# The New FT Judging Rule



## Tim West (May 27, 2003)

I have been reluctant to say it, but I'm frustrated enough now to go on record.

This is a bad rule. I don't know how it came to be, or how it got passed, who supported it, etc etc. I do know that it needs to be changed. Here are a couple of reasons.

Our Cimarron RC trial now needs two Open judges. Why we need them doesn't matter, except we are trying to put on an Open/Am only for April 8-10 and we may have to cancel the trial due to no judges.

In the past if we found an 8 pt judge we could fill in with competent people who had few or no points and field a good trial. Now we can't. Here are two examples of what we has happened to us in the last four days.

Person A was asked and accepted to judge our Amateur with our 8 pt judge. Person A has placed in an Amateur and used to run our circuit with a couple or pretty good dogs. They developed health problems and he is now training younger dogs who are about to be AA ready. He was never asked to judge before but I know him and decided that he would be perfect for us as an addition to our existing 8 point judge for the Amateur. Turns out that Person A's placement was in 2006 and he hasn't run 15 AA stakes and placed or jammed within three years of our assignement. Person A is now out of the judges pool until he can apprentice TWICE.

Person B was asked and accepted for the same position. He has an extensive knowledge of the FT game and has run dogs off and on for 15 years. He has a young family and has been out of actively running dogs the last five years. He too had to turn us down once he found out about the new rule. 

Folks, I'm just trying to find two AA judges. When you start trying to find last minute Qual/Derby judges it gets even harder.

For states that have large FT populations like Wisc and Minn this might not be a problem. For states like Oklahoma that have about ten people who run AA dogs in the whole state, it's a big problem. And clubs like ours will most likely have to go to one trial a year just so we can find enough judges. 

I'm sure some will say we don't plan far enough ahead and there is some truth in that. But we all know that judges cancel for a variety of reasons and trying to find last minute replacements is now near-impossible.

Rant done.....Hope to see you in April....but may not.


----------



## Scott Parker (Mar 19, 2009)

It sounds like the out of the way clubs will have to raise there entry fees because they will have to spend more money to import judges from far away.


----------



## dogcommand (May 22, 2003)

Tim, I have not been reading a lot of this, could you post the actual rule that you are talking about. Thanks J,


----------



## J Fleming (Oct 13, 2004)

Tim, 

It is my understanding that this "rule" has only passed at the club level. The AKC has not yet made it official; therefore, for this Spring you can use the two judges you have selected. 

Jason


----------



## helencalif (Feb 2, 2004)

If you are looking for judges only in Oklahoma, it is a problem. Your club will have to get out of state judges who are qualified. More costly to the club, but obtaining judges from out of state has been my experience with No. and So. California trials. 

"Out of state" judges should be no big expense for a club in a state with lots of neighboring states. California is a big state. Lots of driving or flying expenses. Judges travel costs and motel costs when they can't bring their own trailer runs up the cost to the club, but has to be done. 

Look at the bright side. A club should get judges from out of the area/out of the state; otherwise, it is same-o, same-o tests and opinions. 

Helen


----------



## Jason Brion (May 31, 2006)

Please post the rule for me as well.


----------



## Bayou Magic (Feb 7, 2004)

sheriff said:


> Please post the rule for me as well.


From the book:

"No person who has not previously judged an all-age
stake shall be approved to judge a stake carrying championship
points unless that person has satisfied at least
one of the following requirements: (a) completion of
two assignments as an Apprentice Judge pursuant to
the terms of Section 4, Chapter 5; or (b) completion of
one assignment as an Apprentice Judge and experience
as the judge of two, or more, minor stakes; or (c) experience
as the handler of a dog in fifteen or more all-age
stakes in the previous three years resulting in the
award of a judges’ award of merit or a place in, at least,
one such stake."


----------



## Bayou Magic (Feb 7, 2004)

helencalif said:


> If you are looking for judges only in Oklahoma, it is a problem. Your club will have to get out of state judges who are qualified. More costly to the club, but obtaining judges from out of state has been my experience with No. and So. California trials.
> 
> "Out of state" judges should be no big expense for a club in a state with lots of neighboring states. California is a big state. Lots of driving or flying expenses. Judges travel costs and motel costs when they can't bring their own trailer runs up the cost to the club, but has to be done.
> 
> ...



This isn't our first rodeo. We are well aware of the need to go out of state.

fp


----------



## Tim West (May 27, 2003)

The rule is in effect. I just looked it up on the AKC website.


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

I agree with Tim. It's a bad rule.

Trialing is dying in Alaska. I don't know if this will be the death of trialing here or not but it's not helping.

Same for hunt tests unfortunately.


----------



## Tim West (May 27, 2003)

Helen, we try to limit flying judges into our trial to two judges per trial, three at the most. Judges from Texas and Kansas will usually drive. Nobody runs trials in New Mexico, and few run them in Arkansas. 

When we fly judges in, it can get costly. If we had to fly all of our judges in, we would go under. 

This is why this rule affects small clubs like us harshly.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Tim West said:


> The rule is in effect. I just looked it up on the AKC website.


you might try throwing yourself at the mercy of Performance Events explaining your plight and these judges were invited prior to implementation of the rule, maybe you can get a bye for this trial


----------



## Tim West (May 27, 2003)

Thanks for the info, Ed.


----------



## Loren Crannell (Apr 12, 2008)

I can understand the rule, but if it hurts the clubs that cannot be a great feeling.

What does it take to apprentice? Is it merely helping the two judges set up and learn bird placement, and understand what it takes to earn AA points?

I would have rather run an AA dog to get the experience, but if there is a shortage of judges then maybe I should apprentice to make myself available.It's not easy for me to get away to judge due to family obligations, but I really like this community and would like to give back in some way.

Loren


----------



## TimThurby (May 22, 2004)

Loren Crannell said:


> What does it take to apprentice? Is it merely helping the two judges set up and learn bird placement, and understand what it takes to earn AA points?


From the rulebook: Chapter 5: Section 4



> *Apprentice Judges. *Upon receipt of a
> request any field trial club may, with the approval of the
> designated stake judges, authorize a person who is an
> amateur in good standing with the American Kennel Club
> ...


Tim


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

I totally agree with you on this being a bad rule. It is an over reaction, and poor idea for dealing with a lot of the bad judging that people have been complaining about lately. Judging is only going to be as good as the individuals we have judging, take a person with bad judgement or other personality defects to start with, and no seminar or apprenticing is going to make that person a good judge. 

I like your original approach, pick someone with good judgement, who understands good dog work, is fair, unbiased and a hard worker, put them with a very experienced judge to mentor them, do that five or six times with that person and you have yourself another "good" judge to add to the pool.

I share your frustration.

John


----------



## Jason Brion (May 31, 2006)

*Before I will be running any additional events I am scheduled to judge an Am this spring. I would appreciate it if someone could tell me if I/club will have a problem. I have not apprenticed any FT.

---I have run my 2 dogs in 12 Ams combined. The 12 Ams were at 10 different events.
---I have placed 4th and a RJAM in the AM
---I have judged 4 minor stakes
---Have multiple placements in minors
---My co-judge is a 8 point judge

As I read the rule I have a problem. What are your thoughts?*


----------



## JusticeDog (Jul 3, 2003)

helencalif said:


> Look at the bright side. A club should get judges from out of the area/out of the state; otherwise, it is same-o, same-o tests and opinions.


And, it doesn't ensure a win for certain pros.... (Not that it would happen).


