# Judging - the Line to the Blind



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

I am a proponent - in the minority - of drawing a diagram showing the contestants what my book looks like and what I view as the criteria of the blind. 

I do not do so, when I am really in a time bind and need to keep jamming.
I do not do so, when my co-judge is opposed.
But, given my druthers. I would provide in the holding blind a diagram like this










With the accompanying text, 




> The diagram below illustrates the "ideal" line to the blind. Callbacks will be based on "relative" performance on this blind and "cumulative" performance throughout this stake. However, contestants should not be surprised when failure to attempt to negotiate the line as illustrated results in elimination.



Why do so?

1. Everyone knows what the criteria are. ("I didn't know that they wanted us left of the log....")
2. It evens the playing field for the Amateur (Pros share notes on what the Judges are evaluating. If you don't tell them, they will figure it out anyway and tell one another. The Amateur who is not part of the secret handshake club is the one disadvantaged)
3. It makes the blind harder by letting everyone know what you are looking at
4. (Related to 3.) If you know what my blind is, don't be surprised if I punish you for not trying to run it. 
5. I like to remind contestants that FT are both "relative" and "cumulative."

Ted


----------



## Wayne Nutt (Jan 10, 2010)

I think this is a good idea. We train staying in a corridor to the blind. I try to guess what the corridor is but it would help if the judge would post this. I don't run FT but only HT. My guess at the corridor for this blind is right of first hay bale and left of log and then through the goal post hay bales. Assuming bird is in front of top hay bale.


----------



## Mark Littlejohn (Jun 16, 2006)

Does it matter if the dog goes under, over or through that last hay bale???

(Sorry, couldn't resist....).

I think this is a good idea, if as your say, time permits and your co-judge agrees. It also eliminates the issue of a handler who could not be there to watch test dog and hear the Q&A. I especially like it in the Am as I've heard many more pro's than Am's ask outright after the test dog: "So, is that point _(log, cover, water, etc_) on line or not?".


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Mark Littlejohn said:


> I especially like it in the Am as I've heard many more pro's than Am's ask outright after the test dog: "So, is that point _(log, cover, water, etc_) on line or not?".



But, what about the contestants that do not hear that conversation? Another reason for written directions.


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

I don’t think there is anyone running AA stakes that doesn’t know whether a factor is or is not on line. They do ask, but they know. I’ve been frustrated judging AA stakes where pros do not even fake an effort to catch an obvious and large patch of cover or part of a mound, etc. Makes me want to tell the handler to pick the dog up. Of course there are two judges, so both need to agree. Maybe scrap the test? I’ve judged where only one third of the dogs (all run by a single pro), actually ran the blind that was set up. Wished we would have dropped all the others. A pic may have helped. At least with that, they wouldn’t, or shouldn’t be surprised they were dropped.


----------



## Mark Littlejohn (Jun 16, 2006)

Ted Shih said:


> But, what about the contestants that do not hear that conversation? Another reason for written directions.


I addressed that scenario in advocating the diagram: "_It also eliminates the issue of a handler who could not be there to watch test dog and hear the Q&A_"


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

captainjack said:


> I don’t think there is anyone running AA stakes that doesn’t know whether a factor is or is not on line. They do ask, but they know. I’ve been frustrated judging AA stakes where pros do not even fake an effort to catch an obvious and large patch of cover or part of a mound, etc. Makes me want to tell the handler to pick the dog up. Of course there are two judges, so both need to agree. Maybe scrap the test? I’ve judged where only one third of the dogs (all run by a single pro), actually ran the blind that was set up. Wished we would have dropped all the others. A pic may have helped. At least with that, they wouldn’t, or shouldn’t be surprised they were dropped.


So if your blind is 300 yards and there is an obstacle at 100 yards (keyhole or something else) and the dog misses that but has a creditable performance that obstacle becomes a pass/fail regardless of the entire line? You should judge the entire blind and evaluate it accordingly. Missing a spot by a few feet on a blind is not and should never be considered a failure.


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

EdA said:


> So if your blind is 300 yards and there is an obstacle at 100 yards (keyhole or something else) and the dog misses that but has a creditable performance that obstacle becomes a pass/fail regardless of the entire line? You should judge the entire blind and evaluate it accordingly. Missing a spot by a few feet on a blind is not and should never be considered a failure.


No - a large and obvious patch of cover 15 yards from the line. Dog off line by 10 yards misses 20 yard wide patch of cover (poor IL). Handler let’s dog continue to roll and at 75 yard is now 15 yards off line and misses obvious terrain (30 yard wide hump- no loss of sight). Dog has never been stopped and never given a cast and has missed two factors. 

I never have pass fail must hit criteria. I give the handler the opportunity to demonstrate the dog’s abilities acquired through training, and some choose not to do so.


----------



## Charles C. (Nov 5, 2004)

Typically, the line to the blind is obvious unless the judges want you to challenge something that’s not actually on line like a point. As previously mentioned in this thread, blinds should be viewed in total rather than according to a checkpoint or make or break moment. Arbitrary criteria on a blind are a poor way to determine who the best dogs are.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

If my cojudge agrees, I post a drawing similar to Ted's in the holding blind, but with no commentary. It merely shows the ideal line to the blind. No pass fail criteria, just a line we expect handlers to challenge. Dogs are judged relative to each other. 

