.


----------



## BBnumber1 (Apr 5, 2006)

Here is the wording from the Field Trial Rules that I think you guys are talking about, from section 25:

_25. No handler shall (1) carry exposed any training equipment (except whistle) or use any other equipment or *threatening gestures in such a manner that they may**be an aid or threat in steadying or controlling a dog;* (2)hold or touch a dog to keep him steady; or (3) noisily or frequently restrain a dog on line, except in extraordinary circumstances, from the time the handler signals readiness for the birds to be thrown until the dog’s number is called. Violation of any of the provisions of this paragraph is sufficient cause to justify eliminationfrom the stake.

During the period from the moment when the handler signals readiness for the birds to be thrown until the dog’s number is called, *the handler of the working **or honoring dog shall remain silent.* *Also, in all marking **tests during such period, the handler’s hands shall **remain quietly in close proximity to his body.* A handler who projects his hand during such period, whether for the purpose of assisting his dog to locate a fall or otherwise, should be considered to have used a threatening __gesture, and his dog penalized accordingly.

_You could use the first paragraph of Section 25, to argue that the movement (stepping over or around the dog) as a threatening gesture, but that is stretching things, in my opinion.

In the second paragraph, there is the requirement for the handler to "*remain silent" *which could be applied to patting leg, snapping finger, or shuffling feet.

The *"remain quietly" *is specific to the handlers hands, and does not preclude other movements. I do not see anything in that paragraph to preclude stepping up, back, over, or around a dog.

​​​​​


----------



## jeff evans (Jun 9, 2008)

*I personally do not like people using their caps to hand on blinds but there is nothing illegal about that so no penalty.[/QUOTE]*

Could the hat be construed as a training device? Training example...dog doesn't take cast, handler takes of hat uses hat with pressure as a cast. Dog is conditioned to "pay attention or else" when the hat comes off and is used as intimidation. Dog comes to trial refuses first cast, then the hat is used as a "training device." Whats your thought on that?


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

jeff evans said:


> What about the true amateur that drove 500 miles, trained his ass off, has one dog, spent $10,000 to run trials that year and is beat by a person that has multiple dogs, spends $100k a year to run trials, and is blatantly cheating and using his "status" because he knows no one will enforce it? We're certainly not turning entries away right now and this attitude may be fundamental in the reason? I disagree with "lifes to short" and feel that "life's to short to not call the field trial committee"


Jeff - you sure are free with your opinions. I have been part of many Field Trial Committee meetings, including ones over Amateur status. I promise that very llittle came of any of them. Moreover, on each occasion the AKC offered very little support. So when I say life is too short - I do so with a substantial experience.

So feel free to pontificate, but when you try tto walk the walk and not just talk the talk - and are disappointed - don't say I didn't tell you so


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

jeff evans said:


> *I personally do not like people using their caps to hand on blinds but there is nothing illegal about that so no penalty.*




[/QUOTE][/Could the hat be construed as a training device? Training example...dog doesn't take cast, handler takes of hat uses hat with pressure as a cast. Dog is conditioned to "pay attention or else" when the hat comes off and is used as intimidation. Dog comes to trial refuses first cast, then the hat is used as a "training device." Whats your thought on that?[/QUOTE]

I could see your or Ed's point if we are talking about cast where the dog is still close to the line, say less than sixty yards. Where I typically see the black hat cast is where the dog is way out there, well past 300 yards, and seems to be having dificulty seeing his handler cast.

John


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

jeff evans said:


> *I personally do not like people using their caps to hand on blinds but there is nothing illegal about that so no penalty.*


Could the hat be construed as a training device? Training example...dog doesn't take cast, handler takes of hat uses hat with pressure as a cast. Dog is conditioned to "pay attention or else" when the hat comes off and is used as intimidation. Dog comes to trial refuses first cast, then the hat is used as a "training device." Whats your thought on that?[/QUOTE]

My thought is you are looking for excuses - other than performance in the field - to drop dogs


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

EdA said:


> If you believe that a violation ofthe rules has occurred you need a rule basis for it, to me the only applicable one is that it constitutes a threatening gesture for which there is a specific penalty. There is no specific penalty for I don't like it or it was not in keeping with the standard.


I don't like it. I don't think it violates the rules. Which is why I say I don't know what I would do about it


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

jeff evans said:


> The answer is clearly stated...is the handler "remaining quiet?" does "quiet" only refer to a noise? The Webster dictionary has the answer and stepping over the dog is not "remaining quiet." I would ask "why" would a handler need to drag or squeak his shoes? The answer to the why should answer the question. What's the difference of "talking" to tapping the leg? It's the same thing as saying to the dog " hey dummie look here." no? You said that snapping, or tapping is clearly indisputable so how's that any different than stepping over the dog and is your definition different than websters definition?


Jeff
i think that you have a bias that you are pushing the envelope to try to justify. A hunter may move quietly through the woods. An owl may glide quietly through the air. The point is this - quiet is a word that focuses primarily sound not motion.


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

jeff evans said:


> *I personally do not like people using their caps to hand on blinds but there is nothing illegal about that so no penalty.
> 
> *Could the hat be construed as a training device? Training example...dog doesn't take cast, handler takes of hat uses hat with pressure as a cast. Dog is conditioned to "pay attention or else" when the hat comes off and is used as intimidation. Dog comes to trial refuses first cast, then the hat is used as a "training device." Whats your thought on that?