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

sheriff said:


> *Before I will be running any additional events I am scheduled to judge an Am this spring. I would appreciate it if someone could tell me if I/club will have a problem. I have not apprenticed any FT.
> 
> ---I have run my 2 dogs in 12 Ams combined. The 12 Ams were at 10 different events.
> ---I have placed 4th and a RJAM in the AM
> ...


It does seem that by the rule you are a bit short. Before I read the rule more closely, I thought Your Amateur placements had you covered, but you need the 15 Ams plus a Jam or better. It looks like the easiest thing for you is either run three more AA stakes or apprentice once to go with your minor stakes judging.

John


----------



## Leddyman (Nov 27, 2007)

sheriff said:


> *Before I will be running any additional events I am scheduled to judge an Am this spring. I would appreciate it if someone could tell me if I/club will have a problem. I have not apprenticed any FT.
> 
> ---I have run my 2 dogs in 12 Ams combined. The 12 Ams were at 10 different events.
> ---I have placed 4th and a RJAM in the AM
> ...


If somebody wrote a rule in which this does not qualify to judge an all age stake there is definitely a problem.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Good point.


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

Bayou Magic said:


> From the book:
> 
> "No person who has not previously judged an all-age
> stake shall be approved to judge a stake carrying championship
> ...


I believe it an attempt to stop the award of AA judging assignments to people who are ill qualified, of whom there are many. TBS, I noticed many who had titled & placed AA dogs who were finally judging this last year to avoid getting caught in this trap.

The rule needs tweaking, too bad the rule writers are short of information to do a good job & have to rely on their opinion rather than facts. ;-)


----------



## dr_dog_guy (May 25, 2003)

Tim West said:


> Nobody runs trials in New Mexico.


That's a surprise to me. Maybe not many of us, and not too succesfully, but its more than nobody.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

sheriff said:


> *
> ---I have run my 2 dogs in 12 Ams combined. The 12 Ams were at 10 different events.
> ---I have placed 4th and a RJAM in the AM
> ---I have judged 4 minor stakes
> ...


that would certainly appear to be the case, the laws of unintended consequences at work, surely the writers did not consider the rule and it's consequences adequately

and then the clubs rubber stamped what is/was presented to them by the Subcommittee On Rules to the Retriever Advisory Committee

too bad this discussion did not take place before rather than after the fact

Kate Simonds is the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Rules, for those who are impacted and think it a bad rule I would write her a letter explaining the situation for 1) previously invited judges and 2) clubs in areas lacking population density to have a decent sized pool of local judges

and next year when the rule proposals are published dissect them and reject the bad and unworkable ones, then propose term limits for the members of the SOR and a publication of the rules governing the SOR and how new committee members are selected


----------



## Ken Guthrie (Oct 1, 2003)

Tim,

I can certainly understand your concern in regards to how it effects your club in particular...

but,

for the big picture I think it's a rule that intends well.

We have all ran AA stakes where basically 1 judge is calling the shots and the other "judge" is nothing more than a warm body.

I'm certain this is not the case with your panel of judges, but we know it happens.

I understand finding judges can be difficult, but I don't think sacrificing quality judging in AA stakes should take priority just for the sake of having a trial.

Quality before quantity regards,


----------



## Tim West (May 27, 2003)

Ken, I can see your point and I'm sure that the rule was intended to prevent what you are prescribing. However, it does hurt some clubs.

Ed, good advice. I will craft a letter and send it to Kate.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

No Rule is perfect in its application to real life. That is the nature of the beast.

The Rocky Mountain Retriever Club voted for the passage of the Rule. I was among those in the club who voted for its passage.

First, there was - and continues to be - a need for better judging. It is important that you have two independent and knowledgeable individuals sitting in the chair. When you do, you have better tests and less politics. This is true even when one of the judges is less experienced and has less points than the 8 point judge. 

For example, I have competed against and run under Jason Brion - Sheriff on this board. Jason works hard as a competitor and also as a judge. I would trust him to: (a) do his best to set up good tests (and do so successfully) and (b) stand his ground on callbacks and placements. 

After all, isn't that what we want from our judges: (a) a commitment to setting up good tests; and (b) someone who will not let his/her personal biases influence callbacks and placements?

Second, it is difficult to be a good judge if you have not competed in the stake that you are judging. I think that when you run a number of trials you see:
- What works
- What doesn't work
- What you like as a competitor
- What you don't like as a competitor

In short, you learn what makes a trial good - or bad.

I happen to think that experience is invaluable.

Third, I think people who are not part of the sport need to know how this Rule Process Works.

The Proposed Rules issue from the Subcomittee on Rules. The SOR tends to be a rather insular, imperial organization. In my experience, they do not solicit input, and do not willingly accept comment or criticism. 

At any rate, a rule issues. There is a minimal discussion at the National Events (30 minutes for a whole slate of proposals), and afterwards, clubs are asked to vote on Rules as a whole.

For example, with respect to this Rule

You could not elect to vote for one aspect (apprenticeship) and not the other (experience plus JAM). Or vice versa. You had to accept everything or accept nothing.

The RMRC was opposed to Apprenticeship, but in favor of experience.
We thought the apprenticeship program would be unnecessarily complicated, burdensome, and would scare off potential judges. We thought, and still think, that it is important that a person has experience in the stake that he or she judges.

I started out by saying that any Rule has its difficulties in application. Here, I think it would be a pity if it eliminated Jason as an AA judge, because I think he would do a good job. But, I still agree with the overall intent with the Rule.

Ted


----------



## JKOttman (Feb 3, 2004)

Our club (South Jersey Retriever Club) voted for this rule as well. The goal was similar to what Ken and Ted have mentioned, support stronger judges by increasing the requirements. To help grow the pool of local judges we are also actively soliciting apprentices at our trials to help people get qualified.

In your letter to Kate, I hope you'll also include your suggestions to address the issue of improving the quality of judges.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> I happen to think that experience is invaluable.


experience IS valuable but only if you learn from it, some of the worst judges are the most experienced

the rule has too many parts, perhaps a combination of having judged 2 minor stakes and placing a dog in all-age stakes would have been sufficient, then an up and coming competitor like Jason would not be prevented from judging


----------



## junbe (Apr 12, 2003)

Tim

The rule was presented at a National meeting. Each club received a copy of the proposed rule and it was published in Retriever News. How did you club respond to this? How did your club vote? If you were concerned, why didn't you have this discussion prior to the vote so other clubs could be informed of your opinion?


Jack


----------



## Jason Brion (May 31, 2006)

Ted Shih said:


> [I think it would be a pity if it eliminated Jason as an AA judge, because I think he would do a good job. But, I still agree with the overall intent with the Rule.


Thanks Ted. This will be logged into my head along with some other very nice things said by those that I respect.

I don't believe that my opinion is important in the matter. I was honered to be asked. If it doesn't work out I will be disapointed because of the loss of opportunity. The opportunity to learn even more about this game from a point of view that can only be appreciated by those that have sat in that seat. I have learned a lot while judging the minors that I have.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

junbe said:


> Tim
> 
> The rule was presented at a National meeting. Each club received a copy of the proposed rule and it was published in Retriever News. How did you club respond to this? How did your club vote? If you were concerned, why didn't you have this discussion prior to the vote so other clubs could be informed of your opinion?
> 
> ...


Jack

I have been to my share of National Meetings. I have written letters to the SOR and to the RFTN. So, I think I am entitled to say that there is little to no "discussion" in the way that most of us understand that word of rule changes proposed by the SOR.

They issue what they please and then we are granted the option of approving or disapproving it.

