# To whom it may concern..............



## Ken Guthrie (Oct 1, 2003)

Wow................I don't really know if I should say anything. At this point I'm completely worn out. I've been been on the phone since I left Hot Springs and I don't think I made but 2 phone calls myself.......1 - to my wife and son, 2 - to Ed Aycock.

I guess I will start with something positive to change the mood of the latest events. As you know, Dozer and I accepted an "internet" challenge to compete an SRS event. I could go into details on how I got into this mess in the first place but I'd rather skip that part.

Anyhow, I met a lot of folks that seemed like good people this week. First and foremost, I want to thank Mr. Jerry Day for extending his friendship and experience with a newcomer. It was strange how Jerry and I hooked up but I will say I believe I have a new friend for life. Jerry, it's amazing how I feel like I've known you all my life but we've only spent a couple of days hangin' out. Thanks again, I appreciate it sincerely.

The participants were great. Although I'm sure they were gun shy to approach the a-hole they see posting on the internet, most all were very helpful and polite. I will say it was very strange attending an event in which I knew not one single sole. :shock: 

Stacey West, Keith Allison, Tellus Calhoun, Justin Etter, and many more seemed like class acts with plenty of dog knowledge. If I had to give a "best handler award" I'd say Tellus Calhoun impressed me the most. Very similar style to our FT standards and his dogs impressed as well.

Some folks may take this the wrong way but I'll try anyway, I was actually surprised on the performance of the dogs as a whole. Of coarse there were a few things I expected to see happen....happen, but there were some very nice dogs. There was a Pudgie Mac son named Big Mac Super Size that I'd love to have. Unbelievable style, plenty of go, very impressive.

Last but not least, I want to say there was plenty of hard work going on to put this event on. From birdboys to Trey Johnson with his grouds, and to all three judges for giving up their week. 

Now I guess for the stuff you've all been waiting for. I will purposesly leave some opinions out of this post as I believe it will do no good at this point. I could come on here and say some things I want to but right now I don't believe that's the best idea. 

Damn I'm getting soft. :? 

In regards to the rule violation and what not.

The test consisted of marks thrown from a retired position in a hay field. There were no visible gunners from the line.

As a judge explained, and many others (who I wasn't able to understand their responsibilities in regards to the test) ............

You were to sit your dog at a remote position, move to a designated sitting area as handler, and 3 seconds would signal for birds to start.

The special instructions might have you, were explained as............

1. Your dog had only three opportunities to stay in the "box". After the third your dog would be DQed.

2. You were to sit while sending your dog for the first bird. Standing would result in a "heavy" penalty. The point amount was not specified.

Unless some contestant may add, I don't recall any other special instruction offered.

There was nothing as to what would happen if your dog "no-goed" or cast confussion while being sent from remote position. 

It was only known that there would be a 10 point deduction on the second day of the test. A handler was explained to that her score was high due to a 10 point deduction for not retrieving on every verbal command. Later, a judge was seen explaining this to the gallery.

So, now it's time for Dozer's and my line experience.

I decided the best way for Dozer to understand what was fixin' to happen was to somehow point the areas of gun stations. Again, there wasn't anything to see other than Hay bails. So I sat him in the box, and stepped forward to key him on the long area. Sort of like lining for a blind. With a few key words, I moved to the 1st bird thrown, then back to the long bird. I did not show the left or short bird not thinking these marks would be a factor. I often do this in an FT setup. I will key on the short retired, then to the long and never show the flyer.......knowing certainly that station will clearly be seen.

I did like at a normal FT......10-15 seconds I'd say, then went to the sitting position. Guns went off.

Dozer looked out nice and saw all birds to my knowledge. I quickly called his name and he looked at me of coarse. I knew this would happen. Then I sent him gently for the short bird with a cast along with a verbal. He picked up the very short bird as he saw it from the line I believe. In field trial standards we would consider it a "pin", but as witnessed this is not the case for SRS. Stacey West explained there is generally never a perfect score on a mark which would be 0. If you run the line and the dog sees the bird 3 ft. to the left and makes that little curl..........2 points. :wink: So I know this part now.

Before I go any further, those that know me will tell you I don't BS about performance. If Dozer $hit$ the bed, I'll tell it like it is. These descriptions are not through rose colored glasses.

We go for the longer right hand bird second in which I had 2 whistles, one to stop him as he passed the bird slightly to the left (gestimate.....5 yards). Tweet, tweet. Whistle again as he came too far, cast......bingo. I'd say from the time I hit the first whistle he was no further than 5 yards from the bird. I did not allow any hunt pattern as I immediately put him on the bird. Line was fine.

Sent for left hand bird third. Line was slightly to the left (3 yards?). Dozer saw the mark on retrieve and went directly to bird.

Long bird last.................

