# Judging protocol



## canuckkiller (Apr 16, 2009)

Test, Delayed Quad:
Mark #1, dead, Mark #2 dead, Mark #3 Flyer, number called, dog sent and picks up #3 Flyer.
Mark #4 delayed flyer, number called and picked up before marks #1 & #2.

Issue: running dog, handler picks up Mark #3 Flyer and prepares to retrieve Mark #1 or
Mark # 2, indicating he has forgotten the delayed Flyer # 4. Should judges intervene
and remind Handler to wait for the delay Flyer or allow Handler to send dog, thus
elimination?

Bill Connor


----------



## Tobias (Aug 31, 2015)

Allow handler to make error...


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Tobias said:


> Allow handler to make error...


Wow, you're tough. Something similar happened in the combined first-second series of the 2016 National Amateur. I was in the holding blind when the nervous handler in front of me forgot to send for the second bird of the double, and ran the blind instead. The judges were a little asleep at the wheel so missed the opportunity to remind the handler. The dog one whistled the blind and the handler was ecstatic for a few seconds, until the judges informed her of her mistake, then she was devastated.

The judges were horrified and felt terrible, as they said they would have pointed it out and saved the day. They knew how much time, money and emotion was invested, between travel, lodging and pre-National training.


----------



## labguy (Jan 17, 2006)

Quietly Intervene and remind the handler there's one more flyer to come. I'm not interested in dropping a handler for such a lame reason as forgetfulness or nerves........but I'm sure others will disagree.


----------



## Tobias (Aug 31, 2015)

John Robinson said:


> Wow, you're tough. Something similar happened in the combined first-second series of the 2016 National Amateur. I was in the holding blind when the nervous handler in front of me forgot to send for the second bird of the double, and ran the blind instead. The judges were a little asleep at the wheel so missed the opportunity to remind the handler. The dog one whistled the blind and the handler was ecstatic for a few seconds, until the judges informed her of her mistake, then she was devastated.
> 
> The judges were horrified and felt terrible, as they said they would have pointed it out and saved the day. They knew how much time, money and emotion was invested, between travel, lodging and pre-National training.



Perhaps John - I can only imagine a handler would be very nervous at a trial such as the national am... perhaps judges should just remind all handlers then - either when the handler arrives at the line or when the dpg is returning with the last bird he retrieved.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Speak softly "don't forget to call the delayed bird"


----------



## swliszka (Apr 17, 2011)

Does everybody get a trophy? Handler error or mistakes is part of the game. Many years ago at our club bar, an old Canadian told me he made sure all his competitors had fiul glasses the night before so he could have the "edge." Think about it.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

In competition either everyone should get a reminder or no one should.

In a hunting test - go ahead and remind on an as needed basis. 

Personally, I wouldn't consider a win where I was saved from my own mistake by the judge's much of an accomplishment. The handler is as much a part of the team as the dog.


----------



## Bob Walton (Jan 1, 2007)

Post it in the last holding blind as you would any instructions from the judges , if you feel that a reminder is needed.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Part of success in competition is the ability to focus under pressure. 

This is an All Age Stake. Points title dogs and qualify them for National Competition.

If you are concerned about the issue, then I think you have two options:

1) Put instructions in writing in the holding blind; or
2) Say to each handler, "This is the test ...."

Otherwise, there is too much room for error

It is very appealing to say, "I would remind the person", but

- Do you say to the elderly handler with poor eyesight, "your dog is over there" when the handler is looking at 12 o'clock, but the dog is at 3 o'clock on a blind?
- Do you say to the forgetful handler "you are handling to the wrong sage brush"
- Do you overlook the elderly handler that says "sit" as the birds are being shot

Or on simpler scenario, on a poison mark

- When a handler is about to launch a dog on a poison bird blind, before the bird is thrown and a number is given "Wait for the poison bird"

I have seen judges do all of the above out of a sense of compassion.

But, this is competition

And if you think that the judges have some sort of obligation to protect people from themselves (and I was in the holding blinds when John's scenario occurred), do you give that person a re-run because you as a judge weren't attentive enough?
If not, why not?

Ted


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

2001 NARC Virginia, MN 5th series I believe. I ran late in the day on a very tough delayed quad. Short retired, then pheasant flyer go down. After your dog is back with a bird. Two more gun stations stand up... one deep of the short retired and one off to the right. 

It was killing the dogs all day long... I watched guys try to pick it up in a variety of ways except one. Primary selection. 

So, when I got my number I pull my girl off the flyer and shoot her in for the short retired. (Who wasn’t retired yet, but did when the dog was sent). She pulled it out. But in so doing caused the judges to forget the order.... she was almost back to the line and somebody behind the line reminds them to get the guns up! They scrambled around like a fire drill and the guns got up. The other two went off, we got those two... and finally picked up the pheasant flyer last. 

Reason for the story is to show how easy it is to forget what is going on on the line. If the judges at a National can forget, (there are three of them) so can a handler. We should cut a little slack as long as we can and it’s not too late already.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

For arguments sake, let's assume in this scenario it is a very hard, legit all age test out in the field. You are the judge sitting in the chair paying close attention to each and every dog handler team that comes up to the line. In this scenario I can see two options; 1) Let it play out as described and drop the dog, or 2) quietly intervene to give the dog a chance to be judged on his work. Personally I would do #2, but I can't argue with those of you that would do #1.

If I was the handler, I wouldn't expect the judges to bail me out, knowing I have only myself to blame. Also, intervening like that is a slippery slope, should a judge "hum hum" a handler who is obviously lining his dog up wrong? In the above described situation, I ask myself if I'm being fair to every handler? If I (and my co-judge), agree to be vigilant in treating every handler the same, i.e. quietly intervene if we notice any handler about to make that same mistake, then I'm all for saving the situation and giving my co-judge and I an opportunity to judge actual dog work. If we can't convince ourselves that we would give every handler that same chance, then sit back and let the chips fall.

I look at this as similar to the handler that comes out of the holding blind and forgets to call for the dry pop, before sending for the blind. Again, some judges see what's happening and quietly remind the handler, sometimes they just let him go and sometimes they are taken by surprise when the handler just launches the dog. I have taken to do as my co-judge did last weekend, that is to verbally remind each and every handler as they approach the line.


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

John Robinson said:


> For arguments sake, let's assume in this scenario it is a very hard, legit all age test out in the field. You are the judge sitting in the chair paying close attention to each and every dog handler team that comes up to the line. In this scenario I can see two options; 1) Let it play out as described and drop the dog, or 2) quietly intervene to give the dog a chance to be judged on his work. Personally I would do #1, but I can't argue with those of you that would do #1.
> 
> If I was the handler, I wouldn't expect the judges to bail me out, knowing I have only myself to blame. Also, intervening like that is a slippery slope, should a judge "hum hum" a handler who is obviously lining his dog up wrong? In the above described situation, I ask myself if I'm being fair to every handler? If I (and my co-judge), agree to be vigilant in treating every handler the same, i.e. quietly intervene if we notice any handler about to make that same mistake, then I'm all for saving the situation and giving my co-judge and I an opportunity to judge actual dog work. If we can't convince ourselves that we would give every handler that same chance, then sit back and let the chips fall.
> 
> I look at this as similar to the handler that comes out of the holding blind and forgets to call for the dry pop, before sending for the blind. Again, some judges see what's happening and quietly remind the handler, sometimes they just let him go and sometimes they are taken by surprise when the handler just launches the dog. I have taken, my co-judge did last weekend, to verbally remind each and every handler as they approach the line.