I remember an Open land blind years ago that was quite challenging just based on the obvious factors, but there was a small irrigation pipe sticking straight up about 18" 30 yards almost on line. The mat was turned sideways to the line so there wasn't much left-right play, but there was a little. All the pros were arguing that you needed to be right of pipe, it looked to me that either side would work depending on whether you were left or right on the mat. That said, after watching handler after handler fight to get his dog right of that little post, I lost my nerve and did the same.

As Gus was returning with the bird, one of the judges asked me why everybody was handling right of that post? He said they never even noticed it was there and it had nothing to do with the blind. That pipe would not be shown on my drawing.


----------



## A team (Jun 30, 2011)

EdA said:


> So if your blind is 300 yards and there is an obstacle at 100 yards (keyhole or something else) and the dog misses that but has a creditable performance that obstacle becomes a pass/fail regardless of the entire line? You should judge the entire blind and evaluate it accordingly. Missing a spot by a few feet on a blind is not and should never be considered a failure.


I hope to run under you some day .


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Charles C. said:


> Typically, the line to the blind is obvious unless the judges want you to challenge something that’s not actually on line like a point. As previously mentioned in this thread, blinds should be viewed in total rather than according to a checkpoint or make or break moment. Arbitrary criteria on a blind are a poor way to determine who the best dogs are.



Three points: 

1. It has not been my experience that the "line to the blind" is typically obvious. I have run plenty of blinds where the judges dropped dogs for failure to meet a criteria that was unannounced and unknown.

2. If the line to the blind truly is obvious, what is the harm in providing a diagram.

3. Amateurs running the Open are at a huge disadvantage on the blinds. 
a) The Pros watch dog after dog run, and run dog after dog.
b) When they are in the holding blind, they are watching every movement, notation made by the judges. It doesn't take them long to figure out what the judges want. And they share that information with one another - but typically not with the Amateur.
c) When an Amateur shows up, they may have the opportunity to watch a few dogs run. But, more often than not, they are placed right in the queue.
d) A diagram helps mitigate against these disadvantages against the Amateur handler. 

Ted


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

with all apologies to my 8th grade Geometry teacher who will remain nameless....

Isnt the line to the blind the most perpendicular tangent between Point A (mat/line) and Point B (the bird)....with all the waypoints( logs, points, brush,swale ) along that tangent clearly in play....


the reason for my question is..I have seen a few tests where the dogs/handlers were instructed to get on a point ( some judges want two paws, some want all four paws) but then the direction to the bird requires an angled back, which in essence means the blind is NOT a straight/perpendicular line...


----------



## Steve Shaver (Jan 9, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> I am a proponent - in the minority - of drawing a diagram showing the contestants what my book looks like and what I view as the criteria of the blind.
> 
> I do not do so, when I am really in a time bind and need to keep jamming.
> I do not do so, when my co-judge is opposed.
> ...






I must admit I am confused at the conversation here. I approach EVERY blind as Teds diagram illustrates. Can I do it??? HA!. Strive for perfection, which pretty much never happens, but except excellence. The key here is Teds statement that the performance is both RLEATIVE and CUMULATIVE which answers to Ed's statement.
The only exception I see here is Ted's statement that sometimes the line to the blind aren't obvious. I would like to hear an example of that Ted. Only thing I can think of is a point where the dogs might go out of sight for a bit and you don't know what's going to push the dog one way or another so you need to observe what test dog or other running dogs to know what to expect.


----------



## bamajeff (May 18, 2015)

Yeah, I don't understand the thought about the line not being obvious either. Isn't there really only 1 (straight) line to the blind? Between any 2 given points there is only 1 line.


----------



## Breck (Jul 1, 2003)

Rarely had issue sorting out difficult factors and criteria on blinds. Had more of an issue at times with judges Not following through with their designed blind and calling back dogs that didn't do it.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Steve Shaver said:


> I must admit I am confused at the conversation here. I approach EVERY blind as Teds diagram illustrates. Can I do it??? HA!. Strive for perfection, which pretty much never happens, but except excellence. The key here is Teds statement that the performance is both RLEATIVE and CUMULATIVE which answers to Ed's statement.
> The only exception I see here is Ted's statement that sometimes the line to the blind aren't obvious. I would like to hear an example of that Ted. Only thing I can think of is a point where the dogs might go out of sight for a bit and you don't know what's going to push the dog one way or another so you need to observe what test dog or other running dogs to know what to expect.



There are more than a few judges that will pick out an innocuous rock or patch of cover and if you are on the wrong side of that - unannounced - marker will drop you.


----------



## Charles C. (Nov 5, 2004)

Ted Shih said:


> There are more than a few judges that will pick out an innocuous rock or patch of cover and if you are on the wrong side of that - unannounced - marker will drop you.


Those judges are misinformed about what should matter on a blind.


----------



## Steve Shaver (Jan 9, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> There are more than a few judges that will pick out an innocuous rock or patch of cover and if you are on the wrong side of that - unannounced - marker will drop you.




BAD Judge! I call that pencil whipping.
Obviously a laser is the best line and as I stated that is near impossible. When it comes to judging a blind my thoughts are there is a corridor with that laser straight up the middle. But then again one mans corridor is another mans no mans land.


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

The down side I've seen in providing diagrams is that it leads to more "gallery" judging, including handlers. Who hit that landmark and who didn't? As Ted mentioned "FT are both relative and cumulative" but many contestants do not remember that as they look puzzled at the call back list. Not every dog needs the same quality blind to make it to the next series based on their cumulative performance and if 80% of the dogs miss that keyhole it becomes less of a criteria in the
relative evaluation but there is 1 diagram with 1 line.