There were 2 hay bails that portrayed a "slot" for the line to the mark. Unfortunately, some marks fell to the left of the left hay bail, but for the most part the mark was between them. Our mark fell dead center which was a rather shorter throw. I could see the bird from line. Dozer's line was gonna put him slightly to the left of the left bail. (5-10 yards) I hit the whistle and gave a right hand back.............Dozer turned and immediately saw the bird and went to it. It was a white/black ATB. Again, I saw the bird from line.

Test complete.........

Immediately, JT and his friend.............
(for the life of me I can't remember his name and I can't find it in the program. Basically served as what we would call the marshall)

..........came to line and said................

JT - "Why did you do that?"

Me - "What?"

JT - " You can't point out the birds. The judges nailed you big time for that."

Me - "Is it in the rules?"

JT and friend - "Yes"

At this point, I'm thinking dumb a$$ me...........how could I miss this.

So I get my catalog I recieved at the meeting, can't find no rule. I ask JT if he could show it to me, he mentioned it was on the online rules and regs.

Having my laptop with me, I looked online.............same rules.

Again, asked JT if he could find it with me.

Through all this, JT and I were cool. He remained calm as so did I. It was now that JT realized a set of rules had been left off the website. He made a few phone calls :shock: and expressed his instructions. :wink: 

So JT decided to have a meeting with the judges and scorekeeper.

This would happen...............AFTER............competition was completed. :wink: 

Scores were given to teams before they left the line each time.

When JT came back, he brought the score sheet and explained the judges deducted 20 points for showing the gun area's. 

Our score was a 52 in second round, 4 in first round.........Total 56. 

JT said taking away the 20 points would put us on the bubble with a 36.

Later, the cut off was announced at 35. :wink: 

That's how it goes God rest my sole.

I'm not accusing anyone of cheating. I will not say if I feel this was fair or not. 

But I will ask this................

As I have the "original" judges sheet.............

It shows for the deductions as follows.........................and please see questions at bottom..............










1. The checks on the first 4 lines show the 5 points per "mark showing" deduction (total of 20). You will see the times between the first and last. 66 seconds for the first infraction until Dozer "no-goed"? Wow......I've never sat a dog and showed marks for 60 seconds. :shock: 

2. So was it a 10 point deduction for the no-go or 5? Cause clearly the next deduction after the 20 for showing guns shows 5. Maybe I got lucky and only got 5. :wink: 

3. I had a total of 3 whistles and a come in whistle. What are the 2 point deductions for according to the rule book again?

Anyhow.............you folks draw your own conclusions.

I will say this.........I'm content. I'm home. Been there done that. I'm not angry. I did this to prove a point and I did so.

After it was over, a contestant said....."I don't care what your score was, you ran a damn fine animal." That made my weekend.

And that my friends is why I do this...........

Because it's all about the dogs. :wink: 

P.S. Sorry for the length.


----------



## Trevor Toberny (Sep 11, 2004)

very good post.I think you were very professional in your statements and well said and we can all form our own opinion by what you wrote.I STILL THINK YOU GOT SHAFTED.


----------



## Keith Allison (Dec 29, 2003)

Ken,

You and Dozer did a great job and we really enjoyed meeting you and watching such a great dog and handler work together. 

Thanks for the compliments on Mac as well. He's fun to run.

Hope to see you again sometime down the road.

Keith


----------



## Bill Watson (Jul 13, 2005)

Ken, Thank you for the explanation. I'm sorry it turned out this way. Dozer is one dam fine dog. I've known Jerry Day for over twenty years and you are right, he will be a friend for life. He and Jean are the real McCoy. May you and Dozer have a very comfortable future. Bill


----------



## wesley hamm (Feb 20, 2004)

was judge 1 asleep during the whole thing or something? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: 

weird how that judge didn't fault you at all for the last two faults or for pointing out guns, but the other two did?

what was the last thing you did to get a fault of 5? 

if that was for handling to the area wouldn't there be another 2 for the cast? and i can only imagine if you handled to an area that all the judges would have been hitting buttons.

up to that point I could follow your run in my head pretty well because the faults were matching up with your description but the last two faults make no sense to me.....

very confusing sheet if you ask me and now that I've seen it I am extremely curious....although it has nothing to do with me personally so I'm not asking for answers but just giving an opinion which is worth what you paid for it! 

I'm glad you went and ran with Dozer, sounds like he performed very well but just ran into a weird situation in the end.

wesley


----------



## Josh Conrad (Jul 3, 2005)

Damn shame your out, was pulling for you and the Doze.

OH, and GOOD LUCK Keith, pulling for War Eagle.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Ken Guthrie said:


> Stacey West, Keith Allison, Tellus Calhoun, Justin Etter, and many more seemed like class acts with plenty of dog knowledge. If I had to give a "best handler award" I'd say Tellus Calhoun impressed me the most. Very similar style to our FT standards and his dogs impressed as well.


Ken, we might hammer each other for fun on absolutely trivial matters, but one thing I will certainly agree with you on is old man Tellus. I do hope that as you move on that you look back on the experience favorably.