??????????????????


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Was I too wordy or unclear Marvin? I don't get the question marks.


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

I have never set up a delay at a trial (not a fan and I question the legality) but have run a few. 

IMHO there are some items that the judges and handlers need to think about: When is the delayed bird going to be thrown? when the dog delivers or when the handler signals, What if the dog is facing the handler(front delivery) do you allow that dog to be re-heel before calling for the bird? Are handlers going to be given a second number to release for the delayed bird? If there is honor do want a single or double honor when are going to release the honor dog?

Too much line mechanics and too many variables for me. Just put the quad down and cut'em loose.

Tim

PS I would drop the dog that was sent without waiting for the 4th bird


----------



## labguy (Jan 17, 2006)

Ted Shih said:


> Part of success in competition is the ability to focus under pressure.
> 
> This is an All Age Stake. Points title dogs and qualify them for National Competition.
> 
> ...


As with everything in life....it depends. Not all the scanarios you described would cause me to help but some would.

I beleieve it depends on your sense of fairness. Elderly handlers are already handicapped because of poor eyesight, mobility or cognitive dysfunction. I see no problem being compassionate as long as it doesn't unfairly favor one team.

I have on occasion asked a handler to pick up his dog when he'd already sent his dog on a blind before calling for the poison bird and given him a re run.....out of my sense fairness.

I have also on occasion told an elderly handler with pending cataract surgery that the blind was another 10 yards further because he was obviously deficient in his depth perception.

I have also helped an elderly handler back to his feet because he slipped and fell while handling in a blind.....should I have left him floundering on the ground?

These are all judgement calls depending on circumstances. If I'm going to err, I'm going to try to err on the side of what I believe is fair and compassionate.


----------



## Justin Allen (Sep 29, 2009)

You take a win in a field trial however in the hell you can get it. Do you run field trials?



DarrinGreene said:


> In competition either everyone should get a reminder or no one should.
> 
> In a hunting test - go ahead and remind on an as needed basis.
> 
> Personally, I wouldn't consider a win where I was saved from my own mistake by the judge's much of an accomplishment. The handler is as much a part of the team as the dog.


----------



## Kajun Kamakazi (May 17, 2011)

Delayed or interrupted marks seem to be more and more commonplace. When it is getting close to my turn to run, I literally go over it over and over again on the way back to the truck to get Fido, while airing, on the way to the holding blind, etc. I play it in my mind incessantly not to forget to run the blind after mark X, or whatever the instructions from the judges were. With so many moving parts in a test it’s easy to forget and I just don’t wanna be that guy that screws it up, especially if I’m in the Open where our chances are already slim. I kinda side with Ted on this one, preparation or lack of is not an excuse. Come prepared.


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

John Robinson said:


> Personally I would do #2, but I can't argue with those of you that would do #1.





John Robinson said:


> Was I too wordy or unclear Marvin? I don't get the question marks.


I see you fixed it!


----------



## jrrichar (Dec 17, 2013)

labguy said:


> As with everything in life....it depends. Not all the scanarios you described would cause me to help but some would.
> 
> I beleieve it depends on your sense of fairness. Elderly handlers are already handicapped because of poor eyesight, mobility or cognitive dysfunction. I see no problem being compassionate as long as it doesn't unfairly favor one team.
> 
> ...


Agreed! Fair and compassion both have a place in FTs. Judges are human and one should not leave their humanity behind in the sake of absolute fairness. 

Darrin I agree with Justin, how many blue ribbons have you gotten to warrant burning one? 

John Robinson was a competitor at a FT a few years ago. It was one of my first Amateurs and I was also the marshall. Just before our land blind a fellow competitor injured his back and needed assistance down the mound. I didn’t pay attention to the bird boy planting the blind and neither did the judges. I ran the blind pretty well to the end. The dog seemed to panic, became self employed and I called it back in. It was out of character for the dog but figured bad luck. I resumed marshall duties until John Robinson told me the competitor after me had no bird planted at the blind. He insisted I tell the judges. I did and at the end they saw it fit to judge the blind as if he picked up the bird, we moved on to the 3rd series. 

That dog was the dog of that trials minor stake judge and it meant a lot to him to handle it in the 3rd and 4th (judging duties were concluded). 

I have never forgotten John’s compassion and humanity in a moment that he certainly didn’t have to show any. John won that amateur. He also gained a friend. 

Life is bigger than an Open, showing compassion without a massive bias can sometimes mean more to that person then the ultimate results.


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

Several on this thread have felt it acceptable for judges to intervene to prevent someone from making a mistake. 
I expect the judge to judge what they see & keep their comments to themselves. 

How do those who feel that way equate that with treating every competitor equally? 

The judge is a referee, most referees call what they see, why do people want to be the good guy when it penalizes 
others who play by the rules?


----------



## Dave Farrar (Mar 16, 2012)

Not a FT guy, but at that level are you judging "dog work" or "team work?"


----------



## swliszka (Apr 17, 2011)

Marvin ia right. The team is judged. Either one can mess up or both ! They benefit or suffer accordingly. Field Trials are not Hunt Tests.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Marvin S said:


> I see you fixed it!


Oh. Yep, as soon as I read my post I saw my mistake.


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

jrrichar said:


> Agreed! Fair and compassion both have a place in FTs. Judges are human and one should not leave their humanity behind in the sake of absolute fairness.
> 
> Darrin I agree with Justin, how many blue ribbons have you gotten to warrant burning one?
> 
> ...


Janell, one of John’s friends and former training partners did a very similar thing for me way back in 2002 I think at Spokane. I ended up winning an AM due to a competitor advising me to ask the judges (through the marshal) about a potential unfairness issue to me and my dog. I had already written it off as my own dumb mistake. The judges agreed with the inquiry and I was given a re-reun. All thanks to a competitor’s sense of fairness.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Marvin S said:


> Several on this thread have felt it acceptable for judges to intervene to prevent someone from making a mistake.
> I expect the judge to judge what they see & keep their comments to themselves.
> 
> How do those who feel that way equate that with treating every competitor equally?
> ...


I wouldn't do it unless I was certain to treat everyone equally. That is, anyone who had a brain fart would get the same quiet reminder. If I was uncertain of my ability to remain attentive for every dog handler team, I wouldn't do it. 

As a competitor I would expect myself to hold it together and not make this mistake, and be dropped if I did. I also wouldn't expect help from the judges, but would appreciate and remember it if they did.