As a handler I find more questions arise on water than land blinds. As a judge I find a simple statement at test dog time, and repeated later if asked, about number of water entries for a dog that is on line clears any confusion.

Tim


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Tim Carrion said:


> As a handler I find more questions arise on water than land blinds. As a judge I find a simple statement at test dog time, and repeated later if asked, about number of water entries for a dog that is on line clears any confusion.
> 
> Tim


Page 44 of the Rule Book states




> (1) Instructions to the handler, as he comes to line regarding the position he is to take, the nature of the test, and any special instructions about the desired method of completing it. If special instructions are to
> be given, great care must be exercised so that each handler receives the same instructions. Such can be accomplished by summoning all handlers to the line, before the series is started, and then announcing those
> special instructions to the group, once and for all. If it is not possible to assemble all handlers for such a single announcement, the special instructions can be written and given to the Marshal, who, in turn, should show
> them to each handler, before he goes on-line. Whatever method the Judges decide to adopt, they should be certain that all handlers receive identical instructions



Written instructions in the holding blind eliminate this concern.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Steve Shaver said:


> BAD Judge! I call that pencil whipping.
> Obviously a laser is the best line and as I stated that is near impossible. When it comes to judging a blind my thoughts are there is a corridor with that laser straight up the middle. But then again one mans corridor is another mans no mans land.


Setting aside pencil whipping. Some judges have very tight corridors. Others not. If you do this enough, you make book and know what to expect. But, if you are new to the sport, you have no book. The diagram equalizes the playing field.


----------



## cubdriver (Jan 1, 2006)

I have run under a few judges who used the following procedure, and have often used it myself, since I always appreciated it. When the test dog is being run, and the handlers are within hearing range, they would say to the handler "try to get your dog on the point" , etc. In that case the point would also obviously be visibly on line as well. This doesn't back the judge into a corner (which would happen if he said the dog must get on the point, and then none do that), but does let the handlers know what he wants and expects them to do. I also feel that there is a some difference in judging if the handler makes no attempt to get the dog on a point vs one who tries hard and doesn't quite make it. In the former case I feel that the handler is 'cheating' the test, whereas in the latter, at least the handler is trying to do your test.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

cubdriver said:


> I have run under a few judges who used the following procedure, and have often used it myself, since I always appreciated it. When the test dog is being run, and the handlers are within hearing range, they would say to the handler "try to get your dog on the point" , etc. In that case the point would also obviously be visibly on line as well. This doesn't back the judge into a corner (which would happen if he said the dog must get on the point, and then none do that), but does let the handlers know what he wants and expects them to do. I also feel that there is a some difference in judging if the handler makes no attempt to get the dog on a point vs one who tries hard and doesn't quite make it. In the former case I feel that the handler is 'cheating' the test, whereas in the latter, at least the handler is trying to do your test.


And what do you do about the handlers that do not hear what you say to the test dog handler?


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

cubdriver said:


> I have run under a few judges who used the following procedure, and have often used it myself, since I always appreciated it. When the test dog is being run, and the handlers are within hearing range, they would say to the handler "try to get your dog on the point" , etc. In that case the point would also obviously be visibly on line as well. This doesn't back the judge into a corner (which would happen if he said the dog must get on the point, and then none do that), but does let the handlers know what he wants and expects them to do. I also feel that there is a some difference in judging if the handler makes no attempt to get the dog on a point vs one who tries hard and doesn't quite make it. In the former case I feel that the handler is 'cheating' the test, whereas in the latter, at least the handler is trying to do your test.


I agree with your latter point, I don't like it when handlers blatantly avoid a test. The point of the drawing in the holding blind isn't to dictate exactly what our standards are, it's just to clarify exactly where the line is. I have run under judges who expect you to hit a certain feature even though, to my eye it's offline, so apparently drawing a line to the blind isn't as obvious as most of us think.

Like you, I usually take the test dog handler aside and instruct him or her to hit certain points that I feel are important. Two problems with that; 1) Sometimes the test dog is really not ready for all age, and the blind ends up looking way harder than it really is. Forget about hitting that point with this dog. 2) Even if things go smoothly, and everybody there gets it, that doesn't help the handler that arrives late from another stake and misses the test dog.


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

John Robinson said:


> I agree with your latter point, I don't like it when handlers blatantly avoid a test. The point of the drawing in the holding blind isn't to dictate exactly what our standards are, it's just to clarify exactly where the line is. I have run under judges who expect you to hit a certain feature even though, to my eye it's offline, so apparently drawing a line to the blind isn't as obvious as most of us think.
> 
> Like you, I usually take the test dog handler aside and instruct him or her to hit certain points that I feel are important. Two problems with that; 1) Sometimes the test dog is really ready for all age, and the blind ends up looking way harder than it really is. Forget about hitting that point with this dog. 2) Even if things go smoothly, and everybody there gets it, that doesn't help the handler that arrives late from another stake and misses the test dog.


The handler entered the trial of their own free will. In doing so they agreed to abide by the conditions of that trial. 
If they are not there when the test dog ran that would be their fault, should they receive special consideration?

Tests should be designed so a dog could potentially line any blind per AKC rules. Tests should also be designed 
wherever possible to make those areas the judges want to test significantly obvious, wherever possible. At that 
point the judges should judge what happens, not what they would like to see happen! If you have to post detailed 
instructions, my opinion is that you are trying to make yourself more important than you really should be during 
the testing of the dogs. The best refs are the ones who make the contest about the play on the field, judges should 
do likewise. 

