# METRO



## Aaron Homburg (Sep 23, 2005)

*I was hoping with the amount of RTF'rs at this trial we might have hour by hour updates? I figured the updates early in the day would be more accurate than the ones made later at night?(RITA) Just a thought! :wink: 

Aaron*


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

If I recall correctly, the cell phone coverage out at Scott's ranch is spotty at best. I remember having to stand on top of a dog truck to get one "bar" of coverage with Sprint.

kg


----------



## Chris S. (Dec 15, 2004)

Not a great connection on the cell phone, but these are the call backs for the 4th series of the derby in the morning.

1, 3, 5, 10, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 21, 22, 24, 26,27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

Any reports on the Open?

FOM


----------



## Mike Noel (Sep 26, 2003)

Lainee - heard there were quite a few left to still run the first series.


----------



## Linda Noga I (Oct 21, 2005)

*Metro*

Judges asked contestants to be there Sat morning at 7am with dog 29 to start.


----------



## Charles C. (Nov 5, 2004)

Don't know the placements, but 5 dogs out of 21 did the last series in the derby.


----------



## Bayou Magic (Feb 7, 2004)

Charles C. said:


> Don't know the placements, but 5 dogs out of 21 did the last series in the derby.


Actually it was 6 that finished.

Mark Edwards 1st with Dealer (28 derby points)
Mary Tatum 2nd with Buddy
3rd, Avant???? Not sure. The rita machine is working fine.
4th, Sharon Gierman
RJ Me  with NutCase (Piper) That's 3 finishes in 4 starts for the baby girl.
JAM Avant????

All challenging marks in the derby. Very tough, but fair to the pups.

Open and Am are brutal. 32 dogs in the Open picked up the chickens, at least one with a handle. 24 called back to the land blind out of 93 dogs that started. A few, including RouxBaby, picked up the birds without a handle and were not called back.  

About 53 dogs have run the AM, only a handful have done it well; a total of about 10 have done it at all. It is just a double with a long retired flyer, then a short (130 yd) retired bird. No off the marks and run the blind. Marks are kicking their butts.

Starting to drizzle north of the Red River. I get to run the AM in the morning. Lucky me.

Frank


----------



## Tom Watson (Nov 29, 2005)

*metro*

Amateur call backs after the 1st series, *12* of 80 dogs:
5,10,12,22,25,27,35,43,58,60,61,67.

Open dogs called back to water marks, 10 dogs:
3,4,7,9,14,39,50,59,65,85.

Don't know anything about the Qual.

The dog that took third in the Derby was Tia, owned by Suzan Caire and handled by Clint Avant (clarification of an earlier post).


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

> Amateur call backs after the 1st series, *12* of 80 dogs:


 :shock: :shock: :shock: !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

kg


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

Limited Results:


In the Open I know Bill S. won with Boomer and Marv B. got a RJ with Kate

In the Am Dan W. won with Bull.

Qual won by Mark E. with Mac (chessie).

That's all I know.

FOM


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

FOM said:


> Limited Results:
> 
> 
> In the Open I know Bill S. won with Boomer and Marv B. got a RJ with Kate
> ...


That was one nice chessie...... When I got in tonight my husband Tim, that shot the flyer at the qual for Marks chessie, said he was really, really nice.

Angie


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

Angie B said:


> That was one nice chessie...... When I got in tonight my husband Tim, that shot the flyer at the qual for Marks chessie, said he was really, really nice.
> 
> Angie


I agree. I have handled him a couple times in training and he is a very smooth handling dog, not to mention he can mark - like him lots.......for a chessie 

FOM


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

> A few, including RouxBaby, picked up the birds without a handle and were not called back.


But Frank,,, Roux Baby looked darn good if you ask me...... :wink: Sorry but my opinion didn't count........  

Angie


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

K G said:


> > Amateur call backs after the 1st series, *12* of 80 dogs:
> 
> 
> :shock: :shock: :shock: !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> ...


It's called an "elimination round". Get through that and then you got to run the amateur.....  

Angie


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Haven't seen too many "elimination rounds" where 85% of the field was lost on round one..............