Ted


----------



## junbe (Apr 12, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> Jack
> 
> I have been to my share of National Meetings. I have written letters to the SOR and to the RFTN. So, I think I am entitled to say that there is little to no "discussion" in the way that most of us understand that word of rule changes proposed by the SOR.
> 
> ...



The SOR only proposes rules. Each club is notified of these proposals. Each proposal has been presented at a national meeting and then in writing to the secretary of each club that conducts a member/licensed field trial. It also is published in the Retriever News. The RAC then is polled for its opinion (the RAC is each and every club that conducts a member/licensed field trial). The Performance Department tabulates these votes and if a majority of the clubs who respond approve, then and only then, is it presented to the AKC Delagates and/or Board for approval. The sad part of this process is that most clubs do not discuss this at a meeting. Also less than 50% of the members of RAC actually vote and some of these proposals are then passed by AKC with only about 30% of the eligible members of RAC approving the proposal.

Jack


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

junbe said:


> The SOR only proposes rules. Each club is notified of these proposals. Each proposal has been presented at a national meeting and then in writing to the secretary of each club that conducts a member/licensed field trial. It also is published in the Retriever News. The RAC then is polled for its opinion (the RAC is each and every club that conducts a member/licensed field trial). The Performance Department tabulates these votes and if a majority of the clubs who respond approve, then and only then, is it presented to the AKC Delagates and/or Board for approval. The sad part of this process is that most clubs do not discuss this at a meeting. Also less than 50% of the members of RAC actually vote and some of these proposals are then passed by AKC with only about 30% of the eligible members of RAC approving the proposal.
> 
> Jack


I'll chime in here just real quick, but I know our club has had issue with getting the proposals and ballot in a timely manner in the past, hopefully we have that problem resolved and now we will recieve coorspondence in a timely manner in the future....we do discuss the issues and we vote as a club and have our delegate vote as the club has, but in my 10 years in my club only twice have I've been able to voice an opinion on rule changes because we have in the past gotten notification too late and/or couldn't track down a copy of the proposals.

Like I said hopefully that is resolved now....thanks to Mitch P. and Brad C.

I just caution the idea that "all" clubs are getting the info.

FOM


----------



## Jason Brion (May 31, 2006)

What is really sad is that I am an ACTIVE member of two AKC clubs. And am on the board of 1. And I just found out this...



junbe said:


> Each club is notified of these proposals. Each proposal has been presented at a national meeting and then in writing to the secretary of each club that conducts a member/licensed field trial.
> Jack


*Amazing how informative this forum can be when it isn't being cluttered up with SPAM.*


----------



## junbe (Apr 12, 2003)

Each club is responsible to notify AKC of any change in officers of their club. The proposals are sent to each secretary that is current on AKC records. If a secretary of the club is changed, no longer active, or does not forward this information to the club members, that information is lost. 

Jack


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

junbe said:


> Each club is responsible to notify AKC of any change in officers of their club. The proposals are sent to each secretary that is current on AKC records. If a secretary of the club is changed, no longer active, or does not forward this information to the club members, that information is lost.
> 
> Jack


We resolved this issue by utilizing a club PO Box now, hopefully this resolves trying to track mail down. wished AKC would look at doing an email list or something, too.


----------



## Northrup Larson (Oct 20, 2003)

[/QUOTE] The 12 Ams were at 10 different events."


Jason have you run two dogs at ten different events. ?

if so, is that not twenty & more than you need to judge

Entry Express a lone has you at 16 so not sure what you have


----------



## helencalif (Feb 2, 2004)

John Robinson said:


> Judging is only going to be as good as the individuals we have judging, take a person with bad judgement or other personality defects to start with, and no seminar or apprenticing is going to make that person a good judge.
> John


You are absolutely correct in what you have said.

Regarding the new apprenticeship requirement, I have been the F.T. Secretary for 2 recent trials which had an apprenticeship judge for their Amateur stakes. 

As far as "extra work" involved. first the clubs had to agree to have an apprentice judge. Then the judges were contacted by letter for their written approval to have someone apprentice their stake. 

Once the judges approved having an apprentice (some judges might not want an apprentice hanging over their shoulder; it's their option to say no), the Field Trial Secretary obtains the Apprentice Form from AKC's website.

This is a simple form which has to be filled out, signed, and dated by the two regular judges. The apprentice judge also fills out and signs their portion of the form. The F.T. Secretary has to fill out the club's portion and sign it. When the form is completed, the F.T. Secretary is responsible for mailing it to AKC Performance Events.

Hopefully the apprentice learned by observation -- how to set up, time management, the mechanics, how to work with volunteer workers, and how to get along with a co-judge. Hopefully the apprentices learned something about evaluating performances by observing all four series of the stake. I believe in both instances, the apprentices kept their own judges books (drew their own diagrams etc) to see in the end how their evaluations compared with the regular judges' evaluations. 

While the new apprentice judge requirement may not be ideal, I think there's value to having such a requirement because it provides the experiences a person will need to judge. 
Handling is one thing... judging is another. 

Helen


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

junbe said:


> The SOR only proposes rules. Each club is notified of these proposals. Each proposal has been presented at a national meeting and then in writing to the secretary of each club that conducts a member/licensed field trial. It also is published in the Retriever News. The RAC then is polled for its opinion (the RAC is each and every club that conducts a member/licensed field trial). The Performance Department tabulates these votes and if a majority of the clubs who respond approve, then and only then, is it presented to the AKC Delagates and/or Board for approval. The sad part of this process is that most clubs do not discuss this at a meeting. Also less than 50% of the members of RAC actually vote and some of these proposals are then passed by AKC with only about 30% of the eligible members of RAC approving the proposal.
> 
> Jack


I repeat. Discussion is minimal. SOR has virtually no accountability to the public. They issue the proposals they want. You can write them. You can write to the RFTN. You can raise your hand and try to participate in what is at most a 30 minute talk about a variety of issues including rule proposals. Some might call that discussion. I do not


----------



## Jason E. (Sep 9, 2004)

How many of you are gonna be willing to apprentice with no rembersements and take off of work ?


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Jason E. said:


> How many of you are gonna be willing to apprentice with no rembersements and take off of work ?


The HT Judgs do it........

John


----------



## Steve (Jan 4, 2003)

I have two AA points, so this doesn't affect me. 

The closest trial to me is about 5 hours. There is no way that I would drive that far and pay for my own hotel just to apprentice.


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

john fallon said:


> The HT Judgs do it........
> 
> John


That's apples to oranges in my opinion.


----------



## Jason Brion (May 31, 2006)

Steve said:


> I have two AA points, so this doesn't affect me.



It does if you haven't run 15 majors in the last 3 years.


----------



## jeff t. (Jul 24, 2003)

sheriff said:


> It does if you haven't run 15 majors in the last 3 years.


The rule only applies to persons who have not judged before..if he has 2 pts, I assume he means judging points and has judged before?


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

jeff t. said:


> The rule only applies to persons who have not judged before..if he has 2 pts, I assume he means judging points and has judged before?


Judged a Major stake before....if all you judged was minors before the rule went in affect then you will have to meet the requirements as stated.


----------



## Tim West (May 27, 2003)

In hunt tests do you have to take a seminar AND apprentice?


----------



## Ken Guthrie (Oct 1, 2003)

I hope that clubs, trials, and participants benefit from this rule and any in the future. 

While reading this I can't help but think that the frantic pursuit for more trials is the main contributer to the perceived problem.


----------



## jeff t. (Jul 24, 2003)

FOM said:


> Judged a Major stake before....if all you judged was minors before the rule went in affect then you will have to meet the requirements as stated.


Right, I should have said AA points...so Steve should be OK regardless of the number trials he has run.