/Paul


----------



## A_Fever (Feb 24, 2007)

Ken,

Thanks for the post. I don’t know you and have never been to an SRS event but I have enjoyed rooting for you. Obviously you enjoy talking some trash but it seems to me when it came down to it you were very fair in relating your experience. It also seems like JT and others at SRS truly care about their game and make every effort to put forth a fair competition. 

There are a lot of good trainers but there are only a few good dogs, sounds like you have one of them. If you enjoyed yourself I hope you take Dozer and run again.

Fever


----------



## Tall Gunner (Apr 17, 2007)

Made for TV.......don't forget that. Gut will be back. The competetive nature will make him return for more. 

Good try Ken.....I gave ya some crap, but I'll shut up now. In my eyes, you walked the walk. :!:


----------



## David Wood (Mar 10, 2005)

Tall Gunner said:


> Made for TV.......don't forget that. Gut will be back. The competetive nature will make him return for more.


No TV at the HS qual, but I guess I get your point. Good show Ken, regardless of the outcome.


----------



## Ken Guthrie (Oct 1, 2003)

There are many that have asked or PMed wanting to know if I plan to attend another SRS event.

I think at this point Dozer and I will simply concentrate on field trials until his career ends.


----------



## Ducks and Dogs (May 12, 2003)

In following your description and TRYING to match with judges sheet I arrive 12 points short.


Can't account for the 5 @ 11:48:54
Can't account for the 5 @ 11:49:56
Can't account for the 2 @ 11:49:58


can someone with a better understanding splain those.


----------



## Chris Miller (Dec 16, 2005)

Ducks and Dogs said:


> In following your description and TRYING to match with judges sheet I arrive 12 points short.
> 
> 
> Can't account for the 5 @ 11:48:54
> ...


Going off the sheet and adding 1st day still adds up to 35


----------



## Trevor Toberny (Sep 11, 2004)

if you add up the total of each judge and you subtract the 20 points only one of them had him over 35 points.


----------



## Jeff Huntington (Feb 11, 2007)

Maverick said:


> Ducks and Dogs said:
> 
> 
> > In following your description and TRYING to match with judges sheet I arrive 12 points short.
> ...


Adding up the penalty column from above, I get 52 +4 -20= 36 unless I'm wrong?


----------



## Ducks and Dogs (May 12, 2003)

fowl hunter said:


> if you add up the total of each judge and you subtract the 20 points only one of them had him over 35 points.


Judge 1 - 23
Judge 2 - 37
Judge 3 - 32


----------



## Tall Gunner (Apr 17, 2007)

Ken Guthrie said:


> There are many that have asked or PMed wanting to know if I plan to attend another SRS event.
> 
> I think at this point Dozer and I will simply concentrate on field trials until his career ends.


For some reason I don't believe that. But, do what's best for you and that fine animal!! 

I'll explain the competitive nature comment when we meet.


----------



## Ducks and Dogs (May 12, 2003)

bayou beagle said:


> Maverick said:
> 
> 
> > Ducks and Dogs said:
> ...



Allow me to clarify. . .

I can easily add up and account as you demostrated.


My point/question was that following Ken's description I can't figure out why the above mentioned faults were given.

Trying to figure out this crazy little thing called SRS regards.


----------



## MRGD (Apr 9, 2007)

Is that score sheet just regular notebook paper? I guess I expected a form of some sort.


----------



## Chris Miller (Dec 16, 2005)

bayou beagle said:


> Maverick said:
> 
> 
> > Ducks and Dogs said:
> ...


Duhh I add the the 4th column as a 4th judge..... Sorry


----------



## Aussie (Jan 4, 2003)

Ken Guthrie said:


> The test consisted of marks thrown from a retired position in a hay field. There were no visible gunners from the line.


There were no attention seekers like in your AKC hunt tests?

I have often thought about pointing our hidden silent gunners also. :lol:


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

This " I'm/We're OK, their/he's OK stuff is BS "

Either your/he's a whining ( fill in the blank) :lol: or you/he got screwed. Now which is it :?:

Either side may answer :wink: 

john


----------



## Goldenboy (Jun 16, 2004)

Ken,

Taking the high road is admirable. Glad you had an interesting experience and met some good people.


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

After the conversations i had with Ken on his way home and another person there regarding fairness and subjective scoring in an objective scoring venue.... i'm gonna wager that Ken had Becky write this post. :lol: I will say that Ken was not at all mad, i just expected a different "tone" to his post. haha

Way to take the high road bud. The bottom line, the penalties are as designated in the rulebook, unless the judges want to increase them, as long as they increase them for everyone.

The only question i have on your score sheet, from my limited SRS experience, is that i believe the judges have to give a penalty with their little jeopardy button clicker thingy within a certain timeframe of each other or it doesn't count. So dinging you in sync long after the infraction (showing the birds) is odd.