But that's just me........... 8) 

kg


----------



## Marv Baumer (Aug 4, 2003)

K G said:


> Haven't seen too many "elimination rounds" where 85% of the field was lost on round one..............
> 
> But that's just me........... 8)
> 
> kg


83 dog Amateur starting on Saturday morning . Hen phesants in thick bermuda grass cover . Dark at 5:30. Judges had no choice but to set up an "elimination" test. 
Dont blame the judges or the club. Blame all of us owners who entered even though we could see the entry building by the hour on Entry Express and could have pulled our entries at any time up until midnite of closing. We all knew exactly what to expect in the first series and we got it!

This situation speaks favorably towards the "flexible starting day" plan as proposed by the RAC. If Metro could have changed the start to Friday after the entry became so large, the judges could have designed the kind of test they would have liked, the dogs would have eliminated themselves and all but a handfull of people who couldnt have been there on Friday would have gotten more for thier time and money.


----------



## jeff t. (Jul 24, 2003)

Marv Baumer said:


> This situation speaks favorably towards the "flexible starting day" plan as proposed by the RAC. If Metro could have changed the start to Friday after the entry became so large, the judges could have designed the kind of test they would have liked, the dogs would have eliminated themselves and all but a handfull of people who couldnt have been there on Friday would have gotten more for thier time and money.


I thought this was already an option. The Lake Champlain started a day earlier than planned at their August trial. I'm pretty sure that one of the Maryland clubs (Women's ?) started a day earlier than scheduled last year.

Am I incorrect?

Jeff


----------



## Bob Agnor (Nov 25, 2004)

Jeff you're right. Maryland stared the Am on Friday


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Jeff, what Marv is talking about is a club having the option to change their start date for a stake based on the entry AFTER the entries have been closed. In this case, with an 80+ entry for an Amateur stake, the club could have moved the starting day to Friday with several attending caveats, but at least the "elimination round" would not (probably not) have been as extreme. Several entries would have probably have scratched and the judges would have had an extra day to use.

Don't get me wrong, Marv, but I've _been_ in those shoes: an 83 dog Am in February with bad weather moving through. Our first/second series lasted until Sunday AM....and the last dog ran the water marks on Sunday PM in almost-unfair lighting conditions after two stops for storms with lightning.

Did that happen at Metro?

As for handlers having the option to enter/not enter by hitting the "refresh" button on their browser to check the numbers before the close, you are correct: you buys your ticket and you takes your chances. My observation was that I'd never seen an 85 % elimination after the first/second series.....and I haven't.....nor am I suggesting that anyone is to "blame."

Clarification regards, 

kg


----------



## jeff t. (Jul 24, 2003)

K G said:


> Jeff, what Marv is talking about is a club having the option to change their start date for a stake based on the entry AFTER the entries have been closed.


That is what I thought he meant. And I thought it had been done before by the two club's I mentioned.



Jeff


----------



## Emily Faith (Feb 5, 2003)

I agree with Marv and with Keith. While I do think it is possible to judge an 80 plus Am without an elimination test, it isn't easy and when daylight is limited due to the time of year, it is extremely difficult. Having the club change the start date to Friday, after they see what the number of contestants will be, is the only fair thing to do--not just for the participants, but the judges, as well. 

As a matter of fact, my husband and I have decided that we will not run the fall Mississippi Valley trial again unless they have a Friday start for their Am or he will only run the Open. They always have at least 80 entires and it always starts on Saturday, with typically (at least lately) horrible elimination tests. I do not fault the judges for this. Almost invariably there will be fog on Saturday or Sunday morning on those grounds and the judges are already between a rock and a hard place trying to get the stake completed in 2 days. Throw in a little bad weather and you are really in a pickle! If they had an extra day to do the job, it would take the stress off.

I know the arguments against it, chief of which is not being able to get help there on Friday. If that is the primary concern, then I would be willing to throw some birds of Friday, myself, if need be. I'll bet there are plenty, if not most, other folks who would do the same. If I were judging the stake, I would rather get there a day earlier than planned in order to have the extra day to judge. In fact, if I accept an assignment to judge an Am in late October, i will only do it in the future if the club plans on starting on Friday or intends to change the start date if they have a large entry.