----------



## Jason Brion (May 31, 2006)

Northrup Larson said:


> Entry Express a lone has you at 16 so not sure what you have


I have ran Sharpie in 3 Ams. I have ran Zoey in 9 Ams. That is a total of 12.

I had 2 scratches. Duane ran Zoey once for me while I judged a different stake. And I was listed as a handler on Duane's dog once in case he couldn't make it. But my services were not needed.

This is unfortunate.


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

sheriff said:


> I have ran Sharpie in 3 Ams. I have ran Zoey in 9 Ams. That is a total of 12.
> 
> I had 2 scratches. Duane ran Zoey once for me while I judged a different stake. And I was listed as a handler on Duane's dog once in case he couldn't make it. But my services were not needed.
> 
> This is unfortunate.


When are you supposed to judge? Just go run one more trial before your judging assignment and double stake one dog and single stake the other. Then you will have your 15.


----------



## jeff t. (Jul 24, 2003)

Tim West said:


> In hunt tests do you have to take a seminar AND apprentice?


Yes..from the AKC Regs and Guidelines for Hunting Tests for Retrievers



> To be approved to judge, individuals must have successfully
> attended the Seminar for Judges and Handlers
> of Retriever Hunting Tests (the “Seminar”), and have
> successfully apprenticed at the level being judged or
> higher.


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

So if I read this right, in my brother's case , he hasnt run 15 majors in three yrs and hasnt judged a major in 3 yrs, so does he have to re qualify to be considered a candidate for a major judge

my SIL and I have tried to encourage him to accept a judging assignment or three, its not like he hasnt taken time off from work to hunt, fish, or even run trials


----------



## Tim West (May 27, 2003)

If a club has a last minute cancellation and can't find anybody that can fill in due to the problems we have discussed, how is a club benefiting from this rule?

The trial gets canceled.

Here's another one to consider...

Club only gets four judges. First set does Open and things happen and they can't finish in time to judge the Derby. Now the club can't find replacement derby judges because there are not enough people to the requirements due to the new rule change. Derby gets canceled.


----------



## jeff t. (Jul 24, 2003)

BonMallari said:


> So if I read this right, in my brother's case , he hasnt run 15 majors in three yrs and hasnt judged a major in 3 yrs, so does he have to re qualify to be considered a candidate for a major judge
> 
> my SIL and I have tried to encourage him to accept a judging assignment or three, its not like he hasnt taken time off from work to hunt, fish, or even run trials



Do the first 11 words apply to your brother?



> "No person who has not previously judged an all-age stake shall be approved to judge a stake carrying championship
> points unless that person has satisfied at least
> one of the following requirements: (a) completion of
> two assignments as an Apprentice Judge pursuant to
> ...


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

jeff t. said:


> Do the first 11 words apply to your brother?


thanks Jeff, that makes it clear..


----------



## Jason Brion (May 31, 2006)

huntinman said:


> When are you supposed to judge? Just go run one more trial before your judging assignment and double stake one dog and single stake the other. Then you will have your 15.


It is the first event in the area this spring. Unfortunately.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

FOM said:


> That's apples to oranges in my opinion.


WHY ?

john


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Jason E. said:


> How many of you are gonna be willing to apprentice with no rembersements and take off of work ?


I was opposed to the apprenticeship program, but let's not overstate the sacrifices required.

This sport depends on volunteer help. 
If you run dogs in FT, then at some point you need to judge so others can play.

If you judge outside of your time zone, you may need to take six days off to judge .... Travel Wednesday, Setup Thursday, Judge Friday through Sunday, Travel Monday.

If judges can make that sacrifice, then people can make a sacrifice of four days to apprentice in their neck of the woods, so that some day they can take their turn in the barrel.


----------



## Northrup Larson (Oct 20, 2003)

sheriff said:


> It is the first event in the area this spring. Unfortunately.


Can you run KC or St Louis ? Also it looks like you have been approved by AKC because you are listed to be the judge so may be they are taking this in to consideration that the clubs would be put in a bind to start with or they did not check or like I did ckeck EE & you have the # of trials


----------



## Mike W. (Apr 22, 2008)

> If you run dogs in FT, then at some point you need to judge so others can play.


Well said.


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

Ted Shih said:


> If you run dogs in FT, then at some point you need to judge so others can play.


Have you been talking to my SIL


----------



## Ken Guthrie (Oct 1, 2003)

Tim West said:


> If a club has a last minute cancellation and can't find anybody that can fill in due to the problems we have discussed, how is a club benefiting from this rule?
> 
> The trial gets canceled.
> 
> ...


Tim,

I know you and most your members so this certainly isn't directed towards your club but...

In the situations you explain above the system and it's rules should protect the quality of events versus the quantity.

For years here I have read the importance of having more trials. I completely disagree.

I believe the importance is having quality trials. If that means less than so be it.

If there were less clubs, other clubs would grow in membership allowing for a better quality of club/membership. More members, less individual burden, more efficient.

IMHO, just having a trial is not important enough to overshadow the importance of a well staffed, well rehearsed, and properly ran trial.

Again...quality not quantity regards,


----------



## cakaiser (Jul 12, 2007)

Northrup Larson said:


> Also it looks like you have been approved by AKC because you are listed to be the judge


Yes,
Jayhawk, 
Judge Panel Status
*approved*
per AKC site.

That's all you need..


----------



## BBnumber1 (Apr 5, 2006)

Tim West said:


> If a club has a last minute cancellation and can't find anybody that can fill in due to the problems we have discussed, how is a club benefiting from this rule?
> 
> The trial gets canceled.
> 
> ...


The only change to the requirements for minor stakes judges is the change from _should_ to _shall:_

In a Derby and Qualifying Stake the experience of
the Judges selected *shall *be such that their combined
experience satisfies at least one of the following standards:
(a) the judging of two stakes carrying championship​points; (b) the judging of one stake carrying 
championship points and the judging of three minor​stakes; or (c) judging five minor stakes.


----------



## Steve (Jan 4, 2003)

sheriff said:


> It does if you haven't run 15 majors in the last 3 years.


I have judged two AA stakes.


----------



## Northrup Larson (Oct 20, 2003)

Quote:
"Originally Posted by Northrup Larson 
Also it looks like you have been approved by AKC because you are listed to be the judge "


Quote:

"Yes Jayhawk, Judge Panel Status approved per AKC site.
That's all you need.."


Well I guess I was wrong, It is the judges responsibility to say he is eligible or not, to judge under the AKC rules, even if he is approved by AKC


----------



## Tim West (May 27, 2003)

This is not the first time we have run into this issue with the new rules. We had a judge that was not eligible under the new rules before for our fall trial. 

We called the AKC and they told us this!

It is not up to the AKC to enforce the rule for the NEW judging requirements, it's the clubs. If you submit a panel of judges they will check for points, whether they took the test, etc. In otherwords, all of the things they checked for in the past.

HOWEVER, THEY WILL NOT CHECK ON THE QUALIFICATIONS OF THE JUDGES UNDER THE NEW RULES. They did not say why, but my guess is that the record-digging required to do so might be overwhelming or they just were not set up for this in the fall. However, in the fall, this was the policy:

Its up to the CLUB to police this. If you submit judges that are not eligible under the new rules, and somebody calls the club on it, then the club could be sanctioned by the AKC and the participants who earned points at the trial could have them stripped.

Just because the AKC approved the panel does not mean they are eligible under the new rules.

Clubs beware......


----------



## cakaiser (Jul 12, 2007)

Tim West said:


> Just because the AKC approved the panel does not mean they are eligible under the new rules.
> Clubs beware......