----------



## NateB (Sep 25, 2003)

I pulled a real noob at my very first Amateur. Dog had already been dropped from the Qual, big hunts on marks and too many refusals on the blind, almost picked her up. As I walked off the line I thanked the judges and said I know I would not be back. Was way out of character for this dog, she was just too high. Had some time to get her settled before the AM land series. Pretty straight forward land marks. Long retired straight out in the field throwing left to right, pretty obvious hide for the throwers. Middle bird off to the right, thrown right to left, a bit of cover to go through, flyer well off to the right. Wind blowing mildly right to left. I got to the line and showed her the guns, then settled on a gun and called for the birds. Birds did not come out, so I waved again and then the long gun went off and I realized my mistake, I had her settled on the flyer, last bird down. Wanted to go somewhere to hide, such an IDIOT. She and her mother had run several master level hunt tests so I knew the drill for bird order. She did not pay attention to the long gun sound, far enough away, and she had run plenty of hunt tests and learned to ignore "distant" gunfire. She heard the middle bird and saw the bird and fall, of course the flyer was last. Got the flyer, did a better job than many others on the middle bird. Lined her up for the long bird and could tell she was looking behind the blind, when I pulled her to the right she looked at the middle gun. Finally sent her on BACK when looking just behind the holding blind. She ran straight out behind the gun, winded the bird and picked it up pretty quickly. 

As I walked off the line one of the judges came up to me, put his hand on my shoulder and said, "we have all made mistakes like that", "that level of excitement is why we play the game". I really appreciated his comments as I felt so stupid. Apparently we did well enough to get carried on to the blind, and actually finished the trial. I understand why they did not say anything, they did give me a chance to correct my mistake by not throwing the birds at my first wave.

In relation to the rest of the thread, I think it has to be very situational, and would be difficult to say ahead of time what a judge might or might not do.


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

Hmm I always thought it was a matter of course that the judges are going to say something, but it's most likely done to remind their Co-judge to call for the delayed bird, and not forget it themselves. LOL


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

John Robinson said:


> I wouldn't do it unless I was certain to treat everyone equally. That is, anyone who had a brain fart would get the same quiet reminder. If I was uncertain of my ability to remain attentive for every dog handler team, I wouldn't do it.
> 
> As a competitor I would expect myself to hold it together and not make this mistake, and be dropped if I did. I also wouldn't expect help from the judges, but would appreciate and remember it if they did.


One of my sons is a contractor, all competitive bidding, hopefully no hand holding, but you never know.

How would you feel if any of your competitors were coached through the process in order to compete with you?


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Marvin S said:


> One of my sons is a contractor, all competitive bidding, hopefully no hand holding, but you never know.
> 
> How would you feel if any of your competitors were coached through the process in order to compete with you?


I have a feeling you and I aren't going to agree on this one, and I'm fine with that.


----------



## Gregg0211 (Feb 11, 2015)

In my opinion, this sport is dominated my pros due to the time needed to produce such a dog. With that being said, if it was in the Open or a National event, Id probably expect it to play out and the dog to be dropped, but in an Am or Q, Id like to see the judges invest in the sport and make it a more pleasant experience for the handler. Ive and extremely new amateur in FT only running a few Derbys and Qs, but its a big adjustment from HT and can be quite intimidating. Its one of the reasons that most of the guys you see at FT are 50 and older. Not a ton of younger guys doing FT work. Of course this is just my opinion.


John Robinson said:


> For arguments sake, let's assume in this scenario it is a very hard, legit all age test out in the field. You are the judge sitting in the chair paying close attention to each and every dog handler team that comes up to the line. In this scenario I can see two options; 1) Let it play out as described and drop the dog, or 2) quietly intervene to give the dog a chance to be judged on his work. Personally I would do #2, but I can't argue with those of you that would do #1.
> 
> If I was the handler, I wouldn't expect the judges to bail me out, knowing I have only myself to blame. Also, intervening like that is a slippery slope, should a judge "hum hum" a handler who is obviously lining his dog up wrong? In the above described situation, I ask myself if I'm being fair to every handler? If I (and my co-judge), agree to be vigilant in treating every handler the same, i.e. quietly intervene if we notice any handler about to make that same mistake, then I'm all for saving the situation and giving my co-judge and I an opportunity to judge actual dog work. If we can't convince ourselves that we would give every handler that same chance, then sit back and let the chips fall.
> 
> I look at this as similar to the handler that comes out of the holding blind and forgets to call for the dry pop, before sending for the blind. Again, some judges see what's happening and quietly remind the handler, sometimes they just let him go and sometimes they are taken by surprise when the handler just launches the dog. I have taken to do as my co-judge did last weekend, that is to verbally remind each and every handler as they approach the line.


----------



## Gregg0211 (Feb 11, 2015)

As a judge, what would you do?


Justin Allen said:


> You take a win in a field trial however in the hell you can get it. Do you run field trials?


----------



## polmaise (Jan 6, 2009)

World wide in Competition of Retrievers I would like to think Judges are judging the dog .
The Handlers job is to present the dogs ability at any competition by the rules and regulations of that competition. 
The Judges job should be easy. The Handler makes it difficult . The dog just does what it was trained and handled to do. 
Perhaps some handlers should train harder than the dog.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

Justin Allen said:


> You take a win in a field trial however in the hell you can get it. Do you run field trials?


How would you feel coming in second after the well known pro or amateur who won got that reminder when they were about to screw the pooch?


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

jrrichar said:


> Darrin I agree with Justin, how many blue ribbons have you gotten to warrant burning one?


I could have won 1 or 10 or a million and I would still feel the same way about being handed one I did not earn fair and square.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

The question here is a matter of principal for which your values will determine the answer. I get the compassion route but I think this is a hard place to deploy that kind of empathy.


----------



## Justin Allen (Sep 29, 2009)

It wouldn't bother me at all. 



DarrinGreene said:


> How would you feel coming in second after the well known pro or amateur who won got that reminder when they were about to screw the pooch?


----------



## bjoiner (Feb 25, 2008)

DarrinGreene said:


> How would you feel coming in second after the well known pro or amateur who won got that reminder when they were about to screw the pooch?


I would be 100% OK with it. I would rather beat them on dog work than luck into it through a logistical error.


----------



## Justin Allen (Sep 29, 2009)

I would have no problem reminding a handler before an honest mistake like that is made--I would do it regardless if it was a pro with 10 dogs or an AM with one.



Gregg0211 said:


> As a judge, what would you do?


----------



## Justin Allen (Sep 29, 2009)

You said what I was trying to say lol--



bjoiner said:


> I would be 100% OK with it. I would rather beat them on dog work than luck into it through a logistical error.


----------



## N&N Waterfowl (Dec 1, 2014)

I think the answer is simply up to the judges. As setups like the one presented become more and more commonplace, it is up to the judges to have the discussion prior to running the test dog. As a
judging team you decide if reminders are going to be given. If one is, then everyone gets that benifit. If one isn’t, again everyone treated fairly. My feelings are in an open I would be less
inined to offer the reminder. In an amateur or qual...absolutely. This is supposed to be fun. But calling someone’s principles into question because they choose the to offer the reminder is just silly. Decide beforehand...either way someone is likely to disagree and run some dogs!