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Jeff, I don't think that they have the option to change the starting date for ANY stake the way the rules are written _right now_.

_Right now_, they have to declare a starting date and stick with it, per the current rules relative to the closing date/starting date.

_I could be wrong_.....but that's the way I understand the rules that are in effect _right now_.

Qualified statements regards,

kg


----------



## jeff t. (Jul 24, 2003)

Found this thread re the Lake Champlain trial and AKC permission to start early.

http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/viewtopic.php?p=359030


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Cool.

It _still_ isn't a club option per the rules _without special permission_, right now. What Marv mentioned was with regard to a suggested rule change where clubs wouldn't have to _get_ "special permission."

Over-clarified regards,

kg


----------



## jeff t. (Jul 24, 2003)

K G said:


> Cool.
> 
> It _still_ isn't a club option per the rules _without special permission_, right now. What Marv mentioned was with regard to a suggested rule change where clubs wouldn't have to _get_ "special permission."
> 
> ...


Here's the thread regarding the Women's trial back in '03 that moved the starting date for a 90 dog Amateur

http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=4266


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

With *special permission*............... 8) ..............................

The horse is dead regards,

kg


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

How about some results????


----------



## Peake (Jan 3, 2003)

Wow, great time to start reading field trial results, huh? What was the nam 'er breed that won the Qual again?? :wink:
________
Chevrolet monte carlo


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

Peake said:


> Wow, great time to start reading field trial results, huh? What was the nam 'er breed that won the Qual again?? :wink:


I'm not sure but I think this may be a dog whos basics were done by the guy that got me into the whole dog game thing.(I had a chessie, he had chessies that could do blinds, I wanted a chessie that could do blinds too  )


----------



## Paul Rainbolt (Sep 8, 2003)

The Chessie is owned by Bill Dodd and i think the guy who did the basics is Tom something. Giving credit were its due, Mark Edwards has really done a great job with him. 

A BIG Congratulations to Chris and Martha McCool and their young dog Boomer for winning the Open, I'm only surprised he hadnt won it sooner.


----------



## DKR (May 9, 2003)

K G said:


> With *special permission*............... 8) ..............................
> 
> The horse is dead regards,
> 
> kg



Is it difficult to get "special permission"?


Curious regards,


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

Tulsa Slim said:


> The Chessie is owned by Bill Dodd and i think the guy who did the basics is Tom something. Giving credit were its due, Mark Edwards has really done a great job with him.


Yeah, Tom is who I am talking about. Mark got him this spring and I know he has done a great job with him, I'm just excited for Tom. :wink:


----------



## W Knight (Sep 2, 2003)

Keith wrote:

*



:shock: :shock: :shock: !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Click to expand...

**I agree !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*

*White Knight*


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

> Is it difficult to get "special permission"?


Apparently not, with the proper presentation and justification.

The argument is about to be rendered moot with the rule change that takes effect on 1/1/07.

Boy am I glad regards,

kg


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

K G said:


> > Is it difficult to get "special permission"?
> 
> 
> Apparently not, with the proper presentation and justification.
> ...


Sooooo... you put in the premium that your start date will change if the AM exceeds 70 dogs. You close with 84 dogs and change the start date. 30 dogs scratch and your now starting a 54 dog Amateur on Friday.

You may even have more scratches than that before the close, then a few will be trying to re-enter in the 11th hour as the numbers drop. I don't like that from a handler/club/or EE standpoint.

I'm not sure i'll be using this with Metro.

SM


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

> I don't like that from a handler/club/or EE standpoint.


I think the primary concern was for *clubs* to have the *option*.

Everything else was secondary......as well it should be.



> I'm not sure i'll be using this with Metro.


You probably won't have to.

kg


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

K G said:


> > I don't like that from a handler/club/or EE standpoint.
> 
> 
> I think the primary concern was for *clubs* to have the *option*.


I agree 100%... and as a club, i would feel foolish holding a 54 dog Amateur on Friday. Some clubs may not have a problem with that, which is fine, so i guess having it as an _OPTION_ is a good thing.