That's good info, thanks.
Guess that means the Sec will have to check all that stuff...

Can I get a raise??


----------



## MikeBoley (Dec 26, 2003)

Having been the judge in question last fall at CRC trial, I was very frustrated trying to see if I was qualified or not. Per AKC performance events personel they do not keep up with the number of events a person has run. AKC PE can only verify if you have an AA placement or JAM. My JAM was not listed correctly. Those greenies take on a whole new meaning if you are a newbie. I got it straightened out and thanks to EE could verify my entry numbers. Like Tim stated if someone protest and the judge is found not qualified it will be the club and the judge that are sanctioned.
I feel the experience aspect is good but the number maybe to high.


----------



## Northrup Larson (Oct 20, 2003)

QUOTE

"Its up to the CLUB to police this. If you submit judges that are not eligible under the new rules, and somebody calls the club on it, then the club could be sanctioned by the AKC and the participants who earned points at the trial could have them stripped."

From what I have been told AKC would probably not sanctioned the club or strip the points but go after the judge who agreed to judge & had not read the rules like we all are required to due

QUOTE

"Just because the AKC approved the panel does not mean they are eligible under the new rules."

Very true


----------



## Tim West (May 27, 2003)

Thanks to generous offers to help judging by our RTF community, it looks like we have judges, pending AKC approval, for our April 9-11 trial in El Reno, Oklahoma.

Many thanks also in putting up with my rant. I'm sure this discussion will not die, as I hear more and more how difficult it is to get judges under the new set of rules.

Good luck to all as we enter the Spring FT season.


----------



## Paul Rainbolt (Sep 8, 2003)

Ken Guthrie said:


> Tim,
> 
> I know you and most your members so this certainly isn't directed towards your club but...
> 
> ...


 Conflicting trials reduce entry #'s which IMO = a better chance for quality trials. By giving good judges the opportunity to set up good test with out the pressure and necessity of cutting the field just to get-r-done.


----------



## Paul Rainbolt (Sep 8, 2003)

Tim West said:


> Thanks to generous offers to help judging by our RTF community, it looks like we have judges, pending AKC approval, for our April 9-11 trial in El Reno, Oklahoma.
> 
> Many thanks also in putting up with my rant. I'm sure this discussion will not die, as I hear more and more how difficult it is to get judges under the new set of rules.
> 
> Good luck to all as we enter the Spring FT season.


Thanks Tim , I appreciate you and your club members for giving us locals another trial to run. Always a well run trial on great grounds.


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

Jason E. said:


> How many of you are gonna be willing to apprentice with no rembersements and take off of work ?





john fallon said:


> The HT Judgs do it........
> 
> John





FOM said:


> That's apples to oranges in my opinion.





john fallon said:


> WHY ?
> 
> john


still waiting Lainee, John has asked a good one here. Why?
hunt test folk need to take off a weekend to apprentice just so they can take off a weekend to judge. Thankless all the way around. So what are you saying? Arent the chairs they sit in the same? Still lookin at the south end of a dog all day long. What could the apple vs. orange be.


----------



## sinner (Oct 21, 2007)

Tim, the rule sucks!
I have been reluctant to judge the past few years because I am 73+. I am working part time to help pay for my grandson's college. With all of that said I certainly qualifiy as an all age judge under the new rules.
I have won an open and placed in an Am in the last two years.
If push comes to shove I am willing to help you out but remember I do live in Colorado Springs.
It would be helpful if you could find someone with younger legs than mine but I can still and do work out at the Y 3-4 times a week. 
Max @ 719.650.3915.
Maybe my last assignment for you left a bad taste in your or your field trial participants AND IF THAT IS THE CASE I WILL NOT BE OFFENDED !


----------



## W Knight (Sep 2, 2003)

I applaud Tim West for bringing this problem to the forefront.

Tim Wrote:
This is a bad rule. I don't know how it came to be, or how it got passed, who supported it, etc etc. I do know that it needs to be changed. 

I also want to thank Ken Guthrie for his reasoning.

Ken Wrote:
We have all ran AA stakes where basically 1 judge is calling the shots and the other "judge" is nothing more than a warm body. Soooooo !!!! whats new.
But he should be given tenure as a professor of field trial studies for the following…..
While reading this I can't help but think that the frantic pursuit for more trials is the main contributor to the perceived problem.

Ted Wrote:
Each club received a copy of the proposed rule and it was published in Retriever News.

Lone Star did not receive this proposed rule. 
Maybe its like Obama Care, The just Ram it through.

I’m going to attach an Email that I received from Pete Marcellus

White Knight
I do indeed think the rule should be revisited. The judging pool will continue to shrink unless something changes. Under the current rule, I don't think I would have been able to judge for you, even though I had titled a dog. I'd have to go back and look for sure, but I was only running 5 trials a season and by the time I judged for you, I'd probably only run 12-13 AA stakes. I'm sure there are others in similar situations. I understand and applaud the efforts of trying to improve judging, but field trials have been going on for decades without this rule, why now? I understand there are more trials now than before, leading to a greater need for judges. More people have their dogs trained by pro's and don't judge much (much less willing to apprentice), and some of you old guys are dying off, shrinking the pool of good judges. Sometimes it makes me think we should let pro's judge, or even make it a requirement.

Robby and I have been trying to get judges for NTX with little success, I'll bet between us we've called 75 people. NTX normally conflicts with Jayhawk and Shreveport. Shreveport will not likely have a trial, they currently do not have grounds. That means NTX will be huge. The club voted not to hold a trial this spring because: the Shreveport situation, lack of a judge for the open. 
Also cancelled: Metro and likely Sooner. I think Cimarron finally got judges so they're on.

Pete


I think all TX, OK, LA, AR clubs should communicate with each other and work out a way to reverse this rule. You can call the White Knight if you are so inclined.

The bottom line is, just because you sit behind a couple of judges and sip cokes
and ask the judges questions while they are trying to do their work and when they are in the truck asking them questions about why they placed the dogs the way they did, is that going to make one a better judge or just screw up the weekend for a couple of people (judges) that have given up a weekend to give back to the game . What if the judges are some of the incompetent ones mentioned in the above posts what does the guy learn. There’s got to be a better way

I’m back

White Knight


----------



## Jason Brion (May 31, 2006)

W Knight said:


> What if the judges are some of the incompetent ones mentioned in the above posts what does the guy learn.


Great point. From what I can tell the judges all ready have their hands full trying to get things done without having the guy drinking a coke bugging them. There is no way that bird placement and good dog work can be taught to someone over the course of a couple weekends. The person has to be a student of the game and not be affraid to get his hands dirty.


----------



## Ken Guthrie (Oct 1, 2003)

W Knight said:


> Ken Wrote:
> We have all ran AA stakes where basically 1 judge is calling the shots and the other "judge" is nothing more than a warm body.
> 
> White Knight wrote: Soooooo !!!! whats new.My point exactly.
> ...


Something is obviously changing.

No judges, more trials w/ recent cancelations, rules popping up out of nowhere?

Just what is going on with the game? Where is the leadership from the professors of field trial studies?

Sooner or later, as the flame burns low, a true leader must past the torch. It's only then that the ones who led find out if they were indeed leaders. 

Preparing the next group to carry the torch should be of the highest importance. 

In this game, that certainly is not the case. Too much effort is spent holding that torch too tight.

As the flame starts to smoke, only then folks start to panic. It's too late.

It is what it is.

Frisbee for my dog regards,


----------



## Barry (Dec 11, 2007)

The long and short of it is be careful what you ask for. We have all whined and complain either here or in the gallery about judging and test. Seems to me that the SOR finally tried to do something about it. We all had a hand in this. 