But I'll ask this of all: an obstacle, point, log, significant patch of cover is obviously (not barely) on line - some choose 
to skirt the obstacle, others spend a 2 to 3 whistles, the skirters have smoother blinds, those who did the test have 
broken the momentum of their dogs & will potentially have rougher work, Who scores highest on your judges sheet?


----------



## mjh345 (Jun 17, 2006)

Marvin S said:


> The handler entered the trial of their own free will. In doing so they agreed to abide by the conditions of that trial.
> If they are not there when the test dog ran that would be their fault, should they receive special consideration?
> 
> Tests should be designed so a dog could potentially line any blind per AKC rules. Tests should also be designed
> ...


More of how in the world can you assert that it's the handlers fault for not seeing the test dog?
When they're starting a new series & running a test over they don't just shut down the trial and all the other stakes and tell everybody to go watch that test dog.
I agree very wholeheartedly with your assertion that the two or three whistles that broke momentum would generally result in a much rougher choppier blind.
I am going to severely punish the handler that didn't even try to navigate the hazards and run the blind as designed
In spite of the fact it may not be as aesthetically pleasing, the handler who (unsuccessfully) tried to hit the cover & challenge the blind has a chance of getting called back


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Marvin S said:


> The handler entered the trial of their own free will. In doing so they agreed to abide by the conditions of that trial.
> If they are not there when the test dog ran that would be their fault, should they receive special consideration?



How do you reconcile your statement with this pronouncement on page 44 of the Rule Book?




> (1) Instructions to the handler, as he comes to line regarding the position he is to take, the nature of the test, and any special instructions about the desired method of completing it. If special instructions are to
> be given, great care must be exercised so that each handler receives the same instructions. Such can be accomplished by summoning all handlers to the line, before the series is started, and then announcing those
> special instructions to the group, once and for all. If it is not possible to assemble all handlers for such a single announcement, the special instructions can be written and given to the Marshal, who, in turn, should show
> them to each handler, before he goes on-line. Whatever method the Judges decide to adopt, they should be certain that all handlers receive identical instructions


----------



## Rick Coats (Oct 3, 2007)

I believe less said by the judge regarding the blind the better. Judges who chat with the participants about factors or line create the potential for confusing or misleading information being disseminated. I also dislike a diagram, it can create a "must hit this factor" mentality. As far as I'm concerned, the importance of hitting or not hitting a factor, is relative to the work of the field. I've seen handlers (especially inexperienced handlers) ruin a blind because they felt if they didn't hit a slot they were going to be dropped. As a judge I want to see a handler make an effort to take on any factor on line, but the overall performance should not be lost in the effort. My basic comment to handlers during test dog and the inevitable questions ( is that point on line? etc.) is "you see what I see". John Robinson and I recently judged an open together, we disagreed slightly about this but little else. We had a great time and an effective trail. I believe that a subtle part of doing well in a trial is being able to figure out how to do the tests.


----------



## A team (Jun 30, 2011)

Ted, 

Again great topic and again shows that our sports perception of judging handler and dog all over the place. I believe these posts to be incredibly beneficial.

Now lets create that thread on thoughts of how we as a competing community can improve FT judging.

Thank you,


----------



## Breck (Jul 1, 2003)

Rick Coats said:


> I believe that a subtle part of doing well in a trial is being able to figure out how to do the tests.


Yea, I really enjoyed figuring out how to get past a bag of dead birds on line smack in middle of road, bird added with each returning dog, with stiff ass wind blowing over it at the cranberry boggs. Lol


----------



## bamajeff (May 18, 2015)

Ted Shih said:


> How do you reconcile your statement with this pronouncement on page 44 of the Rule Book?


If the handler is absent at the handler's meeting, doesn't he forfeit any right he had to being given that information? I also have no problem and would greatly appreciate being given the diagram you illustrated earlier in the thread. Especially me being an amateur 'newbie'.


----------



## Breck (Jul 1, 2003)

bamajeff said:


> If the handler is absent at the handler's meeting, doesn't he forfeit any right he had to being given that information? I also have no problem and would greatly appreciate being given the diagram you illustrated earlier in the thread. Especially me being an amateur 'newbie'.


No such thing as handlers meeting at field trial


----------



## labsforme (Oct 31, 2003)

bamajeff said:


> If the handler is absent at the handler's meeting, doesn't he forfeit any right he had to being given that information? I also have no problem and would greatly appreciate being given the diagram you illustrated earlier in the thread. Especially me being an amateur 'newbie'.


What about this scenario ? Dog #2 in the Q, Dog 21 in the Open.Both start on Friday same time. Be fair to the Q and be there or make them wait while I watch the Open test dog? Miss the Q test dog then too. Best to double check the AKC FT rule book.


----------



## bamajeff (May 18, 2015)

Breck said:


> No such thing as handlers meeting at field trial


I was referring to this:

1) Instructions to the handler, as he comes to line regarding the position he is to take, the nature of the test, and any special instructions about the desired method of completing it. If special instructions are tobe given, great care must be exercised so that each handler receives the same instructions. *Such can be accomplished by summoning all handlers to the line, before the series is started, and then announcing thosespecial instructions to the group, once and for all.* If it is not possible to assemble all handlers for such a single announcement, the special instructions can be written and given to the Marshal, who, in turn, should showthem to each handler, before he goes on-line. Whatever method the Judges decide to adopt, they should be certain that all handlers receive identical instructions


----------



## mjh345 (Jun 17, 2006)

bamajeff said:


> If the handler is absent at the handler's meeting, doesn't he forfeit any right he had to being given that information? I also have no problem and would greatly appreciate being given the diagram you illustrated earlier in the thread. Especially me being an amateur 'newbie'.