----------



## Dave Farrar (Mar 16, 2012)

If the whole thing is based on dog work, they should skip blinds. A sit whistle just a second late with a high roller even if he stopped perfectly could result in an ugly (dropped) blind. It has to be a team effort. A judge wouldn't help on a blind to keep the dog in their "invisible" corridor, would he?

(Not a FT guy and have failed a lot HT)


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

I re-read the OP, realistically as a judge I'd just call for the bird, once the dog returned from the mark, just as I would call for the birds if a dog beat a handler to the line on a walk-up or akin. But I believe this is a hunt test mentality, where handlers usually don't get to go through pains to line dogs up to see marks. It strikes me as odd that an interrupted quad or what have you would allow time for a handler to point a dog towards the new mark before it was thrown. I think it would throw off the cadence for the test, which I believe is more important to keep the same btw dogs. I have reminded handlers in HRC test of diversions etc., but that is because of the gun-juggling which is associated with the test. The diversion is going to go off in the correct cadence either way, and the handler will still have to shoot it. Can't remember ever having time to worry about lining a dog up when marks are interrupted in HT, usually the dog gets back the birds go off, and you hope the dog is facing so he can see them. I bet when that bird is thrown and the shots go off the handler will remember the last mark . Most dogs are gonna see-hear a live flyer, even if they are facing backwards, might wipe the line for the other mark which the handler was lining-sending the dog for, but I believe that is the point of having the 2nd flyer in any case.

Now I would remind the handler to run a blind before picking up an already downed mark if we were interrupting in that way. I have had judges remind me of such, sometimes when we are already on the way to the mark. Nothing like pulling a dog off a mark when they are already on the way there, pretty much the definition of control .


----------



## Wayne Nutt (Jan 10, 2010)

All this hurts my head. Hahalol.


----------



## Tobias (Aug 31, 2015)

Considering that across all walks of life people get 'free passes' for various sorts of infractions and errors, it really should come as no surprise the same issue occurs in this sport (gray boundaries vs black and white boundaries) After all, who doesnt appreciate the police officer issuing a warning rather than a ticket, or a'redo' on a test for a better grade, etc....

Certainly we all hope those who 'judge us' will take into consideration our nerves or lack of focus... but should we expect it? And if so, how often?


----------



## swliszka (Apr 17, 2011)

Tobias #48 that is why considering all the "vagaries" of this "game" we should not take it too seriously. Too many iffies...


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

Wayne Nutt said:


> All this hurts my head. Hahalol.


Tony Bond and his buddies at the boatramp taught you well grasshopper!


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

One line that I loved from a judges' seminar came from a presenter who stated: "To be a good judge, you need to use good judgement."

One reason these internet situations result in varied opinions is that we all fill in the colors with our own mind's eye. What one person reads, interprets and colors with their mind can vary a lot from what another sees. So we come up with different interpretations or conclusions.

Here's where I would fall on WDC's scenario, based upon my own mind's eye. 

I'm responsible, in part, as a judge for this passage from the current AKC Retriever Field Trial rulebook.



> _TRIAL PROCEDURE3. The Judges, with due regard to the recommendations of the Field Trial Committee, shall determine the tests to be given in each series — and* shall try to give all dogs approximately similar tests in the same series.*_


If a handler is about to disrupt this series by sending for a second bird, before we've signalled for the delayed quad and given a number, I'm likely to calmly say:

"Hold up please, we've got one more flyer to shoot and THEN we'll give you your number." My hunch is that there may be some "Ooops, sorry!" response and we'll move on. 

I'm not trying to help the handler have an advantage. I'm trying to keep the event running smoothly in accordance with the rules. 

One thing that's core to my relatively peltless attempts to message to folks who compete in a trial that I judge. I'm going to do the best I can to reward the top performers, worthy of placements for the series I've judged. Making sure the delayed quad is thrown at the proper time is not showing favoritism for someone - it's just me trying to do my job that day.

- Chris


----------



## Kyle B (May 5, 2005)

You know what a fellow handler means when you are walking to the line and they say "Good Luck"? Given some of these responses...."I hope you double handle"....


----------



## Kajun Kamakazi (May 17, 2011)

Kyle B said:


> You know what a fellow handler means when you are walking to the line and they say "Good Luck"? Given some of these responses...."I hope you double handle"....


I really mean the former in the 1st. But I probably mean the latter in the 4th.


----------



## bamajeff (May 18, 2015)

Kyle B said:


> You know what a fellow handler means when you are walking to the line and they say "Good Luck"? Given some of these responses...."I hope you double handle"....


Funny you say that. Was running a Q a few weeks ago and somebody said 'Good Luck ___". Another competitor asked, 'We always tell each other good luck, but do we really mean it?'. Consensus was 'No'. One did say 'I mean it until we get to the 4th'. LOL


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

I was leaving the line with my dog leashed, in a trial years ago. As I passed the holding blind which was occupied by J. Sweezy, I smiled and said "good luck". He growled "luck has nothing to do with it" back at me. LOL! -Paul


----------



## Gregg0211 (Feb 11, 2015)

I actually do mean it to the guys i say it to. So if I dont tell you good luck, youre dead to me. LOL


bamajeff said:


> Funny you say that. Was running a Q a few weeks ago and somebody said 'Good Luck ___". Another competitor asked, 'We always tell each other good luck, but do we really mean it?'. Consensus was 'No'. One did say 'I mean it until we get to the 4th'. LOL


----------



## bamajeff (May 18, 2015)

Gregg0211 said:


> I actually do mean it to the guys i say it to. So if I dont tell you good luck, youre dead to me. LOL


Gregg, I think you may have heard the conversation I'm referencing in the hay barn. LOL


----------



## Labs a mundo (Mar 20, 2009)

I recently judged a US Am with a triple, pick up one, then run a blind, pick up the final 2 marks. Both my Co and I were in agreement to remind all handlers to pick up the blind after the flyer. We were in agreement to judge the marking/ memory of the dogs and not the handlers. The test alone gave us enough to judge without potential handler errors.


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

Chris Atkinson said:


> Tony Bond and his buddies at the boatramp taught you well grasshopper!


It was never "Tony" Chris. It was Terrence Bond. Get the facts straight. Glad Hahalol has taken a stronghold on internet punctuation. Hahalol, Happy G


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

Pfancy Pants said:


> It was never "Tony" Chris. It was Terrence Bond. Get the facts straight. Glad Hahalol has taken a stronghold on internet punctuation. Hahalol, Happy G


No doubt, the TBond closing line has gained traction with Mr. Nutt and perhaps some others as well.

Happy G, may god bless you and I wish you the best in the retriever adventures.

Sincerely, Chris Atkinson


----------



## Wayne Nutt (Jan 10, 2010)

LOL is out of favor by millenniums (sp?). You old guys have to keep up.


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

Wayne Nutt said:


> LOL is out of favor by millenniums (sp?). You old guys have to keep up.


It would be millennials. It is a group which does not include my birthdate. Hahalol


----------



## jrrichar (Dec 17, 2013)

Pfancy Pants said:


> It would be millennials. It is a group which does not include my birthdate. Hahalol


It does include mine. Apparently I didn’t get the millennial instagram on LOL being out of date. I did get the Twitter post on how we’re destroying everything and we can’t buy homes because we spend all our money on avocado toast.