Something that needs to be said is that judging is not rocket science. Or maybe it is just easier for some than it is for others. Two people set test, do call backs and declare a winner and places. Most of us didn't know a thing about judging before our first assignment. Why would we expect anything more from anyone else. We all learned with each and every assignment. We learn through training our dogs. Most of all we learn with length of service in the sport. 

There are two people siting in the chairs on any given weekend and they probably have differences of opinions. This is what helps them set up there test, it helps with their criteria and what they want to see. It also helps with their call backs and what they both liked and didn't like. They also have a lot to do with the trial mechanics. Where to put holding blinds, where to position bird throwers and live guns. These are just some of the things that we didn't have a clue about when we first started.

The apprentice program is get your book and start judging. One doesn't learn by watching it's about getting dirty. It's about the decision making process. How does one react when it gets hot in the kitchen. How is your attitude when under fire. Most people get it, and move on to become very good judges. Some don't. The big problem is that the few that don't become good judges for what ever reason keep getting called to judge. There is a reason why these people are available to judge. And a few even solicite assingments to impress us with their qualifications. I'm not talking about the people that are willing to jump out and help in a pinch.

I am in no way in favor of this rule. While judging I don't have the time to have an apprentice looking over my shoulder, asking a question is one thing but questioning everything one does is a fat pain. Most people don't train their own dogs. What they have learned has been from their pro. How is an amature going to teach this person anything contrary to what they have seen their pro do or say. To much information coming from a couple of individuals to any individual is an overload in a short period of time. Especially when we are talking about on the job training as opposed to book smart. Besides the pay isn't that good. Maybe we could charge for our on the job seminar.

Sorry to say we will lose our judging pool over a period of time. That coupled with the people that we have all decided to not invite to judge limits things dramaticly.

The thing that amuses me is that I guess that takes the pros out of the judging picture. Believe it or not there is a push to bring them into the judging pool.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Barry said:


> The long and short of it is be careful what you ask for. We have all whined and complain either here or in the gallery about judging and test. Seems to me that the SOR finally tried to do something about it. We all had a hand in this.
> 
> Something that needs to be said is that judging is not rocket science. Or maybe it is just easier for some than it is for others. Two people set test, do call backs and declare a winner and places. Most of us didn't know a thing about judging before our first assignment. Why would we expect anything more from anyone else. We all learned with each and every assignment. We learn through training our dogs. Most of all we learn with length of service in the sport.
> 
> ...


Excellent points Barry. We have all seen bad and sometimes really bad judging if you run enough trials, just read the Judges Corner in FT Retriever News. Like I said in an earlier post, it is my opinion that the bad judges out there aren't bad because they don't have enough training, they are simply bad judges who shouldn't be asked to judge trial after trial. If those of us who deal with selecting judges did our homework and scrutinized judges more carefully, this new rule could have been avoided. 

I actually think the best approach is to do what the OP used to do, import a super quality judge from out of the area who is not only known as being a good judge, but also an excellent mentor, and place that mentor with an up and coming young person in the club who seems to have those qualities that would make a good judge. That way you are adding good judges to the pool, and our sport continues to prosper.
John


----------



## Rick Coats (Oct 3, 2007)

Good points Barry. Our sport needs to make it easier to recruit new judges not more difficult. Once involved if an individual lacks skills they won't be invited to judge or at least not invited back. This game is intimidating in many ways for the newcomer. We should all be looking for ways to make it more accessible on all levels, not more restrictive. The future of field trials depends on it.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

I think that the judging needs to improve.
I think that the SOR made an effort - albeit, an imperfect one - to address the problem

I think the requirement of having AA experience before judging an AA stake makes sense.
I am not nuts about the apprentice program, but as others have noted, it is employed in the HT area.

I think if the requirement of AA experience or some apprenticeship experience prevents someone from judging - in the long term - that is they don't ever accumulate the experience or the apprenticeship stints - they really weren't much interested in judging to begin with.

I am not sure that you want to make it too easy to judge

Ted


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

I can tell you that we in the RMRC debated the proposal long and hard before sending in our vote. We were uniformly opposed to the apprenticeship program and in favor of the experience requirement.

If I were a member of a club where the issue was not discussed, I would want to know why

- Did not get the papers?
- No one wanted to discuss the issue?

Don't know

I will tell you that - year after year - less than 1/2 of the clubs eligible to vote on various issues do so


----------



## Kevinismybrother (Aug 3, 2009)

> I think if the requirement of AA experience or some apprenticeship experience prevents someone from judging - in the long term - that is they don't ever accumulate the experience or the apprenticeship stints - they really weren't much interested in judging to begin with.
> 
> I am not sure that you want to make it too easy to judge


That sound was Ted hitting the nail squarely on the head. 

If you make it too easy to be a judge, we also get even more "bad" judges because it is easy for them too. The solution ultimately comes from getting good people to want to be a judge, not making it easy to be a judge, IMHO


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

i don't think you learn to judge an all-age stake by simply running a dog that was perhaps trained by someone else and managing to finish a trial 1 time out of 15 (or more) attempts over a period of 3 years. 

becoming a good all-age judge is best done by gaining JUDGING experience with good judges in the minor stakes before getting the first all-age assignment. sadly, this is missing from the new rule.

handling skill does not equal judging skill.-Paul


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

paul young said:


> handling skill does not equal judging skill.-Paul


no but it helps, it is good to know that the person judging has seen the last series of the Open or Amateur other than the one(s) they have judged

there are those judging, some a great deal, who have never successfully competed in all age stakes


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

How about some sort of feedback system,similar to what is used in eBay, by the competitors in that stake..that way you could voice your opinion on that judge in private and therefore help eliminate incompetent or unqualified judges...X amount of starters in an open stake = X amount of feedback points,..that way the people that ran under that judge know if that judge was a good judge or not...just a thought from out of the box..

oh and whoever gave my brother a kick in the rear..thanks ...he will be judging one trial next year in Montana and possibly one this summer also...


----------



## DKR (May 9, 2003)

I only have one toe so far in this game, so it’s certainly not my place to demand or even suggest something but;

Would there be a way to amend the current rule to having run say 10 or 12 AA stakes rather than the 15 within the same time period?
Just thinking out loud


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

"No person who has not previously judged an all-age
stake shall be approved to judge a stake carrying championship
points unless that person has satisfied at least
one of the following requirements: (a) completion of
two assignments as an Apprentice Judge pursuant to
the terms of Section 4, Chapter 5; or (b) completion of
one assignment as an Apprentice Judge and experience
as the judge of two, or more, minor stakes; or (c) experience
as the handler of a dog in fifteen or more all-age
stakes in the previous three years resulting in the
award of a judges’ award of merit or a place in, at least,
one such stake.

IMHO it is the new "true amateur" that is being discouraged from judging all-age stakes by especially provisions (a) and (c).

The individual is being required to give 6-8 days at their own expense to be qualified to donate more of their time to their local clubs. The reality is that these are are the same people that already support of club but the SOR and AKC have decided that is not good enough.
15 trials in 3 years certainly favors the professional amateur or the amat with the pro trained dog. As amateurs with jobs and families advance to all-age they may only run3-4 trials per year. Who is keeping the records that confirm the amat actually ran the dog when both pro and amat are both listed as handlers?

IMHO we will not really know the damage of this requirement for several years, as our current pool continues to age and we don't have experienced replacements.