You want to penalize somebody for not missing the "handlers meeting and test dog"
Hey Marv & Bama Jeff Where do you guys come up with this stuff?
You have no right to handlers meeting or a test dog.
You do have a right to know the instructions to how the series is being run.
FYI: many legitimate reasons why somebody may not be at the Handlers meeting. 
These trials dont just happen
At every trial their are a handful of people who are working their asses off behind the scenes to see that the trial runs as smoothly as possible. 
Moving birds and equipment around delivering lunches, shooting Flyers rebirdingd, setting up and breaking down tests, managing traffic etc etc.
If you pay attention you may recognize them at the next trial run there's a good possibility they got some bird **** and dirt on their pants and shoes and they look pretty frazzled. 
Next time you see one rather than trying to penalize them for missing the ...."mandatory handlers meeting instructions" you may want to shake their hand and thank them.


----------



## bamajeff (May 18, 2015)

labsforme said:


> What about this scenario ? Dog #2 in the Q, Dog 21 in the Open.Both start on Friday same time. Be fair to the Q and be there or make them wait while I watch the Open test dog? Miss the Q test dog then too. Best to double check the AKC FT rule book.


Go run your dog in the Q and hopefully Ted left his diagram in the holding blind.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

bamajeff said:


> If the handler is absent at the handler's meeting, doesn't he forfeit any right he had to being given that information? I also have no problem and would greatly appreciate being given the diagram you illustrated earlier in the thread. Especially me being an amateur 'newbie'.



Let's not make this more complicated than it needs to be. Page 44 of the Rule Book states:




> (1) Instructions to the handler, as he comes to line regarding the position he is to take, the nature of the test, and any special instructions about the desired method of completing it. If special instructions are to
> be given, great care must be exercised so that each handler receives the same instructions. Such can be accomplished by summoning all handlers to the line, before the series is started, and then announcing those
> special instructions to the group, once and for all. If it is not possible to assemble all handlers for such a single announcement, the special instructions can be written and given to the Marshal, who, in turn, should show
> them to each handler, before he goes on-line. Whatever method the Judges decide to adopt, they should be certain that all handlers receive identical instructions



The Requirement is that if there are special instructions, all handlers must be notified as to those instructions. 

IF everyone is there for the special instructions - and can hear them (most judges don't yell their instructions to the test dog handler) - then you have satisfied the Rule. 
IF not, the Rule requires that "all handlers receive identical instructions." 
How this is accomplished is up to the Judges.

It is more uniform if it is in writing in the holding blind.
I try to do this. I don't always do it.
In the Open, written instructions become less important in the 3rd series than the 1st, simply because there are less dogs and handlers.

At the last trial I judged - where Ed was present - we told the handlers "If you don't get in the first piece of water, we are going to ask you to pick up." I think everyone was there except Mark Edwards. When he arrived, we repeated the instruction. 

Could I have written it down? Sure
Would it have been the better method? Absolutely
But, Larry and I were busy setting up the test, and we were pushed for time


----------



## mjh345 (Jun 17, 2006)

bamajeff said:


> I was referring to this:
> 
> 1) Instructions to the handler, as he comes to line regarding the position he is to take, the nature of the test, and any special instructions about the desired method of completing it. If special instructions are tobe given, great care must be exercised so that each handler receives the same instructions. *Such can be accomplished by summoning all handlers to the line, before the series is started, and then announcing thosespecial instructions to the group, once and for all.* If it is not possible to assemble all handlers for such a single announcement, the special instructions can be written and given to the Marshal, who, in turn, should showthem to each handler, before he goes on-line. Whatever method the Judges decide to adopt, they should be certain that all handlers receive identical instructions


And just two posts prior you were claiming that if he didn't attend the handlerr's meeting he forfeited his right to those instructions


----------



## bamajeff (May 18, 2015)

mjh345 said:


> You want to penalize somebody for not missing the "handlers meeting and test dog"
> Hey Marv & Bama Jeff Where do you guys come up with this stuff?
> You have no right to handlers meeting or a test dog.
> You do have a right to know the instructions to how the series is being


If we have no ‘right’ to the theoretical meeting that occurred before/after test dog runs, how is someone being penalized by missing something they have no ‘right’ to? Before you start making assumptions of what someone does/doesn’t do at a test/trial you might should attend one the person runs in and works. I’ve thrown birds, run wingers, planted blinds, helped setup/take down at tests I am not a member of the club because they needed help. 

To to actually be relevant to the discussion, how would you handle as judge handlers missing the meeting where instructions were given. How do you know who was/wasn’t present?


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Rick Coats said:


> I believe less said by the judge regarding the blind the better. Judges who chat with the participants about factors or line create the potential for confusing or misleading information being disseminated. I also dislike a diagram, it can create a "must hit this factor" mentality. As far as I'm concerned, the importance of hitting or not hitting a factor, is relative to the work of the field. I've seen handlers (especially inexperienced handlers) ruin a blind because they felt if they didn't hit a slot they were going to be dropped. As a judge I want to see a handler make an effort to take on any factor on line, but the overall performance should not be lost in the effort. My basic comment to handlers during test dog and the inevitable questions ( is that point on line? etc.) is "you see what I see". John Robinson and I recently judged an open together, we disagreed slightly about this but little else. We had a great time and an effective trail. I believe that a subtle part of doing well in a trial is being able to figure out how to do the tests.