----------



## Ken Barton (Jun 7, 2010)

Either do nothing or ask each handler “Do you understand the test”? Otherwise you’re favoring certain handlers you suspect of forgetting ( going back to original premise)


----------



## Trophyduck (Nov 21, 2014)

I understand that it is a team event. You and your dog. Aren't we being judged/tested on how tje dog and handler work together on the retrieves and blinds. If a handler forgets a bird order or something like that, i don't see a problem with a judge hinting....it's not fair to the dog for one. You may ne killing ot out there, the dog working flawlessly and a nervous or poor sighted handler forgets or can't see something....you want to punish that. I can see both arguments, but i think it ok for a judge reminder.


----------



## David Lo Buono (Apr 6, 2005)

Judges judge....Handlers Handle


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Judges spend a lot of thought, time and energy into designing test that challenge the best bred-best trained dogs. I know I do, and I believe most judges also want to give every dog-handler a fair shot at running his-her test. I don't think anybody want's anyone to go out on a technicality. There might be some here who silently smile when a competitor is eliminated for whatever reason, but most of us want our dog to beat the other dog on actual dog work, not a brain fart. 

I think a note in the holding blind explaining the test, and or a verbal reminder to each handler would suffice, but I really don't think giving a quiet verbal reminder if it looks like the handler forgot, is akin to putting a thumb on the scale. The dog still has to do the work, which is the point of the exercise, or so I thought.


----------



## David Lo Buono (Apr 6, 2005)

John Robinson said:


> Judges spend a lot of thought, time and energy into designing test that challenge the best bred-best trained dogs. I know I do, and I believe most judges also want to give every dog-handler a fair shot at running his-her test. I don't think anybody want's anyone to go out on a technicality. There might be some here who silently smile when a competitor is eliminated for whatever reason, but most of us want our dog to beat the other dog on actual dog work, not a brain fart.
> 
> I think a note in the holding blind explaining the test, and or a verbal reminder to each handler would suffice, but I really don't think giving a quiet verbal reminder if it looks like the handler forgot, is akin to putting a thumb on the scale. The dog still has to do the work, which is the point of the exercise, or so I thought.


Is a judge supposed to tell me what cast I should give or weather my dog is lined up properly when I should blow the whistle.....all of which can fail a dog and none which Necessarily reflect the dogs ability or inability. How many have witnessed very talented dogs be done in by their handler. Where do you draw the line? Brain fart or technicality those are the breaks.....At the highest levels it’s team sport sometimes 1 half of the team lets the other half down. Here’s the series this is what it looks like pay a attention go grab your dog....


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

David Lo Buono said:


> Is a judge supposed to tell me what cast I should give or weather my dog is lined up properly when I should blow the whistle.....all of which can fail a dog and none which Necessarily reflect the dogs ability or inability. How many have witnessed very talented dogs be done in by their handler. Where do you draw the line? Brain fart or technicality those are the breaks.....At the highest levels it’s team sport sometimes 1 half of the team lets the other half down. Here’s the series this is what it looks like pay a attention go grab your dog....


No they're not. Do you judge field trials? I only ask because I sense a difference between field trial and hunt test judges. Obviously field trials are competitive, so every attempt is made to keep things as equal as possible. That said, I think FT judges tend to put their focus out in the field while HT judges are equally interested in what happens on line.

I get your point about where to draw the line and team sport, and I too have seen many handlers mishandle their dogs. I personally don't view reminding a handler to call for the dry pop before sending on the blind or some other special instruction the same as coaching a handler through a test. That's just me and the way I judge, as a handler I wouldn't be upset if another judge didn't afford the same courtesy.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

> I understand that it is a team event. You and your dog. Aren't we being judged/tested on how tje dog and handler work together on the retrieves and blinds





> That said, I think FT judges tend to put their focus out in the field while HT judges are equally interested in what happens on line.


Exactly! One of the first pieces of advice I was given from multiple experienced FT judges when I started judging was worry about what goes on out in the field and not at the line. That is the mentality they choose to pursue. There is enough going on out there than to worry about little crap and casual reminders.


----------



## David Lo Buono (Apr 6, 2005)

John Robinson said:


> Do you judge field trials?.


 No sir I do not, but you already knew that. While I subscribe to ascertaining ones credibility. I see it as of little relevance in subject matters like this. Weather it a HT or FT is inconsequential. Because both ask that you essentially solve the same problem. The series that lay before you. A reminder to handlers whom you(the judge) perceive as requiring one. Unacceptable, that’s “extra judging” that needn’t be. A general directive to each and every Handler prior to the commencement of the series, acceptable.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

ErinsEdge said:


> Exactly! One of the first pieces of advice I was given from multiple experienced FT judges when I started judging was worry about what goes on out in the field and not at the line. That is the mentality they choose to pursue. There is enough going on out there than to worry about little crap and casual reminders.



I don’t believe good line manners and strong performance in the field are mutually exclusive


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> I don’t believe good line manners and strong performance in the field are mutually exclusive


I absolutely agree!


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

I can't believe anyone could possibly believe that good line manners would negatively affect the dog's performance in the field. Actually, I believe the opposite to be true.-Paul


----------



## David Lo Buono (Apr 6, 2005)

A slight digression, 

I will agree Paul. As someone who’s dog exhibited questionable line manners or(unmannered). Success often begins and or ends at the line


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

paul young said:


> I can't believe anyone could possibly believe that good line manners would negatively affect the dog's performance in the field. Actually, I believe the opposite to be true.-Paul


Paul, I think they (Ted and Ed) agree with you. They were just pointing out from a judging standpoint, line manners matter. Nancy and I made the comment that field trial judges tended to put more of their focus on the work out in the field, but I didn't mean to imply that we jet ignore what happens at the line. My co-judge and I actually dropped a dog last week for line-voice issues.


----------



## David Lo Buono (Apr 6, 2005)

A slight digression, 

I will agree Paul. As someone who’s dog exhibited questionable line manners or(unmannered). Success often begins and or ends at the line.


----------



## Tobias (Aug 31, 2015)

I was going to ask - what is 'the little crap' that happens at the line?


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

I took it that you are judging what happens in the field and not judging what the handler does, like handler gave an angle back and the dog went back so the dog took the handle wrong. Unfortunately some people did.


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

I'm in total agreement with Ted and Ed. Sorry if it read differently.