Ever since a seminar I attended, I try to wear black gloves, with a dark cap and a white coat for challenging all age blinds. (or I also carry a black coat and have been meaning to carry a white hat and white gloves...I've not gotten to the gloves or the hat) These are strictly for visibility and contrast so the dog can really see the cast given at long distances when he's looking through tall grass, or when his eyes are only an inch above the choppy waterline. 
And for those of you in the peanut gallery, excuse the pun  , Bus and I have not had any opportunities under all age judgement to wear the jacket and gloves on a water blind...yet. 

I remember years ago getting caught up in what turned out to be a silly debate over whether gloves were intimidating or training aids in NAHRA blinds. I realize today that the amateur who was told to by his pro to put on gloves when he ran blinds, was told so for visibility and not something more sinister. It was poor Lasal Banty with his girl Mary. We had him take his gloves off and he aced the blind. (he should have, it was only a 100 yard blind and Mary was a nice blind running dog!)

Folks switch from an Answer whistle to a Dallessassee/Green Monster whistle when the dog gets further out for better audible response. Folks grab a hat when their dog has trouble taking the cast at distances for visibility. 

I personally view this as smart handling. It is an attempt to communicate properly with the dog to get good teamwork response at distances where visibility becomes an issue. 

I look at it this way: If the handler needs binoculars to see if his black dog in the water has turned on the whistle and is looking at him, maybe the dog also appreciates the cap at the end of the handler's arrm to see the cast....so he actually knows which way he's being told to turn and go.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

An interesting discussion, Thanks Gassner.

In the event that my own opinions are/were unclear:

Foot dragging/shuffling is not specifically illegal as are no specific handler movements other than hands and blocking the dog's view of a fall. This practice has historically been tolerated and typically when done it was because the dog did not see a bird hence it is rarely successful. I have certainly done it myself but usually not successfully. While this practice can be distracting or annoying to watch unless extreme circumstances exist does not constitute a violation of the rules.

I believe that the handler radically repositioning himself relative to the dog is a very different matter and most judges to whom I have presented the scenario agree with me. I think stepping over the dog from one side to the other while the birds are being thrown or before the number is called can be a clear cue to the dog not to move hence I would, with my co-judge's consent, drop the dog for the handler having violated the rules by using a threatening gesture.

Handling with a cap in hand is annoying to me but clearly legal under the rules.

I am off to train Holland in preparation for our upcoming debut (his not mine) in National competition, thanks to all who chimed in and participated!

Ed


----------



## russell.jason2 (Mar 13, 2011)

I have enjoyed this thread. I am very new and have only ran three quals with my 2 yr old. I can tell you i was nervous on the line each and every time. One judge made the comment she could see my legs shaking. My friend who was also running told me my movements were very exaggerated and I even tapped my leg, i had no I idea I was even doing it. I knew what the rules were but I guess I got caught up in the momement. I was nervous she would not see all the birds and my exicement/nervousness got the best of me. Judges were very understanding a could tell I was green as grass. I had the fotune to play all four series in 2 of the 3 trials I ran and I learned a tremondous amount. The first trial we ran she crepted out about 3 feet on the flyer, man did I get flustered, she hardly never does this, judge did not say anything, called my number and I cut her loose. My buddy was watching and said I should have reheeled my dog, hell I enjoyed the fact she was so intense, I was not even thinking of that...I got so much to learn but I sure enjoy the heck out this. It is has been great to read all of the post on this thread. Jason


----------



## jeff evans (Jun 9, 2008)

Ted Shih said:


> Jeff - you sure are free with your opinions. I have been part of many Field Trial Committee meetings, including ones over Amateur status. I promise that very llittle came of any of them. Moreover, on each occasion the AKC offered very little support. So when I say life is too short - I do so with a substantial experience.
> 
> So feel free to pontificate, but when you try tto walk the walk and not just talk the talk - and are disappointed - don't say I didn't tell you so



I just do not see where I have gave my opinion or used it freely so I cannot concur with your observation. If you sense frustration that may be in the current avenue to rectify such problems, as you state there really isnt one. In a world ruled by opinion and I have heard many of yours, I am entitled to mine but just dont see where I used it freely. On the other token I appreciate hearing from guys that have been there done that, there's much wisdom in what you share, thanks Ted!


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

jeff evans said:


> In a world ruled by opinion and I have heard many of yours, I am entitled to mine but just dont see where I used it freely. !


Fair enough. 
What I would say is this:

Judging is not as cut and dried as many would make it seem.
The Field Trial Committee has no say in the judging of dogs.
If you have have ever been a part of a FTC hearing, for any matter, you will soon learn that you want to avoid FTC hearing like the plague

​Ted


----------



## jeff evans (Jun 9, 2008)

Ted Shih said:


> Fair enough.
> What I would say is this:
> 
> Judging is not as cut and dried as many would make it seem.
> ...


Thanks for the insight. It takes alot to put yourself under judgment by participants and judge field trials, and more over do it year in and year out. I commend you for that, it enables me to learn and become a competitor in this game! Thanks for doing a thankless job, and then sharing the pitfalls of what you have learned. It paves the way for us younger guys to follow. Although its good to hear there is no disagreement on whether we all like such antics, now whether and actual rule dictates everything a handler can dream up...well that's a different story! Good luck at the national!


----------