SM


----------



## Mike Noel (Sep 26, 2003)

[/quote]I will say that Ken was not at all mad, i just expected a different "tone" to his post. haha


> I think that the last time Ken had Dozer in Aycoock's office he wrote Ken a script for Paxil........its working :lol:


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

wesley hamm said:


> was judge 1 asleep during the whole thing or something? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
> 
> weird how that judge didn't fault you at all for the last two faults or for pointing out guns, but the other two did?
> 
> wesley



Speculating here, is it possible that judge 1 was new to this, and was scoring based upon the rules as Ken understood them, while the other judges were scoring according to the missing rules?

Just curious regards,
Dave


----------



## spaightlabs (Jul 15, 2005)

Great explanation Ken, tough scoring for sure, but you and Dozer got no reason to not hold your heads high!


----------



## Paul Yates (Mar 3, 2005)

spaightlabs said:


> Great explanation Ken, tough scoring for sure, but you and Dozer got no reason to not hold your heads high!


^
I think you meant to say he should hold his head high or that he has no reason to hang his head low.


----------



## Aaron Homburg (Sep 23, 2005)

*ken*

*To quote Buford T. Justice, "I am confused as a baby raccoon!" There seems to be some scoring misunderstandings in this game???? Ken your a big man to take the high road, I just have to wonder........there were what 108 others that did not make the semi's???? Was their scoring correct????

Inquiring Minds regards,


Aaron*


----------



## Tom Watson (Nov 29, 2005)

*to whom it may concern*

*It is very mysterious, isn't it Aaron?*

Play whichever game floats your boat.

Mysterious regards,

Tom


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

When was the last time anyone at a FT was able to go up to a judge and ask to see the math that dropped his dog from competition? I don't think FT's should get all high and mighty regarding this, this is a lot more "mystery" surrounding how some dogs don't place or jam...

/Paul


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

Or, where you stood from series to series......the point is whenever there are humans judging, the judgement will be subjective, regardless of how objective the scoring format is.


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> When was the last time anyone at a FT was able to go up to a judge and ask to see the math that dropped his dog from competition? I don't think FT's should get all high and mighty regarding this, this is a lot more "mystery" surrounding how some dogs don't place or jam...
> 
> /Paul


I was about to say, when was the last time judge's made up rules on the fly at field trials... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I think the point of the mystery comments are that FTs are subjective, the basis of SRS scoring is to be completely objective and eliminate mystery.

Damn, i'm still laughing about that first part.

SM


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

Shayne Mehringer said:


> I was about to say, when was the last time judge's made up rules on the fly at field trials... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
> 
> Damn, i'm still laughing about that first part.
> 
> SM


Don't think it doesn't happen. Here's one for ya: Dog front foots the four marks in an Open quad with two retired. Doesn't get called back. Judge is asked why. Judge says, "dog took the same initial line to two of the marks"!!!


----------



## DH (Oct 3, 2006)

Ken, I think you guys did a hell of a job. You certainly proved that you are up to the challenge of running SRS. Had you made the cut I think you would have been a force to be reckoned with.

One question I have is that it seems that there is a huge difference between the scores of the first judge and the second two. Is that typical in SRS? Do all handlers get their score sheet? If so was the first judge being more lenient with all of the handlers or were the other two just hard on Dozer?

Just seems that the rules of SRS are set up to minimize the differences between the judges because each fault has a value and the faults are supposedly well defined. 

I've only seen SRS on TV and this score sheet is a lot more confusing than the running fault tally they show in the corner on TV. On TV they make it look like a kid could judge the event--blow a whistle get two points, miss the cover get 2 points etc.

I enjoy watching it on TV because it is the only dog event to watch on TV, but hearing all this makes me wonder how much is being edited out. Maybe if they showed less dock jumping (not my cup of tea) they could explain this stuff better.

Congrats guys.

DH


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

DH said:


> One question I have is that it seems that there is a huge difference between the scores of the first judge and the second two.


This is the reason that in big $$$$$$ cutting horse events there are 5 judges and they throw out the high score and the low score, this might be a good policy for the SRS to adopt :idea:


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

EdA said:


> DH said:
> 
> 
> > One question I have is that it seems that there is a huge difference between the scores of the first judge and the second two.
> ...


I think they should get rid of the Russian judge as well....triple sow cow my @$$, make up your mind, pork or beef....

/Paul


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Shayne Mehringer said:


> Gun_Dog2002 said:
> 
> 
> > When was the last time anyone at a FT was able to go up to a judge and ask to see the math that dropped his dog from competition? I don't think FT's should get all high and mighty regarding this, this is a lot more "mystery" surrounding how some dogs don't place or jam...
> ...


Egg.......Zactly...

/Paul


----------



## DH (Oct 3, 2006)

> This is the reason that in big $$$$$$ cutting horse events there are 5 judges and they throw out the high score and the low score, this might be a good policy for the SRS to adopt


They do that in a lot of sports, seems like a good policy to me.

I'm new to this sport but how do you FT judges handle it if there is a major difference of opinion on a dog's performance, and how often does that come up?