JMO

Tim


----------



## dnf777 (Jun 9, 2009)

FWIW, surgeons can maintain privileges and credentials with pancreatico-duodenectomies (one of the most technically challenging and intricate operations there is) by doing less than the judging requirements. While I understand the rationale, I think this may be too stringent for many would-be judges. (and more than a few would-be-damn-good-judges).
I don't see how if this results in some events being cancelled, especially minor stakes, and fewer people are given the opportunity to run as handlers, this can improve the game. I hope its not the case, but this might be throwing out the baby with the bathwater.


----------



## Tim West (May 27, 2003)

I can tell you that in my current situation there is no way in Hell that I would take three weekends out of my life just so I could be qualified to judge an AA stake. (one apprentice and two qual assignments). That's about 11-12 days of my time, counting setup days.

I only ran 9 trials last year, and I'm probably more the norm than the exception. I judged three trials, including our Double DQ with the Tulsa Club, and put on three trials. Sadly, we are the ones eligible to judge AA stakes now, and there are not enough of us.

If we want better judges, then the powers that instituted this rule should set up two seminars in each region of the country in non-trial months and make it another option to get qualified to judge. These would happen in winter months in the north, summer months in the south. By attending the weekend seminar, with extensive instruction on how to judge and how to set up tests, would make a judge eligible to judge an AA stake OR a minor stake, as long as they met the same requirements that were in place BEFORE the rule change. IE, take seminar and test. Now you can judge with an 8 pt judge in the Open or Am and a pointed judge in the minor stakes.

It's still up to us as FT Chairmen to put qualified people with 8 pt judges to fill out an AA judges panel. I never put somebody in this position unless they have run AA dogs themselves; common sense dictates this.

So, keep the new rule if anybody wants to take this route, but add the additional opportunity to get this out of the way with one weekend seminar. Several of these are put on each year now. Lets get some structure to them and get this additional way to qualify in place quickly, before our sports dries up and blows away.


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

Tim West said:


> It's still up to us as FT Chairmen to put qualified people with 8 pt judges to fill out an AA judges panel. *I never put somebody in this position unless they have run AA dogs themselves; common sense dictates this*.


If 15 all-age entries in 3 years is too many, what would you consider the BMS for judging an all-age test?


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Doug Main said:


> If 15 all-age entries in 3 years is too many, what would you consider the BMS for judging an all-age test?


What about the guy who's all age dog is retired and he is near the end of the three to four year process of developing a young dog to all age status? I just ran my first AA trials in a few years last fall, as I was running youngsters through their derby and qualifying careers, yet I had two generations experience running two different dogs in AA until they retired, what if I wasn't qualified to judge yet? It could take quite a while to get those 15 AA trials under my belt and hopefully have a good enough dog to get a reserve JAM.

John


----------



## Barry (Dec 11, 2007)

I think most are missing the point. Where did all of you so called good judges get your starts? Was it through a seminar, training days, from studing the AKC hand book, or maybe you used the new training manual. I dare say that just about everyone jumped in with both feet and learned to swim the hard way.

The thing I would like to know is who does the inviting? They are the ones who need to take the class. I've hired my share of people that will never be invited again and I don't mind sharing my information. Problem is some people don't ask for referances. So you get what you get. So where does the blame really fall?


----------



## Tim West (May 27, 2003)

Here is what I would consider a viable candidate. 

Someone who has an AA dog that is AA qualified and is currently running Amateurs but has not placed. People who I have asked to judge Opens or Amateurs and they have NO AA points, but paired with a capable AA 8 pt judge would be:

Charles Bearden-Judged the Open with Bruce Loefellholz. 

Mark Blackford-Judged the Open with Ken Thorsen

Aaron Kelly-Judged the Open with Bob Larsen

Nick Komoundouras-Judged the Open with Bob Larsen

Preston Skitt-Judged the Open with Ron Ainley 

Nick Komoundouras (1 pt)-Judged the Open with Gary Zelner

Me-Judged the Open with Gary Zelner

Jeff Hennard-Judged the Amateur with Bill Cummings

Somebody who is a perfect example of being hosed by this rule is John Dunn of Kansas. John had taken the test but had never been asked to judge. I asked and he accpeted to judge the Amateur for us this spring. He called me up when he got a new rule book and said he could not judge. He had a third place in the Amateur with one of his dogs, but both of them had health issues and had to retire. He now has two young dogs ready to go, and is back in the game. He had already taken the test, run a bunch of AA stakes and I assumed he would be good to go. But no, his AA placement was outside the three year window and he had no jams in the last fifteen trials since then. Can't judge. 

What a bunch of crap.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Tim

I am not certain what you mean to demonstrate with the names you listed

Charles had AA points with his dog
Preston had AA points with his dog
You have AA points with your dogs
I had thought that Aaron and Jeff had AA points with their dogs

If you mean that all of the above would have had to wait before judging, that is a different matter

I also think that there is a world of difference between simply running an AA stake and finishing one.

Ted


----------



## Losthwy (May 3, 2004)

Though there were good intentions. I'm not convince these rules go very far insuring the quality of judges. I don't believe passing the test does. I don't believe doing an apprenticeship does. I don't believe running an AA stake does. I don't believe finishing an AA does. What it does. It makes it more difficult to become a judge.


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

I did not realize that it was as common for people to just jump into judging all-age assignments as their 1st judging experiences. Perhaps that explains the push for the rule. 

Most people in our region get their feet wet judging a few minor stakes 1st.

I fully understand how difficult it is to find judges. That is why I was against the rule. I think the shrinking pool of qualified judges the bigger issue.


----------



## Tim West (May 27, 2003)

Ted, what I meant is the OLD way of breaking in judges with no prior AA experience by putting them with 8 pt judges was a very good system. 

The criteria I used when asking candidates to judge with these 8 point judges was the experience level that I described; they needed to have run AA stakes or have AA dogs at that time. That was MY minimum requirement. All of the candidates I listed had that experience. Some of them at the time I asked them did not have JAMS or placements as AA judges. But, they had run dogs in AA stakes, trained to run them, set up tests training their dogs and had what good, common sense.

The old system worked great for the Cimarron Retriever Club. We did not, and still don't, have the money to find two 8 point judges per stake. Now it's not just the money, it's the availability of qualified candidates due to the new rule.

The old way worked fine for us. Newcomers apprenticed on the job, with a good teacher, the 8 point judge.


----------



## Tim West (May 27, 2003)

I also didn't mean to say that all of these guys had not judged minor stakes before judging for us. Most of them had done this, but not judged AA stakes.


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

So who's gonna take the first step to have this silly rule rescinded?

While they're at it, there is at least one other that needs to be trashed too....;-)

k g


----------



## Ken Guthrie (Oct 1, 2003)

K G said:


> So who's gonna take the first step to have this silly rule rescinded?
> 
> k g


Why? Everyone knows if you put it on the internet it changes on it's own.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

K G said:


> So who's gonna take the first step to have this silly rule rescinded?
> k g


Look for The White Knight to be among the first

he is currently seeking co-conspirators.....


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Doug Main said:


> *I did not realize that it was as common for people to just jump into judging all-age assignments as their 1st judging experiences. Perhaps that explains the push for the rule. *
> 
> Most people in our region get their feet wet judging a few minor stakes 1st.
> 
> I fully understand how difficult it is to find judges. That is why I was against the rule. I think the shrinking pool of qualified judges the bigger issue.