I'm not in the habit of dropping dogs because of poor line manners unless they're atrocious, but a serious fault can't be ignored. But, some judges do. There were a couple of FC/ AFC dogs in the Northeast several years ago that were so bad, I couldn't believe they had won a trial.-Paul


----------



## mjh345 (Jun 17, 2006)

paul young said:


> I can't believe anyone could possibly believe that good line manners would negatively affect the dog's performance in the field. Actually, I believe the opposite to be true.-Paul


I 99.99% agree that good line matters are usually a prerequisite to good marking.
It is only logical that a dog that is sitting still and moving in tandem with the Handler to see and watch his birds fall is going to perform better than the dog who is bouncing around all over the place as the birds are falling
Without question is the standard you try to set and Achieve with your young dogs
However there are dogs that are legendary markers who were quite animated online.
I know of one dog that was a hell of a marker that they worked long and hard on to successfully get his line manners under control. 
For reasons unknown to me that dog became a less than spectacular marker as a well-mannered dog at the line. With this dog, they learned that they not only did they no longer had to worry about line manners nor did they have to worry about sticking around for ribbon ceremonies
. Eventually they decided to live with the bad line manners and he return to being a self-employed horse's ass on the line but a lights-out marker 







Y


----------



## bamajeff (May 18, 2015)

mjh345 said:


> I 99.99% agree that good line matters are usually a prerequisite to good marking.
> It is only logical that a dog that is sitting still and moving in tandem with the Handler to see and watch his birds fall is going to perform better than the dog who is bouncing around all over the place as the birds are falling
> Without question is the standard you try to set and Achieve with your young dogs
> However there are dogs that are legendary markers who were quite animated online.
> ...


A trainer friend of mine owns a dog that fits this description to a T. Said he's the best marking young dog he's ever seen, but he had line manner issues(voice on send/creeping/breaking), and he tightened the standards down extremely tight and the dog became more worried about the handler/trainer and if he was about to get corrected than the marks going down. Marking really deteriorated. He's had to loosen up with him somewhat and his marking is returning to form.


----------



## canuckkiller (Apr 16, 2009)

mjh345 said:


> I 99.99% agree that good line matters are usually a prerequisite to good marking.
> It is only logical that a dog that is sitting still and moving in tandem with the Handler to see and watch his birds fall is going to mark
> better than the dog who is bouncing around all over the place ...
> 
> ...


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

canuckkiller said:


> mjh345 said:
> 
> 
> > I 99.99% agree that good line matters are usually a prerequisite to good marking.
> ...


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

I think that the difficulty of the modern era blinds make it more difficult for dogs with poor line manners to make it to the end


----------



## bamajeff (May 18, 2015)

Ted Shih said:


> I think that the difficulty of the modern era blinds make it more difficult for dogs with poor line manners to make it to the end


Is that due to difficulty of getting them fine tuned at the line, or the line manners being a symptom of a deeper problem(self-employment)?


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

bamajeff said:


> Is that due to difficulty of getting them fine tuned at the line, or the line manners being a symptom of a deeper problem(self-employment)?


​Poor discipline, poor blinds


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

canuckkiller said:


> mjh345 said:
> 
> 
> > I 99.99% agree that good line matters are usually a prerequisite to good marking.
> ...


----------



## canuckkiller (Apr 16, 2009)

Four hundred (400) yard marks and water blinds that show excessively tight angle entries by & thru
imposing obstacles, often into the wind & in running water, with continuing lines thru previous 
marks exceeding 300 yards, do not reflect "an ordinary day's shoot/hunting conditions" and 
poses big troubles for all dogs.

Bill Connor


----------



## swliszka (Apr 17, 2011)

Bill #86 X 2 plus many judges use formula training scenarios . Inflexible mentality.


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

Field trial tests that represent "An ordinary day's shoot" has not been a consideration since the 70's. It is NOT a recent phenomenon at all.

Try setting up such a test today and you will need extra series (plural) and an extra day to find a winner. -Paul


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

bjoiner said:


> I would be 100% OK with it. I would rather beat them on dog work than luck into it through a logistical error.


Not an argument at all Bubba - interesting to me you guys don't find the competition to include the handler's performance. 

I was told by a VERY accomplished pro once (75 FC's to her name) that most trials are actually won by someone "out handling" the competition. The argument being that dogs at that level are many times very similar in capability but handlers a lot of times aren't.


----------



## swliszka (Apr 17, 2011)

Darrin #89 X 2... She was right and you too. I came to that conclusion back in 1988. Arrogant no. Realistic. Elders had poor eyesight, response time too slow,other errors from body or knowledge. In the AA the problem was that they had sometimes multiple dogs entered or had a younger AM handler so no guarantee of victory if you had one dog. Game strategies applied. Still does.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

DarrinGreene said:


> Not an argument at all Bubba - interesting to me you guys don't find the competition to include the handler's performance.
> 
> I was told by a VERY accomplished pro once (75 FC's to her name) that most trials are actually won by someone "out handling" the competition. The argument being that dogs at that level are many times very similar in capability but handlers a lot of times aren't.


Yes the best trainer handlers often have the best dogs, sometimes the best dogs money can buy. A pro who runs 15-18 dogs has a decided advantage over the field of handlers with 1 or 2 dogs, they usually have good dogs and get to practice the test several times. Sometimes the difference between the joy of victory and the agony of defeat is knowing when to blow the whistle and what cast to give at a critical point in a blind or knowing where to point the dog on a particularly difficult mark.


----------



## canuckkiller (Apr 16, 2009)

Paul -
Proper bird placement trumps distance ALWAYS. Sequence/angulation of marks & lines to marks provides acceptable attrition.
The terrain/water always determines how blinds should go as to fairness. "Dogs will be dogs" on any given day.
Until the RAC & SOR see fit to alter the language in The Standard Procedure, it applies. Please tell me why there is
today so much concern about the quality of judging? 

My last two assignments - GSLRC - followed the Standard's language to the best of my experience & ability. Handlers came
to me after the Qualifying/Amateur August 2016 AT Bear River and gave thanks. That was much appreciated.

Setting 6 - 9 minute tests will most often work in the allotted time notwithstanding tough terrain and inclement weather.

If I was younger, Paul, we could do some judging together.
Good Luck with your future assignments -

Bill Connor


----------



## bjoiner (Feb 25, 2008)

DarrinGreene said:


> Not an argument at all Bubba - interesting to me you guys don't find the competition to include the handler's performance.
> 
> I was told by a VERY accomplished pro once (75 FC's to her name) that most trials are actually won by someone "out handling" the competition. The argument being that dogs at that level are many times very similar in capability but handlers a lot of times aren't.


Handling and logistics are two different things. I judge a fair amount. I just simply don't want to drop someone that forgets the logistical part of a complex series of events that was conjured up. I do want to see good handling of a dog get rewarded. I 100% agree that good handlers win most of the time. I just don't like logistical eliminations.


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

No doubt that would be fun. I'm kind of an old fart, too.-Paul


----------



## rboudet (Jun 29, 2004)

I have had that exact scenario happen to me in an am. I was fairly new at running AA stakes, and just a little nervous. Picked up first bird and was lining up on the second bird when the judge says he is calling for the flyer. Dog did one of the best jobs in that series and I think we got a RJ at the end. Thankful to this day he did that! The judge has judged nationals and has won a national.


----------



## polmaise (Jan 6, 2009)

EdA said:


> Yes the best trainer handlers often have the best dogs, sometimes the best dogs money can buy. A pro who runs 15-18 dogs has a decided advantage over the field of handlers with 1 or 2 dogs, they usually have good dogs and get to practice the test several times. *Sometimes the difference between the joy of victory and the agony of defeat is knowing when to blow the whistle and what cast to give at a critical point in a blind or knowing where to point the dog on a particularly difficult mark*.