DH


----------



## MIDTNGRNHEAD (Jun 17, 2004)

I ran the event and was standing there watching when Ken ran. The group had his score at 30-35 without the extra 20 for pointing out the gun stations. Those 20 were dropped for good reason so that argument is irrelevant. If Dozer did not no-go Ken and receive the 10 pt penalty, then all of this discussion would not be taking place. They would be in the semi's and everyone would be happy. In any event, it was still a great run by a solid handler/dog team.


----------



## Ken Guthrie (Oct 1, 2003)

God I'm pulling my hair out right now.

This is so hard and against my personality. :x :x


----------



## Ken Guthrie (Oct 1, 2003)

MIDTNGRNHEAD said:


> If Dozer did not no-go Ken and receive the 10 pt penalty, then all of this discussion would not be taking place.


This is incorrect information........please refer to score sheet.


----------



## DH (Oct 3, 2006)

> If Dozer did not no-go Ken and receive the 10 pt penalty


Where on the score sheet is the 10 point penalty? I see some 5s but no 10. Was it added later?

As I said before I'm not anti-SRS, I like the fact there is a dog game on TV. I'm just trying to figure out how this thing works.

DH


----------



## MIDTNGRNHEAD (Jun 17, 2004)

The 5th line down is probably the no-go penalty and was only a 5. The no-go penalty referred to earlier in the thread may have been a 10 because her dog did not leave the box until the third command. I feel your pain. I was 13th in my first SRS event lasy year.


----------



## HarryWilliams (Jan 17, 2005)

Do the SRS Judges get paid the same as Hunt Test and Field Trial Judges do? My opinion is that "Judges" should not come under this kind of questioning, nor be subjected to the implied accusations that are flying around. That could be construed as abuse in some circles. How about the respect that they deserve? Put yourself in there place for a second or two.

Now if any event, it's rules or something that happens is unethical (including Judges) then step-up, prove it and be done with it. My comments are directed at the chatter not at Ken's accounts of what happened.

Ken, I have nothing but respect for you for walking into that event first hand to see what was there. 

The rest of us back seat drivers should pull over at the next rest stop. Then quit acting like it was us doing the driving. HPW


----------



## Ken Guthrie (Oct 1, 2003)

MIDTNGRNHEAD said:


> The 5th line down is probably the no-go penalty and was only a 5. The no-go penalty referred to earlier in the thread may have been a 10 because her dog did not leave the box until the third command. I feel your pain. I was 13th in my first SRS event lasy year.


That certainly doesn't agree with this quote............



Justin Tackett said:


> That's correct Tom. But, the judges can use whatever penalty they like in a certain scenario as long as it's the same for everyone. Because a large part of this scenario was to truly test a dogs ability as a hunter and work from a remote situation...the judges made it a 10 pt. deduction. This is not uncomman at all.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> JT


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

Ken Guthrie said:


> God I'm pulling my hair out right now.
> 
> This is so hard and against my personality. :x :x


----------



## spaightlabs (Jul 15, 2005)

Paul Yates said:


> spaightlabs said:
> 
> 
> > Great explanation Ken, tough scoring for sure, but you and Dozer got no reason to not hold your heads high!
> ...


Dat's what I said...I just used a double negative...

to clarify, you can both hold your heads high!


----------



## Lyle Harne (Jul 7, 2004)

Ken Guthrie said:


> MIDTNGRNHEAD said:
> 
> 
> > The 5th line down is probably the no-go penalty and was only a 5. The no-go penalty referred to earlier in the thread may have been a 10 because her dog did not leave the box until the third command. I feel your pain. I was 13th in my first SRS event lasy year.
> ...


The judges decided to give Ken a 1/2 a no go :roll:


----------



## DH (Oct 3, 2006)

Just for the record, I'm not backseat driving or accusing the judges of anything. I'm just looking at a score sheet and trying to find the 10 point penalty when there are nothing but 5s and 2s on the sheet. 

I didn't see the dog run and don't know if the judges did a good job or not. I'm just trying to figure out where the 10 points is, and to a lesser extent figure out how SRS scoring works when the different judges have different scores. Why did the higher scores of the two judges over rule the lower score?

DH


----------



## MIDTNGRNHEAD (Jun 17, 2004)

That must have been the Texas boys discount.


----------



## FowlDogs (Dec 31, 2004)

DH said:


> > If Dozer did not no-go Ken and receive the 10 pt penalty
> 
> 
> Where on the score sheet is the 10 point penalty? I see some 5s but no 10. Was it added later?
> ...


Here's a quick explanation of the electronic scoring that happens during an SRS run.

Each of the 3 judges holds 2 electronic clickers, one in each hand. One of the clickers marks a 2 point penalty on the score sheet and the other marks a 5 point penalty. Therefore, on the scoresheet as it comes out of the system, there would never be a 10 point, 40 point and so on penalty registered to the computer from the clickers.

However, judges can determine a higher point penalty for items as they choose for a particular test. As was explained in a previous thread, this could be anything from a no-go to a dog not getting wet, to a dog dodging cover. 