Clearly, we disagree. I would say the following:

1) The diagram simply shows the contestant what my book looks like.
2) The diagram identifies the "ideal" line. 
3) The diagram does not state that the "ideal" line is the mandatory one.
4) In my view, the diagram reduces the likelihood of confusion
5) If someone asks about the blind, I say "read the posting in the holding blind."
6) It is an FT axiom that judges say "The line to the blind is obvious." I have that in practice, the line - or more accurately, the acceptable corridor - is not obvious.
7) If there are mandatory criteria, I announce them. But, I rarely have mandatory criteria.
8) I don't want knowing what the I want as a judge to be a "subtle part of doing well in a trial." I want to focus on execution of the task set forth.

All that being said, I would say that approximately 50% of the time, for various reasons (mostly having to do with time) I do not place a diagram in the holding blind. But, given my druthers, I would


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

bamajeff said:


> If we have no ‘right’ to the theoretical meeting that occurred before/after test dog runs, how is someone being penalized by missing something they have no ‘right’ to? Before you start making assumptions of what someone does/doesn’t do at a test/trial you might should attend one the person runs in and works. I’ve thrown birds, run wingers, planted blinds, helped setup/take down at tests I am not a member of the club because they needed help.
> 
> To to actually be relevant to the discussion, how would you handle as judge handlers missing the meeting where instructions were given. How do you know who was/wasn’t present?



I think that you and Marc are mis-communicating and in actuality, probably share the same point of view


----------



## bamajeff (May 18, 2015)

Ted Shih said:


> Let's not make this more complicated than it needs to be. Page 44 of the Rule Book states:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


How do you account for who was/wasn’t there? Especially in large entry stakes of 80-100+ dogs? Roll call?


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

bamajeff said:


> How do you account for who was/wasn’t there? Especially in large entry stakes of 80-100+ dogs? Roll call?


Jeff 

Why are you asking me? 
Haven't you read anything I've posted? 
I'm the one who quoted the Rule Book.
I'm the one promoting written instructions in the holding blind. 

Ask the people who don't use written instructions how they communicate "special instructions" and comply with the Rule. 

Ted


----------



## labsforme (Oct 31, 2003)

Ted, no. BamaJeff 

I think the simple statement that if there are requirements for the blind the would be communicated by the Marshall or judges to the handlers as they approach the line if they were not present. As Ted has reiterated multiple times.Most handlers, me especially, will ask ( if they did miss the test dog) what is required other than " there's the blind run it". I was actually told that by a judge when I was test dog, sigh.


----------



## mjh345 (Jun 17, 2006)

bamajeff said:


> If we have no ‘right’ to the theoretical meeting that occurred before/after test dog runs, how is someone being penalized by missing something they have no ‘right’ to? Before you start making assumptions of what someone does/doesn’t do at a test/trial you might should attend one the person runs in and works. I’ve thrown birds, run wingers, planted blinds, helped setup/take down at tests I am not a member of the club because they needed help.
> 
> To to actually be relevant to the discussion, how would you handle as judge handlers missing the meeting where instructions were given. How do you know who was/wasn’t present?


Bama I didn't make any assumptions as to who was working at a trial. I was just pointing out that that maybe one of manyy reasons why they couldn't be at the handlers meeting: they also could be running a dog in another stake 
In answer to your questions: as a judge before calling them to the line II ask what their number is and if they have any questions
As a Handler: if I wasn"t at handlers meeting before coming to the line I ask if there are any special instructions


----------



## bamajeff (May 18, 2015)

Ted Shih said:


> Jeff
> 
> Why are you asking me?
> Haven't you read anything I've posted?
> ...


Yes, I read where you said you only place the instructions/diagram about 50% of the time. If they were given verbally while test dog was running, how do you satisfy the rule the handlers ‘must be given’ the instructions? Do you ask the handlers when they come to the line if they were present or just ask if they have any questions?


----------



## bamajeff (May 18, 2015)

mjh345 said:


> Bama I didn't make any assumptions as to who was working at a trial. I was just pointing out that that maybe one of manyy reasons why they couldn't be at the handlers meeting: they also could be running a dog in another stake
> In answer to your questions: as a judge before calling them to the line II ask what their number is and if they have any questions
> As a Handler: if I wasn"t at handlers meeting before coming to the line I ask if there are any special instructions


Totally agree Marc. Handler knows if he missed test dog or not and can/should ask if any special requirements are in play. Judges ask if handler has any questions and that gives them the opportunity to be given any information they missed


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

For most of the last twenty years I've double staked two all age dogs, amateur and open. Believe me, other than 8:00 Friday morning, making it to see test dog was pretty iffy. More common was finishing a test at one stake, being told by the Marshall to rush over to the other stake, maybe get to watch a dog before I have to get in the holding blind with my dog.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

bamajeff said:


> Yes, I read where you said you only place the instructions/diagram about 50% of the time. If they were given verbally while test dog was running, how do you satisfy the rule the handlers ‘must be given’ the instructions? Do you ask the handlers when they come to the line if they were present or just ask if they have any questions?


Jeff  

If you read that only place instructions in the holding blind 50% of the time, then didn't you also read that when I don't have written instructions, I communicate them directly to the handler?

Ted


----------



## bamajeff (May 18, 2015)

Yes, I did read that and it prompted my question of how you account for all handlers in large entry stakes. Do you just give them to each handler as they come to the line, or account somehow for who was/wasn’t there when you gave them verbally while test dog was running?