I'm perplexed and confused with this reply EdA. ?
The best trainer handlers don't always have the best dogs . The Best handler with the best dog on the day have the best in that competition (imo) 
The best money can buy surely isn't how a dog wins ? 
A pro running any number of dogs only makes the field big , but it doesn't narrow the odds of winning ?
The last part in Bold would be experience I guess ?


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

polmaise said:


> I'm perplexed and confused with this reply EdA. ?
> The best trainer handlers don't always have the best dogs . The Best handler with the best dog on the day have the best in that competition (imo)
> The best money can buy surely isn't how a dog wins ?
> A pro running any number of dogs only makes the field big , but it doesn't narrow the odds of winning ?
> The last part in Bold would be experience I guess ?


I don't want to put words in Ed's mouth, but thought I'd try to explain his comment about how a pro running a truckload of dogs has an advantage over the amateur with one or two. As you can tell from this thread, these test can be quite technical, requiring quite a bit of strategy on how best to run a certain test. Quite often there is no clearcut way to run it, so make your best guess a go for it. Sometimes you guessed right and it works, many times you guess wrong and go down in flames.

A pro can sacrifice some of his early dogs (too bad for the owners), to dial in the absolute best approach and do it that way with the rest of his dogs. The good amateur who is lucky enough to have a later number can observe said pro, and learn from him.


----------



## polmaise (Jan 6, 2009)

John Robinson said:


> A pro can sacrifice some of his early dogs (too bad for the owners), to dial in the absolute best approach and do it that way with the rest of his dogs. The good amateur who is lucky enough to have a later number can observe said pro, and learn from him.


Hmmm ? Or the dog and handler can just be trained enough for whatever level of test is confronted by who ever at where ever on the day . ? with No luck . Other than a good dog having a bad day .


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

I just finished judging an Open at North Texas this past weekend. We started with a very hard interrupted double. Shoot double. Run blind. Pick up marks. Danny Farmer had over 1/3 of the field. By his 3rd or 4th dog, Danny started setting up on the very right edge of the mat. No one else did. I thought he did so because it gave him less deflection off of the mound on the right. When we were running the water marks, I asked him about that and he confirmed my suspicions. He was able to make that decision because: a) he is a great handler; and b) he had enough dogs that he could try different approaches


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

polmaise said:


> Hmmm ? Or the dog and handler can just be trained enough for whatever level of test is confronted by who ever at where ever on the day . ? with No luck . Other than a good dog having a bad day .


Maybe luck isn't the best term, but if you don't believe being able to bring dog after dog to the line to run the same test doesn't afford you some competitive advantage, I don't know what to say. I'm not complaining about it, or implying it's unfair in any way, it just is what it is. 

That said, I know of many instances where a good amateur with one good dog prevails at the end of the day. I know I'm super proud when I do well against the top amateurs, so I didn't mean to imply that it was a hopeless cause.


----------



## Sabireley (Feb 2, 2005)

rboudet said:


> I have had that exact scenario happen to me in an am. I was fairly new at running AA stakes, and just a little nervous. Picked up first bird and was lining up on the second bird when the judge says he is calling for the flyer. Dog did one of the best jobs in that series and I think we got a RJ at the end. Thankful to this day he did that! The judge has judged nationals and has won a national.


I too had the same thing except the judges did not tell me, so I was out. I just got into the zone after running a great blind and picked up the short bird instead of calling for the flyer. My problem for not being on top of things.


----------



## Kajun Kamakazi (May 17, 2011)

polmaise said:


> Hmmm ? Or the dog and handler can just be trained enough for whatever level of test is confronted by who ever at where ever on the day . ? with No luck . Other than a good dog having a bad day .


Please start training dogs for every situation you will see in an Open and come show us.


----------



## swliszka (Apr 17, 2011)

John R. I saw Lee Jolly win a Open in MN with one bitch. Mike Lardy took 2-3-4-RJ and a couple of regular jams. We used to joke when not running against him or the pro crew it was like going to a seminar.


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

polmaise said:


> Hmmm ? Or the dog and handler can just be trained enough for whatever level of test is confronted by who ever at where ever on the day . ? with No luck . Other than a good dog having a bad day .


Realistically it's mostly about odds. A person running mulitple dogs has more opportunity to figure out the test, the best way to run it, the pit-falls, and just has more bullets. In addition a multi-dogs handler, usually has way more experience at running dogs, and much more line time, so they tend to be able to adapt and dial in quicker than, a person who only perhaps runs-trains one dog. So If all dogs-handlers are equal, (which is never the case) odds would favor someone running 10 dogs over someone running 1. Most competitive dogs are top performers in any case, so any little improvements a handler can make oftentimes equates to _the difference_. Odds are a factor, as is a bit of luck . I used to only run 1 dog, with one dog you only get one chance at a setup, as a newbie I was rather crappy at reading setups due to limited experience and line time. These days I run 2-3 dogs, I have gotten slightly better at reading and adapting quicker (we are now only moderately crappy). Most of the time I make mistakes running with the first dog which I improve on the 2nd or 3rd. I always hope my more experienced dogs gets to run first (and save my bacon), so I can adapt to the lesser experienced dogs giving them the best chance at getting through.


----------



## polmaise (Jan 6, 2009)

I sure haven't run a dog in a puppy or junior minor league show at a fete in the USA ,never mind run in AKC open or Championships.
I used to Race Pigeons though ,and when I was a slip of a lad in teenage years being raised in a Mining village. Come race days at the club when I went with my best 2 in a home made basket from my loft of 20 I never got phased when the Prominent member arrived with his helpers and two 25 bird crates . 
On Sunday I gained 1st and 2nd. 

If any sport/game/competition involving an animal and it's performance therein , and the shift is towards rewarding the handler for their part then why is it that we then give accolade to the dog for the achievement and want to breed from it . 
...
I'm surprised Mr Farmer took until his Fourth dog running the same to change tactics ,and I'm more than sure if anyone asked him why ,he would acknowledge that what he done was right if it worked .

I can only ask how 'Protocol' is administered over there, as over here In most tests A handler can see the set up before hand ,and the handler can watch others run ,and it's explained before hand and yes you may draw Number One , but hey that's life.


----------



## Wayne Nutt (Jan 10, 2010)

We were running a fairly tough blind. I thought I was past the bird and started tooting Rowdy in with a right hand out. The judge told me I was short of the bird. I appreciated that. Later at the water series I got to see where the blind was in profile. No wonder I was having depth perception issues. This was a akc master test so the judge did not give me an advantage over anyone else.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

bjoiner said:


> Handling and logistics are two different things. I judge a fair amount. I just simply don't want to drop someone that forgets the logistical part of a complex series of events that was conjured up. I do want to see good handling of a dog get rewarded. I 100% agree that good handlers win most of the time. I just don't like logistical eliminations.


That makes sense to me.


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

IMO its not the better handler all the time...its the better competitor...some guys/gals just have a better approach to the game/test...They know what their dog is capable of and what they are not...They also dont get rattled by the events but can make good decisions on the fly...They are either cold blooded assassins..or cool as a cucumber


----------



## polmaise (Jan 6, 2009)

DarrinGreene said:


> That makes sense to me.