The downside to having it as an option is that Club 1 puts it in the premium and Club 2, 200 miles away, does not. Club 2 is going to have a 90 dog Amateur and Club 1 a 40 dog Amateur. Which is contradictory to the premise of conflicting trials.

Now... None of the above is actually true. Handlers will start playing musical dogs at 11:30pm the night before the close to balance things out - including the Pro trucks. Which will probably result in an EE policy change that keeps us from removing scratches until the event closes, but it won't be hard to figure out who scratched because they will now be entered in two trials. This is Step 1 of no longer being able to see the entries before you enter. Evolution is circular.

SM


----------



## jeff t. (Jul 24, 2003)

[quote="Shayne Mehringer... and as a club, i would feel foolish holding a 54 dog Amateur on Friday. [/quote]

Do you prefer an 80+ Am starting on Saturday in short daylight?


On a related note, in months without daylight savings time, some clubs are starting the Am on Friday because they are concerned that the entry might be too large to reasonably complete in two days of short daylight.

If the entry turns out to be small, those clubs may have unneccesarily shut out amateur handlers that are unable to compete because their employer expects them to work on Friday.


----------



## Gerard Rozas (Jan 7, 2003)

Shayne wrote:



> Handlers will start playing musical dogs at 11:30pm the night before the close to balance things out - including the Pro trucks. Which will probably result in an EE policy change that keeps us from removing scratches until the event closes, but it won't be hard to figure out who scratched because they will now be entered in two trials. This is Step 1 of no longer being able to see the entries before you enter. Evolution is circular.


And I was bashed when I proposed that entries be viewable by only the event secretary until after the close a couple of weeks ago.


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

Gerard Rozas said:


> And I was bashed when I proposed that entries be viewable by only the event secretary until after the close a couple of weeks ago.


I agree and it is the only EE.net policy that I know of that prevents some clubs from signing on with them. Entries should be kept private until they close.

Other than that I think it a great service!


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Just asking........ 8) ..................................................

Why do folks think it's wrong to know who's entering an event before it closes?

If that information weren't known, would it be okay to know how many entries were in each stake?

kg


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

K G said:


> Just asking........ 8) ..................................................
> 
> Why do folks think it's wrong to know who's entering an event before it closes?
> 
> ...


No problem with knowing the number of dogs entered. As far as who and which dogs are entered, call me old-fashioned. If one is satisfied with the judges, put your money up and run. But, don't dodge a trail because so and so in entered, Pro or Am.


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

I just can't imagine a club not using this service simply because of the information that can be seen prior to the draw.

As for the "pony up and run" theory, I agree....but we're in the 21st Century now. Information is flying like it's never flown before and it'll get faster before it gets slower. Add that to people always looking for an "edge," either real or imagined, and you've got "11th Hour Entry Shopping."

kg


----------



## Mark Sehon (Feb 10, 2003)

Whats wrong with knowing who is entered?????? :?:


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

> Why do folks think it's wrong to know who's entering an event before it closes?


My feelings _exactly_, Mark.

kg


----------



## jeff t. (Jul 24, 2003)

Mark Sehon said:


> Whats wrong with knowing who is entered?????? :?:


Seems like a stretch, but I heard one person's concern that a burglar could use the info to determine that an owner/handler was out of town..leaving the house unoccupied.

I suppose it is possible, but seems unlikely.


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

Mr Booty said:


> K G said:
> 
> 
> > Just asking........ 8) ..................................................
> ...


The number of dogs entered is 90% of what causes "musical dogs". The actual names listed is just _COOL_. IF we were to ever change that, the number is what we would be hiding.

However, it's gonna take something drastic and a major battle for me to ever change that.

Perhaps a new thread should be started on the subject, or maybe even a poll... but all the feedback i've picked up over the last few years tells me that a vast vast majority prefer seeing the entries. Clubs and handlers.

SM


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

jeff t. said:


> Mark Sehon said:
> 
> 
> > Whats wrong with knowing who is entered?????? :?:
> ...


Stretch???? That *might *be a bit of an understatement.

If any burglar's are reading this... i will be at the National all next week... take everything but the fat Beagle, the fat choco dawg, and my collection of Scott Baio posters. Thanks.