It is my understanding that judges do not typically tell contestants ahead of time what obstacles get a higher point total. They may tell handlers to make sure their dog gets wet, but they don't typically say "if your dog doesn't get wet, it's a 20 point penalty". 

The reason for not explaining the extra scoring can be looked at as a benefit to SRS. Handlers are challenged to run the test as designed. If a handler knew ahead of time that not getting wet was a 20 point penalty and they had a lot of buffer room in their score at the point of that water entry, the handler may choose to not challenge the water and risk more points than 20 if their dog has issue and instead just take the 20 point deduct if they think it is enough to carry them on.

Now, going into the test, each judge must know and agree with what the objective is and what the penalty for not performing will be. This must be agreed upon all 3 judges and scored the same for all competitors.

In the scenerio of this no-go, the judges determined that a no-go would be a 10 point penalty. As I mentioned above, there is no 10-point button in the electronic system. Therefore, when the infraction occurs, a major penalty is given. After the run, the judges then assess the correct points for the penalty.

I am guessing that the sheet that Ken looked at and copied his scores from was the computer printout of what was recorded in the system. This printout would not have the correct value for the no-go penalty.

If I am wrong in this information, I apologize. This is my understanding of how it happens based on my conversations with one of the judges who has ran and judged several events and with JT too. If my information is not correct, I aplogize.

Thanks,

Roger


----------



## daviddeevee (Jan 31, 2006)

*srs*

how many were entered


----------



## jeff t. (Jul 24, 2003)

HarryWilliams said:


> Do the SRS Judges get paid the same as Hunt Test and Field Trial Judges do?


Good question


----------



## Richard Halstead (Apr 20, 2005)

Ken Guthrie said:


> God I'm pulling my hair out right now.
> 
> This is so hard and against my personality. :x :x



A bald Guthrie, forget about it regain the bravado and sign your messages as before.


----------



## brian breuer (Jul 12, 2003)

> It is my understanding that judges do not typically tell contestants ahead of time what obstacles get a higher point total. They may tell handlers to make sure their dog gets wet, but they don't typically say "if your dog doesn't get wet, it's a 20 point penalty".
> 
> The reason for not explaining the extra scoring can be looked at as a benefit to SRS. Handlers are challenged to run the test as designed. If a handler knew ahead of time that not getting wet was a 20 point penalty and they had a lot of buffer room in their score at the point of that water entry, the handler may choose to not challenge the water and risk more points than 20 if their dog has issue and instead just take the 20 point deduct if they think it is enough to carry them on.


This is not telling people the rules of the game. Why shouldn't a handler with a huge lead be able make this choice?


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Ken Guthrie said:


> God I'm pulling my hair out right now.
> 
> This is so hard and against my personality. :x :x


Ken, its all about the dogs and from your description of the work Dozer performed you should be thrilled. Think back to your first FT, how did you do?

/Paul


----------



## FowlDogs (Dec 31, 2004)

brian breuer said:


> > It is my understanding that judges do not typically tell contestants ahead of time what obstacles get a higher point total. They may tell handlers to make sure their dog gets wet, but they don't typically say "if your dog doesn't get wet, it's a 20 point penalty".
> >
> > The reason for not explaining the extra scoring can be looked at as a benefit to SRS. Handlers are challenged to run the test as designed. If a handler knew ahead of time that not getting wet was a 20 point penalty and they had a lot of buffer room in their score at the point of that water entry, the handler may choose to not challenge the water and risk more points than 20 if their dog has issue and instead just take the 20 point deduct if they think it is enough to carry them on.
> 
> ...


They are telling them the rules. They are telling the handler that the dog must get wet. The dog must get on the point. The dog must go through the cover. Etc.

What they are not telling is the points that are being assessed. The handlers are told what is expected.

Here's a scenerio. Let me see if you agree.

Your dog is not strong with long water entries. You are told that the dog must get wet on the last mark that has a 150 run before the dog sees water and if it doesn't, you get a 20 point penalty. You are in the last 1/4 of the dogs to run. The long water entry is the last mark. Pick that up and you are done.

You come to the line knowing that more scores are in the 60's and the lowest is a 45. You have a very clean run and in your mind, you think you've only assessed about 30 points and you have just the last bird remaining. Do you challenge the test as expected or do you let you dog run the edge as you are 90% sure it will do. If you know that it is only 20 points and will give you about a 50 point score, you may choose to let your dog cheat the bank. This 50 gives you a couple of casts and still be in good shape to move on. 

Now, let's say your dog picks the bird up clean but cheated the bank for the 20 point penalty. You final score is 50 and you move onto the next round. Did your dog deserve to move on? Or did you take advantage of the situation and not challenge the test as it was designed and you moved on while other dog/handler teams ran the test as it was designed and didn't make it.

Personally, I would not want to move on like this if that is how I played the game. Now, if I had not known the amount of the penalty and was unable to get my dog wet with honest effort of trying to cast them into the water, but my score was still low enough to move on, then I can live with that.