I was invited to judge my very first time by Roger Fangsrud almost 15 years ago. I was fairly new to the game, but he thought I would make a good judge. I don't know about that, but when I was told he was putting me with a very experienced good judge to judge the open, I was aghast, and asked why not the derby or qual. Roger was adamant that the minor stakes are much harder to judge, as you have to tailor the test to match the field. You can't be too hard or too easy. Much easier to set up very hard all age test and have at it. Over the years I have seen Roger's wisdom in this. Now I prefer the minor stakes for the challange they present in setting up just the right degree of difficulty. I feel good when I get that just right.

The key for that beginning judge in a major stake is putting him or her with the right co-judge, those first few trials are what will set up that new judge for the rest of his judging career. I had the good fortune of being paired with Alan Madsen who taught me how to be fair, open, set up good hard test, good mechanics, time management and all of the other details that go into judging. Lanse Brown told me one time that there are two kinds of bad judges, dishonest or incompetent, I have always kept that in mind when I judge.

John


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

there is one other resource of judges that is overlooked, maybe intentionally....but there are qualified judges that no longer run the circuit, either due to retirement,or lack of an trial worthy dog, or for personal reasons....but if approached they might want to stick their nose back into the game...I know the first response might be that they dont know the current crop of dogs, but thats the beauty of it..they just dont forget how to set up a test, or judge a dog, they are an older set of eyes with a fresh unbiased look


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

K G said:


> So who's gonna take the first step to have this silly rule rescinded?
> 
> While they're at it, there is at least one other that needs to be trashed too....;-)
> 
> k g


There sure is !!! It's that one about not handling in the............

john


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Not the one I had in mind, John...but we can make a list!! 

k g


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

OK here is a question

Who would you rather run under ?

A) Someone who exclusively has a pro train their dog(s) and only comes to a trial to run their dog. Has success placement and or meets the required 15 trials

or 


B) Trains his/her own dog(s) has had some derby and Q success and is never quite managed to place in a trial.

Everything else is equal.


If the SOR and RAC want to be involved with every detail then I am sure clubs would love for them to be at he next judges selection meeting.

Still waiting for the vote audit regards......


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Steve Amrein said:


> OK here is a question
> 
> Who would you rather run under ?
> 
> ...


I think that a person that spends over $? K a year on PROs and does not have some placements should be barred from judging. 
I don't want to go too low so I'll say 15/20:razz:

john


----------



## Losthwy (May 3, 2004)

I would choose B.


----------



## Barry (Dec 11, 2007)

Doug Main said:


> I did not realize that it was as common for people to just jump into judging all-age assignments as their 1st judging experiences. Perhaps that explains the push for the rule.
> 
> Most people in our region get their feet wet judging a few minor stakes 1st.
> 
> I fully understand how difficult it is to find judges. That is why I was against the rule. I think the shrinking pool of qualified judges the bigger issue.


Why are you always trying to find fault with someone's post? Why don't you try to add something constructive to the conversation or just pass on the post?

I'm sure you know what I meant. If not you are probably looking for another way of Hijacking the thread. Most where I come from learned by judging picnic trials and or club trial and than minor stakes. Does it need to be spelled out for you? This kind of post is why we are dealing with the problems that we are.


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

Barry said:


> Why are you always trying to find fault with someone's post? Why don't you try to add something constructive to the conversation or just pass on the post?
> 
> I'm sure you know what I meant. If not you are probably looking for another way of Hijacking the thread. Most where I come from learned by judging picnic trials and or club trial and than minor stakes. Does it need to be spelled out for you? This kind of post is why we are dealing with the problems that we are.


Hey Barry

Stick it in your ear!!!!

Tim stated "*I never put somebody in this position unless they have run AA dogs themselves*". 

The rule change only requires someone to apprentice once if they have judged two minor stakes. There is no need to apprentice *at all *if the person has run at least 15 all-age stakes in the 3 years prior and at least Jammed in one of them. It really seems pretty minimal to me. 

Somebody posted some *BS* about how minor stakes are really much harder to judge than all-age tests. 

Contrary to that ridiculous assertion, most know judging all-age stakes is tough! Way way tougher than minor stakes. And it isn't getting any easier!

I know I had a lot more experience than the minimum required by the rule before I judged my 1st all-age stake. Frankly I am surprised than they feel competent enough to judge with less.

I started in HTs. I was a Licensed HRC Finished jusge before I started juging AKC HTs. I judged 15-20 Master tests before I judged my 1st minor stake. Without posting a litney of all the hoops that you must jump thourh in order to judge at the various HT levels. One requirement that is common to both organizations is that you must have handled and passed a dog at the level being judged.


----------



## Barry (Dec 11, 2007)

Doug Main said:


> Hey Barry
> 
> Stick it in your ear!!!!
> 
> ...


Well how about that. Changing the topic when you get called on. Seems to me you were commiting on my post about jumping in and learning to swim. My comment to you is if you don't know where the game has evolved learn it. or do something else. Oh and by the way there is a lot of very fine judges that never placed or jammed in a major before they judged their first trial. This game has been around for a long time and has always had inexperienced people judging so what seems to be your problem?

If you are so well versed on judging HT which is where you came from do you really think that that qualifies you to judge a FT. Two different animals. One of the big problems in the FT game is the HT people trying to change the sport. I think that is why they started HT. We have two different sports here.

I know you are an 8 pointer but I for one do not consider your experience from HT acceptable criteria to judge a minor stake. Minors are very difficult. Unless you don't care about the field. Like I stated earlier judging a major is not rocket science. Or maybe it's just easier for some than it is for others. Probably harder if you have the judging according to the standard mindset. 

Oh and by the way, love the stick it in your ear comment. How sophisticated. Jack A_ _


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

Barry said:


> Well how about that. Changing the topic when you get called on. Seems to me you were commiting on my post about jumping in and learning to swim.
> 
> If you are so well versed on judging HT which is where you came from do you really think that that qualifies you to judge a FT. Two different animals.


Nope. I was ignoring your post until you quoted me.

No. I didn't think I was qualified to judge all-age stakes until after I had finished all-age stakes with 2 different dogs that I trained myself. The 2nd was the daughter of the 1st. I am now running the granddaughter of the 1st and do not feel I am yet qualified to judge a national just because I qualified and ran one last year. ;-)


----------



## Barry (Dec 11, 2007)

Doug Main said:


> Nope. I was ignoring your post until you quoted me.
> 
> No. I didn't think I was qualified to judge all-age stakes until after I had finished all-age stakes with 2 different dogs that I trained myself. The 2nd was the daughter of the 1st. I am now running the granddaughter of the 1st and do not feel I am yet qualified to judge a national just because I qualified and ran one last year. ;-)


I never quoted you. You made the smart ass comment about more to it than just jumping in. Which is what my comment was. Don't change the subject. I still don't believe that your running all those HT qualifies you or anyone else to judge a FT. 

I could really careless about your accomplishments with your present dog, although you are to be commended. How does your qualifications to judge a National even enter into this conversation?

Just in case you missed my point, there is a lot of very good judges that started their judging careers without even finishing a AA stake. They started from squat. Fortunatly they loved the game, stuck around learned and are now teaching and mentoring the inexperienced. This game has gotten along fine with the rules as they were. This game like it or not has a tradition and a certain way of talking care of it'self. Weather you or anyone else likes it or not. It has gotten along pretty well for the last 50 or so years.


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

You guys done yet?

This is counterproductive stuff, to my mind. How about you call each other names with private messages...or maybe you can exchange phone numbers and yell a little.

Set your clocks ahead!

Chris


----------



## DEDEYE (Oct 27, 2005)

Jason E. said:


> How many of you are gonna be willing to apprentice with no rembersements and take off of work ?


I apprenticed last year under Gary Zellner. Was a blast and I learned alot. Do I think I am qualified experience-wise? Nope...


----------