SM


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

EE makes entry information available to everyone and thereby benefits the little guy.

In the old days, if you knew the FT Secretary, you knew who was coming and how many people were coming. Otherwise, you were out in the cold.

In the old days, if you were on a pro truck, your pro would talk to other pros, and you would know what pros were going where. Otherwise, you were out in the cold.

In short, if you weren't part of the "in" crowd, you were out of luck.

EE gives everyone the same access to information.

I would hate to see EE hide numbers and identities from the public.


----------



## Andy Carlson (Jan 3, 2003)

I also like knowing for sure that if I mailed my entries, that they did not get lost between here and there. 

Andy


----------



## DKR (May 9, 2003)

What percentage of the people running the AM are already or could be there to run Friday? Qual dog, home club, retired, able to get off ...

Doesn't the Open usually run into Saturday with large numbers?

Those that cannot be there Friday could run Saturday early.

Might help the eliminate the elimination round.


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

Can anyone post the new rule concerning Friday starts? Or provide a link.

Thanks,

FOM


----------



## W Knight (Sep 2, 2003)

I have not talked to all 72 of the persons dropped after the land blind + double. But the ones I have are still in disbelief.

I feel as judges we should visit the way we do call backs.

If you start with 84 dogs 

How long will it take to run each dog on the land marks. _______

How long will it take to run each dog on the land blind ________

How long will it take to run each dog on the water blind ________

How long will it take to run each dog on the water marks ________

If you start at 8:00am and you have to stop at 5:00pm you have 9 hours per day / 18 hours to complete the trial. That's 1080 minuets to run dogs.

Using these numbers we have to determine how many dogs we can bring back to the next series. We will have to JUDGE to complete the trial in the allotted time while determining which dogs are the best to continue to the next series.

Just some thoughts so we end the weekend with the best marking dogs *and not the ones with the most luck.*

*White Knight*


----------



## Bayou Magic (Feb 7, 2004)

How are people notified if the start changes from Saturday to Friday?

How close to Saturday (original start date) can the start be changed to Friday, X days after entries close?

fp


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

W Knight said:


> I have not talked to all 72 of the persons dropped after the land blind + double. But the ones I have are still in disbelief.
> 
> I feel as judges we should visit the way we do call backs.
> 
> ...


This time of year you can start at 7am and get an extra hour of daylight.

I bet of the disgruntled folks you talked to, they are happier for not being able to do the test than had they gotten dropped for hunts of varying size just to cut numbers.

The test wasn't unreasonable, the dogs just couldn't find the pheasants. I saw the test the day before and i've trained out there with pheasants a million times and i didn't think it would be near as tough as it was. So don't hate on the judges. If your going to err, err to the side of being to tough, those dogs handle. And if i remember correctly only one handler make a quit smart handle and his dog finished the trial (yay! young Thump puppy).

The judges gave it 100% effort to be fair and felt the pain of every handler as the dogs struggled to find the birds. Saturday morning during set up some handlers were grumbling in the gallery and Larry Morgan jokingly turned to them and said "i'll trade places with any one of you right now". He was kidding of course, but there's some truth to that. I'm good for '07, but if you can do better, call me and i'll put you down for Fall '08.  

Thanks to everyone that judges. Without that thankless, unappreciated, committment... the rest of us wouldn't have anything to bitch about. :lol: 

On a positive note. The Rita machine was crankin, the food was great, and the party was a hit. Trial went smooth and another Metro trial is in the books. Oh, the little Boogie puppy and I made it to the last series in the friggin Derby NATIONAL. I'll be glad when Baumer's dog turns 2.

SM


----------



## W Knight (Sep 2, 2003)

SM Wrote:



> I bet of the disgruntled folks you talked to, they are happier for not being able to do the test than *had they gotten dropped for hunts of varying size just to cut numbers. *


SM - I?m sure the trial went well and the Judges did the best job they could.

Having said that it my OPINION that we as competitors have to be prepared for judges in large trials to *JUDGE THE MARKS*. Some where along the line we have determined that if a dog gets the chickens we should be back for the next series. If you put out a marking test and you need to come back with 40 dogs then the 40 best marking dogs return and the rest go home. Not 74. 