However, if I approached the test and ran it knowing I would just take the penalty because I should still be able to move on? Well, that's not the way I want to play the game and it is a dis-service to our dogs if we allow them to play that way.

Roger


----------



## FowlDogs (Dec 31, 2004)

BTW, Ken, 

Nice job on your run at SRS. Sounds like Dozer is a great dog. I hope he gets some air-time when the show airs so that I can see him run.

Roger


----------



## Richard Finch (Jul 26, 2006)

*Ken and Doz*

Sounds like your being the bigger individual here. However this is so unlike the Ken we know and love.

Where's all the spittin' and hat throwin'?????

Richard


----------



## brian breuer (Jul 12, 2003)

They know the rules for handling and the points associated with each fault. 

That's why there is so much handling on marks. They are playing the game within the rules to get the lowest score. 

Don't tell people what the 5 and 2 point penalties are then. They assign values to certain faults and try to explain what those. Either do all or none (as in field trials). Especially if it is a 20 pointer. 

As far as your situation: I would do whatever is within the rules of the game to get the dog the lowest score. It is called being a smart handler.

Just win baby - Al Davis


----------



## Lyle Harne (Jul 7, 2004)

> As I have the "original" judges sheet.............





> I am guessing that the sheet that Ken looked at and copied his scores from was the computer printout of what was recorded in the system. This printout would not have the correct value for the no-go penalty.


Then what Ken has is a copulation from the computer printout. No where on the sheet are there consecutive scores of 5 (after 1st 4 incorrect scores). If the judge was to give a 10 point deduction they would need to hit the clicker twice showing consecutive 5's.

It would seem that when JT said:


> Because a large part of this scenario was to truly test a dogs ability as a hunter and work from a remote situation...the judges made it a 10 pt. deduction. This is not uncomman at all.


....... is open to further explanation.

Ken has an unexplained 5 point deduction on line 5. The scoring is clear and has been explained: 4 consecutive 5's for pointing out the marks and then a 5 for a no go *BUT* JT said a no go is a 10 point deduction. Roger stated that to have a 10 point score show you need hit the clicke twice. The complied score sheet at line 5 where the no go should be doesn't show consecutive 5's.

Ken's score was 56 and he didn't make the cut. SRS made and corrected a 20 point error discovered by the handler. If I was the handler I would wonder if more errors were made. And my next question would be "you told me I had 10 point penalty for a no go yet my computerized score sheet doesn't show consecutive 5's so I didn't have a no go? *OR* I had a no go and what should of been a 10 point penalty was only a 5 point penalty? *OR* I have a 5 point penalty that I shouldn't have?"

Stop comparing this to a FT. This is a made for TV game where money exchanges hands both to/from the owner of the game and the player. The players deserve a fair accounting of their score. The owner of the show and the judges they employ should be held to a high standard and should not be allowed to make it up as they go along. This is not a FT and holding judges accountable is not abuse.


----------



## Wildfowl Adventures (Aug 11, 2004)

So holding judges accountable at a field trial is abuse?

Just wonderin'...


----------



## Lyle Harne (Jul 7, 2004)

HarryWilliams said:


> Do the SRS Judges get paid the same as Hunt Test and Field Trial Judges do? My opinion is that "Judges" should not come under this kind of questioning, nor be subjected to the implied accusations that are flying around. That could be construed as abuse in some circles. How about the respect that they deserve? Put yourself in there place for a second or two.
> 
> Now if any event, it's rules or something that happens is unethical (including Judges) then step-up, prove it and be done with it. My comments are directed at the chatter not at Ken's accounts of what happened. HPW


Not my words.


----------



## El General (Aug 20, 2004)

> This is not a FT and holding judges accountable is not abuse.


The ultimate motive for this game is profit, and I think that should be remembered.

FT's are competitions provided by Amateur (Mostly) Volunteer Labor. To judge dogs on their merits for the purpose of breeding.


----------



## Wildfowl Adventures (Aug 11, 2004)

I thought that you were saying....nevermind, I guess it's the accent. I didn't understand you. :lol:


----------



## Ken Guthrie (Oct 1, 2003)

Lyle Harne said:


> > As I have the "original" judges sheet.............
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thank you so much.

Finally someone figures it out. 

The road to the answers are all in the questions I posted after the judges scoring sheet. :wink: 

There is more in there, you just have to follow the questions. :wink:


----------



## Ken Guthrie (Oct 1, 2003)

FowlDogs said:


> I am guessing that the sheet that Ken looked at and copied his scores from was the computer printout of what was recorded in the system. This printout would not have the correct value for the no-go penalty.


Sorry, your guessing wrong.

Printer was broke. :roll: 

This hand wrote information was given to me by JT.

Next..............................


----------



## spaightlabs (Jul 15, 2005)

Lyle Harne said:


> > As I have the "original" judges sheet.............
> 
> 
> 
> Then what Ken has is a copulation from the computer printout.