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

I speak to each handler in the holding blind if there is anything special. For example, I've instructed handlers to immediately leash their dog after handing me the bird because of tight quarters walking past the holding blind.


----------



## Breck (Jul 1, 2003)

bamajeff said:


> Yes, I did read that and it prompted my question of how you account for all handlers in large entry stakes. Do you just give them to each handler as they come to the line, or account somehow for who was/wasn’t there when you gave them verbally while test dog was running?


Unless something about the test requires instruction, more often than not no instructions are necessary or given. Most common are simply instructions like dog on mat for send or limits on how much handler can move forward or when they can move forward.


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

If you read post #41 both the quoted verse from Rick Coats and Ted's response you can see the dilemma judges run into. IMO both are right but both have different philosophical differences as to how they judge and ultimately score a test. 

IMO Rick Coats leaves the interpretation up to the handler and his execution of his blind...

Ted's is a bit less interpetive. He tells you in black and white what he wants and how he will judge it, I am guessing there is very little grey area

As a handler you will run into both philosophical styles on the circuit, the key is do you know which style your current judge is looking for..If you like Ted's style then you are probably going to find trials that he judges and enter them. Same goes for Rick

It's just like the Lardy training methods, some people prefer a rigid methodical approach with outlines and charts and others prefer a more intuitive form of training where you kind of go with the flow but without the paperwork


----------



## Glenn Norton (Oct 23, 2011)

in my opinion a blind should be judged in thirds for a long and in half for shorter blinds. the only instructions about the bind, is that "the line is from the mat to bird" enough said\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\


----------



## Justin Allen (Sep 29, 2009)

There is no handlers meeting at a field trial--people are spread out all over. I can't tell you how many times I've gotten to the test in time to see a dog or two run the blind then I'm in the rotation. It sucks but when your double staked in the AM and Open you signed up for it.



bamajeff said:


> If the handler is absent at the handler's meeting, doesn't he forfeit any right he had to being given that information? I also have no problem and would greatly appreciate being given the diagram you illustrated earlier in the thread. Especially me being an amateur 'newbie'.


----------



## Justin Allen (Sep 29, 2009)

If anyone that wasn't there has questions they will ask, you can guarantee that.



bamajeff said:


> How do you account for who was/wasn’t there? Especially in large entry stakes of 80-100+ dogs? Roll call?


----------



## Wayne Nutt (Jan 10, 2010)

Ted, Different subject, do you judge the dog and handler walking to the line/mat?


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Bon, I think Ted's drawings, as mine do, leave room for a lot of gray area. I want to draw a distinction between judges unneccarily painting themselves into a corner by dictating some criteria upfront, such as "we want four paws dry", versus providing a drawing that just shows the line of the blind relative to some obvious landmarks. In the first case we are telling you exactly what we want, in the second we are suggesting the ideal line but without any admonishments.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

BonMallari said:


> If you read post #41 both the quoted verse from Rick Coats and Ted's response you can see the dilemma judges run into. IMO both are right but both have different philosophical differences as to how they judge and ultimately score a test.
> 
> IMO Rick Coats leaves the interpretation up to the handler and his execution of his blind...
> 
> ...



Bon 

You are speaking about matters of which you know nothing.

Do Rick and I have philosophical differences about instructions? Clearly.
Do Rick and I have philosophical differences about how we evaluate relative and cumulative performances? I have no idea and neither could you.

Provision of a diagram, together with instructions has nothing to do with how one evaluates work. I might have no grey area, I might have alot. And my grey area might be influenced by relative and/or cumulative work. 

Your analysis is based on a total lack of information. 

Ted


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

John Robinson said:


> Bon, I think Ted's drawings, as mine do, leave room for a lot of gray area. I want to draw a distinction between judges unneccarily painting themselves into a corner by dictating some criteria upfront, such as "we want four paws dry", versus providing a drawing that just shows the line of the blind relative to some obvious landmarks. In the first case we are telling you exactly what we want, in the second we are suggesting the ideal line but without any admonishments.



Yes. In fact, I would add that my accompanying language is intended to make it clear that evaluation is both relative and cumulative. It is the rare occasion when I announce that some criteria is mandatory.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

bamajeff said:


> Yes, I did read that and it prompted my question of how you account for all handlers in large entry stakes. Do you just give them to each handler as they come to the line, or account somehow for who was/wasn’t there when you gave them verbally while test dog was running?


Jeff 

I think the problem is that you are trying to visualize an event that you have never observed. As a result, you are imagining matters that rarely occur.

I almost exclusively judge Opens these days. In an 80 dog open - something you might consider a "large entry stake" - there are probably only 20 different handlers, 5 pros with 10-15 dogs each, and a smattering of Amateur handlers. As a consequence, there are not that many handlers to monitor. Moreover, because the Open is the priority stake in a field trial, most of the pros will be camped out at the Open, and leave from time to time to go to the minor stakes. That means as a practical matter, as a judge, the handlers that you are concerned about informing of "special instructions" are the Amateurs, like John Robinson. As a practical matter, I know most of the Amateurs who compete and those I don't know, I quickly identify from the catalog.

So, it is not the task that you seem to envision it to be.

I think written instructions are the most fool proof method. But, they are not required.

What is required is making sure that if there are "special instructions" that each handler be informed of them. 


Ted


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

Marvin S said:


> The handler entered the trial of their own free will. In doing so they agreed to abide by the conditions of that trial.
> If they are not there when the test dog ran that would be their fault, should they receive special consideration?