I have felt this way ever since the Large Trial thing started. I may be wrong but *I think it is time we discussed it.* How many times do we face large numbers and the judges PANIC and throw a chicken sh** test because they feel they have to fail dogs. I?m sure that the judges at metro did not know how deadly goat weed is to the dogs ability to smell. Nor did they know how doubly difficult it would be with pheasants. But the fact that they threw a double indicated the felt some pressure.

There are judges on this forum that are much more able than I to comment and I would like to get there thoughts on the above.

Conservative Regards the day after the election
*White Knight*


----------



## Pete Marcellus (Oct 2, 2003)

> we as competitors have to be prepared for judges in large trials to JUDGE THE MARKS.


In my humble opinion, the marks should always be judged. There is a big difference between a dog that begins a hunt in the fall area and has to be handled back to the bird vs the dog that begins its hunt well out of the area and eventually stumbles on the bird or has to be handled



> Some where along the line we have determined that if a dog gets the chickens we should be back for the next series


I've never heard of this, nor have I ever seen it happen in an AA stake



> If you put out a marking test and you need to come back with 40 dogs then the 40 best marking dogs return and the rest go home. Not 74


What if 74 dogs don't do the test, do you bring back the ones that did the best job of not doing the test, just to reach a predetermined number of call backs?



> I?m sure that the judges at metro did not know how deadly goat weed is to the dogs ability to smell.


There was no goat weed in that field, there was a small amount of ragweed, a large amount of Bermuda and what looked like Sudan Grass to me



> Nor did they know how doubly difficult it would be with pheasants


We knew that pheasants would be difficult, but not that difficult. There were dogs that circled around them 3 feet away but did not wind the bird. However, there were a some that winded them from 30 feet away.



> But the fact that they threw a double indicated the felt some pressure.


Some pressure to get the test done faster because of the large numbers of entries, limited daylight and 2 days to get it done, therefore the double with a blind which we thought would save time and get answers. The large numbers of long protracted hunts was not anticipated.

With all that said, the test that was set up was not a great test. The high cover made it very difficult to see. In 20/20 hindsight there are things that could have been done differently. It was very stressful for me to watch dog after dog pick up and not have the time to scrap the test and start over.

We learn, we move on and become the better for it.

Pete


----------



## W Knight (Sep 2, 2003)

> With all that said, the test that was set up was not a great test. The high cover made it very difficult to see. In 20/20 hindsight there are things that could have been done differently. *It was very stressful for me to watch dog after dog pick up and not have the time to scrap the test and start over. *





> What if 74 dogs don't do the test, do you bring back the ones that did the best job of not doing the test, just to reach a predetermined number of call backs?


You are bound by a time limit and if you can bring back thirty then bring back the 30 *BEST*. 

Also I wish we were not talking about a actual trial. I did not attend the metro trial and make no criticism of the judges at that trial. It happens all the time. My feelings are that we do not need any fancy new rules or start Amateurs on Friday or limit entries. I think that we should be able to call back the number of dogs that get us off the trial grounds by dark Sunday. Many other sports have a cut off, why not ours. Maybe the premium should state that the trial will be judged this way.

Let me add that I have never used this method when judging but for the last couple of years I have wanted to.

*White Knight*


----------



## Ken Guthrie (Oct 1, 2003)

As this debate goes on and on and on and on and on..................

In my opinion, you can't learn something unless you do it.........

What if....................

Each region or trial circut selected the top 25 judges by opinion poll. This number could vary if needed. While entries are sent in, so would a vote on top judges.

Then, when one of those persons accept a judging assignment, a "rookie" is manditory when adding a judge along with the experienced judge.

Would this be a benefit to getting "new" judges experienced with knowledgable judges?

Often clubs select judges that are known "accomplished" judges. With luck, they are able to get two for each stake.

But if a rookie is added with the knowledgeable ones, maybe it would bring a better understanding and a better field of judges.

Some may say as a whole this already happens. Maybe, maybe not. I think the kicker is some clubs may select who they may think as the "experienced" one without agreement with public opinion.

Defining "rookie" would have to established as well.


----------