+ 1 ..It's the dog that's being tested by ability, and the Handling of that dog by the handler on that test . Not by any advantage the handler has by volume of dogs . So in the case with Mr Farmer and Ted's judging on that day . Is the protocol to allow this change in position on the mat for one or ask the same position on the mat for all ? Is the handler being tested or the dog . I'm sure the most experienced handler can make a poor dog look good and a good dog can make a poor handler look great on occasion . No matter the rules or country you perform .


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

polmaise said:


> + 1 ..It's the dog that's being tested by ability, and the Handling of that dog by the handler on that test . Not by any advantage the handler has by volume of dogs . So in the case with Mr Farmer and Ted's judging on that day . Is the protocol to allow this change in position on the mat for one or ask the same position on the mat for all ? Is the handler being tested or the dog . I'm sure the most experienced handler can make a poor dog look good and a good dog can make a poor handler look great on occasion . No matter the rules or country you perform .


The rule would simply be either "dog on the mat" or "handler on the mat" - what part of the mat would be up to the handler. 

In the case of US trials the volume of both practice and dogs entered can make a big difference in trial performance. 

In Ted's scenario I'm surprised no one imitated Danny after he made that move with 1-2 dogs, unless the gallery wasn't in a position to see what he was doing. 

Sometimes your best tool is observing the best doing what they do best.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

polmaise said:


> + 1 ..It's the dog that's being tested by ability, and the Handling of that dog by the handler on that test . Not by any advantage the handler has by volume of dogs . So in the case with Mr Farmer and Ted's judging on that day . Is the protocol to allow this change in position on the mat for one or ask the same position on the mat for all ? Is the handler being tested or the dog . I'm sure the most experienced handler can make a poor dog look good and a good dog can make a poor handler look great on occasion . No matter the rules or country you perform .


You have a lack of understanding of the entire process that is difficult to overcome. I also think you affect a greater lack of understanding than you actually have. 

There is a mat placed on the line. The mat is not moved during the test. My instructions are for the handler to be on the mat for marks, the dog to be on the mat for blinds. The mat is sufficiently large to permit a handler to "work" the mat side to side and front to back in order to obtain better positioning. Most of the time there is an advantage to one position on the mat over another. Some people are sophisticated enough to work the mat. Many are not. 

As for whether the dog and/or handler are being tested, I suspect you are playing a semantics game. Only the dog gets scored. However, how the handler manages the dog has a huge impact on a dog's performance. So, ultimately, a dog's performance is a team effort. 

As for having multiple dogs, why is it so hard for you to conceive of the possibility that even the best handlers could improve their performance by having multiple opportunities to run a test and modify their approach based upon their experience?

Ted


----------



## polmaise (Jan 6, 2009)

DarrinGreene said:


> In Ted's scenario *I'm surprised no one imitated Danny after he made that move with 1-2 dogs*, unless the gallery wasn't in a position to see what he was doing.
> 
> Sometimes your best tool is observing the best doing what they do best.


To be fair I think it was Ted that said "Danny Farmer had over 1/3 of the field. By his 3rd or 4th dog, " but that aside .


----------



## Breck (Jul 1, 2003)

polmaise said:


> To be fair I think it was Ted that said "Danny Farmer had over 1/3 of the field. By his 3rd or 4th dog, " but that aside .


You ever take a sports car for a spin on a country road in the spring with fresh soft tires and push it to the limits? Second time you are powering through a curve quicker than the first go. Third time you have the curve figured out and can drift through it even faster. Who has the advantage, you on your 4th go or a poor bloke on his first?


----------



## polmaise (Jan 6, 2009)

Ted Shih said:


> As for having multiple dogs, why is it so hard *for you to conceive of the possibility that even the best handlers could improve their performance by having multiple opportunities to run a test and modify their approach based upon their experience?*
> 
> Ted[/SIZE][/FONT]


Forgive me Sir' . I'm saying ,if the Game played is based on this ,then Is the Winners of the competition the dogs to be bred from for the Non Pro who doesn't have this experience . The Judging will always determine who wins the titles.
Again apologies if I'm asking how it works with No knowledge of having done it .


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

polmaise said:


> Forgive me Sir' . I'm saying ,if the Game played is based on this ,then Is the Winners of the competition the dogs to be bred from for the Non Pro who doesn't have this experience . The Judging will always determine who wins the titles.
> Again apologies if I'm asking how it works with No knowledge of having done it .


I have no idea what you are asking


----------



## canuckkiller (Apr 16, 2009)

John, if that's true, Polmaise is not the 'lone ranger'.

WD


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> As for having multiple dogs, why is it so hard for you to conceive of the possibility that even the best handlers could improve their performance by having multiple opportunities to run a test and modify their approach based upon their experience?
> 
> Ted[/SIZE][/FONT]


Having a large portion of the entry does help. I did a survey a few years ago: 

37 consecutive Opens in the Eastern time Zone starting 2/20/2015 thru 8/21 2015
- average entry 54 dogs
- all 37 Opens had a least 1 handler with over 12% of the entry
-2/3 had a single handler with 25% or more of the entry
-1/3 had one handler with at least 33% of the entry
- 3 of the 37 listed a handler having 50 - 62% of the entry

How did these numbers impact the 4 placements? (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th)

-A handler with 12- 25% of the entry was awarded less than half of the placements, 
- when having 25 -32 % of the entry they were awarded slightly greater than half of the placements
- BUT when one handler accounts for 33% or more that single handler took 79% of the top 4 awards


Tim


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

canuckkiller said:


> John, if that's true, Polmaise is not the 'lone ranger'.
> 
> WD


You're right. Post deleted.


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

polmaise said:


> + 1 ..It's the dog that's being tested by ability, and the Handling of that dog by the handler on that test.


Tis the Team (both) that are being measured, the dog and handler, the dog brings the talent, the handler directs the dogs talent to the best of his ability, to get through the Senario to be the best of all takers. A handler with one dog, might watch what everyone else does, and have a plan for what will be working the best, but he only gets one shot at it. A handler who runs more dogs, gets to actually experience the senario from the line, and adapt that experience for the next dog. Dang right the single dog team could very well take it. It's the best shot wins, but if your firing a single shot and your competitor is firing several, your competitor has an advantage. Aside from having more ammo, He gets to adapt his shooting based on where his other shots have landed. A good marksman's pattern will get tighter as he goes on, where as the single dog handler, no matter how good a markman's will only ever have one mark on the target.


----------



## Mark Littlejohn (Jun 16, 2006)

I'm always impressed when Barney Fife wins vs the pro's.


----------



## Kajun Kamakazi (May 17, 2011)

Mark Littlejohn said:


> I'm always impressed when Barney Fife wins vs the pro's.


So far I’ve only managed to shoot myself in the foot. Maybe one day.


----------



## polmaise (Jan 6, 2009)

I'm always impressed when Barney Fife wins vs the pro's.
So far I’ve only managed to shoot myself in the foot. Maybe one day.
.........
You guys are great . I bet you would be a hoot in real life


----------