Ted Shih said:


> How do you reconcile your statement with this pronouncement on page 44 of the Rule Book?


I would ask you, how do you relay to the handler what happened to the test dog & should you?

If a test needs special instructions it is probably not a particularly good test. Good tests should be straight forward, either do it or go home. 
The handler should only have to concentrate on running their dog, not chit chatting with or receiving instructions from the judges. If a person 
has so little experience "in the field" that they cannot walk up to a test, pick out the potential pitfalls & then run the test, just whose responsibility 
is it too ensure they receive "special" consideration. & as a judge, don't you have enough to do without ensuring everyone receives their allotment of personal attention? 
In general, there is little to learn from the quality of test dog running today's trials, it is more of a "Let's get the mechanics in place, this will make sure they work."


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

I really don't see the harm in showing the line on a drawing. It evens the playing field without making the blind any easier. What's the harm in showing the true line on a challenging blind? It shouldn't be a state secret, on the other hand we're not telling the handler, such and such is mandatory, they can run the blind however they want.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

Clarity almost universally leads to better, more fair outcomes in my book. Great idea Ted.


----------



## Daren Galloway (Jun 28, 2012)

Something that has been danced around but not specifically addressed, if a large portion of the contestants do not attempt part of the blind, do you throw them all out? 

Ted, with providing a diagram have you found this occurs less?


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Daren Galloway said:


> Something that has been danced around but not specifically addressed, if a large portion of the contestants do not attempt part of the blind, do you throw them all out?
> 
> Ted, with providing a diagram have you found this occurs less?


I've often thought about a handler revolt, where without saying it out loud, all the handlers agree to call the judges bluff and not even try for that point or something. The "revolt" would fall apart if one handler broke with the pack and tried to hit the point. Then the judges might place that dog first with no other placements.

In my experience, handlers try to hit factors unless and until the blind seems impossible. Then, at some point they start cheating rather than go down in flames. That's the situation where I hate a judge dictating up from what they want. Early dogs try to adhere to the dictate, everyone fails, then the judges have no choice but to change their standard, which is totally unfair to the early dogs that took the judges word.


----------



## DavidC (Feb 2, 2015)

John Robinson said:


> I really don't see the harm in showing the line on a drawing. It evens the playing field without making the blind any easier. What's the harm in showing the true line on a challenging blind? It shouldn't be a state secret, on the other hand we're not telling the handler, such and such is mandatory, they can run the blind however they want.


I normally show such a drawing to my dog in the holding blind. It rarely seems to make a difference!!!


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Daren Galloway said:


> Something that has been danced around but not specifically addressed, if a large portion of the contestants do not attempt part of the blind, do you throw them all out?
> 
> Ted, with providing a diagram have you found this occurs less?



Daren 

1. I think that the diagram makes the blind harder because the handlers cannot claim that they were unaware of the criteria for the blind.

2. Without knowing more details, such as
- What does "not attempt" mean?
- What exactly is "part of a blind"?
- And so on

3. I think that so long as the criteria are practicable, handlers will attempt to comply.

Ted


----------



## 1tulip (Oct 22, 2009)

Fascinating discussion. Thank you. I notice that not too much here has been said about the role the marshal could play. Ted mentioned the fact that he can tell in the catalog who the Amateurs are and who might need some instructions about the test. That's fair and considerate. 

I don't run FT and so this might be a dumb question. But, at the time of the draw, or shortly thereafter, is it not possible for the marshals get together and anticipate in advance where handlers are going to be? And, in doing so, plan on fitting them in so that they can watch a few dogs run? AND communicate with marshals at the other stakes so they know if someone is hung up at another stake? Ideally, they would want to allow the late-comers the opportunity to watch more than one dog run. 

I get it that battle plans are only good until the first shots are fired. But how could the marshals facilitate making it more equitable for the Amateurs?


----------



## 1tulip (Oct 22, 2009)

Ooops. Never mind. Just scrolled down and saw the thread about Marshals. Questions answered.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Tulip, marshall's pretty much do as you suggest the morning of the trial, but it's more about rationing amateur dogs to run in between open handlers who have a bunch of dogs to run. It becomes more problematic as dogs are lost through attrition series by series. Let's say we've been waiting for a pro at the Qual, he shows up with six dogs to run and they need him back at the Open asap. You need one or more probably two dogs lined up between each of his dogs. There's a lot of thinking on your feet to keep things running.


----------



## Tarball (Aug 12, 2010)

Judge......Any questions?

Handler.......Do these jeans make my butt look fat?


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

John Robinson said:


> Tulip, marshall's pretty much do as you suggest the morning of the trial, but it's more about rationing amateur dogs to run in between open handlers who have a bunch of dogs to run. It becomes more problematic as dogs are lost through attrition series by series. Let's say we've been waiting for a pro at the Qual, he shows up with six dogs to run and they need him back at the Open asap. You need one or more probably two dogs lined up between each of his dogs. There's a lot of thinking on your feet to keep things running.


An organized judge can be of great assistance to the marshal. After setup give the FT chair a list of what's going to happen 
& your needs. You do not need to tell them where until it's time to setup the next series. 

A few years ago I did an Am in your part of the country but S. I knew the opposite judge in the other stake could be just a little 
difficult. One of the Am's had 20% of the dogs in the Amateur. I informed his Pro that we would have an honor in the 1st series 
(normal for me) & there would be only one Bye dog (also normal for me). Put the onus on them & spared the marshal a lot of 
headaches! Everything went smooth as could be,


----------