COPULATION or compilation?? I think you may be right, there may have been a copulation from the computer printout...

your Freudian slip is showing regards,


----------



## Lyle Harne (Jul 7, 2004)

> Finally someone figures it out.


I'm not that bright I was just repeating what I read on your first post as other posters more familiar with SRS filled in the blanks. 

In fact because I'm not the brightest bulb on the tree I thought that Shannon Nardi and JT jumping on the forum immediately was about CYA until everyone explained it was about SRS's good will.
Lyle


----------



## MRGD (Apr 9, 2007)

Spaight, that's hilarious.


----------



## Lyle Harne (Jul 7, 2004)

> COPULATION or compilation?


Just additional evidence that I'm not that bright.


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

Someone told me that the judges quit scoring once your dog has reached the points necessary to not make the top 12. In this case 35 or 36, whatever it was. So if the judges added their orginal 20 points for showing the marks, then did they quit scoring after 16 more points?

Having said that... once the 20 points were deducted at the end of the day after all dogs had ran, did the judges have to go back from memory and rescore the rest of the run? If so, then the timestamps don't make sense.

So i assume they kept scoring the whole time, even though they knew he was out?

SM


----------



## FowlDogs (Dec 31, 2004)

Lyle Harne said:


> [If the judge was to give a 10 point deduction they would need to hit the clicker twice showing consecutive 5's.


It is my understanding that this is not how it works.

In Oregon, a 50 point penalty was assessed during one of the water tests. For the judges to apply this, they would have to hit the "5" button 10 times. Meanwhile, the dog is still running.

I believe they only score it once and then adjust after. Otherwise, the judges are now counting 10 times while continuing to watch the dog. Let's say while pressing the button, the handler blows a whistle (2 point) and the dog refuses the cast (another 5 point penalty) and the handler blows the whistle again (another 2 pointers). 

Now the judges have to remember to hit the 5 point 10 times, then the 2, then another 5, and then another 2 to get caught up.

Sounds simple, but when trying to focus on the dog and record the penalties, it's easier to press the major and minor fault 1 time as they happen and adjust afterwards.

But then again, I could be wrong.


----------



## DH (Oct 3, 2006)

Interesting point Shayne. Although it could be that at the time he ran he would have still been in the top 12 even with the extra 20 points.

How many of the 12 that made it are veteran SRS handlers? How many events have each of them been in?


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

DH said:


> Interesting point Shayne. Although it could be that at the time he ran he would have still been in the top 12 even with the extra 20 points.
> 
> How many of the 12 that made it are veteran SRS handlers? How many events have each of them been in?


By the time he ran, they already knew the magic number. But i think they ask you to pick up, and he didn't pick up, so maybe they still judged him? I dunno.

SM


----------



## FowlDogs (Dec 31, 2004)

Ken Guthrie said:


> FowlDogs said:
> 
> 
> > I am guessing that the sheet that Ken looked at and copied his scores from was the computer printout of what was recorded in the system. This printout would not have the correct value for the no-go penalty.
> ...



Hopefully JT will pop on here later on to clarify this and address any information I may have posted that was wrong.


----------



## Driftdude (Jul 23, 2003)

No...Rog...Your right. That's why you have a score keeper that keeps the judges abreast of what they are scoring.

All in all...it can be difficult to comprehend until you've seen it work. 

The facts are simple on this whole deal. We needed to make sure our General Guidlines were posted and we didn't....so we deserve whatever we get. 
A good ol' ass whippin never hurt anyone too bad. We'll get up dust ourselves off and go back to owrk. It ain't the first, and it won't be the last.

Thanks,

JT


----------



## jeff t. (Jul 24, 2003)

FowlDogs said:


> Lyle Harne said:
> 
> 
> > [If the judge was to give a 10 point deduction they would need to hit the clicker twice showing consecutive 5's.
> ...


So, if only one dog incurs the penalty (let's say only one dog has a no go)..does that mean the judges can come back after the fact and jack up the level of the penalty as they see fit? 5 pts, 30 points, 40 points, 50 points?


----------



## YardleyLabs (Dec 22, 2006)

I think this discussion is suffering from too much analysis of too few facts. First, the computer is clearly capable of recording a 10 point penalty since judge 1 actually recorded a 10 point penalty for each of the four times the guns were pointed out. The assessed penalty for each "fault" is equal to the amount agreed to by at least two judges. Where only one judge indicated a penalty (e.g., 11:47:45), the"penalty was set to 0.

I set each of the scored penalties up against Ken's description, and it appears that the judges agree that there were 1-2 "faults" that Ken didn't remember or realize in his description. This should not be surprising. In the same circumstances I would be lucky to remember my name.

First, Ken noted that the timeline from the judges' scoring showed too much time between when he pointed out the hidden guns to the time when Dozer failed to go. The discrepancy is presumably the time it took to "shoot" the rubber ducks.

On the no go, it looks like the judges scored an initial 5 point penalty but then scored another 2 point penalty almost immediately -- maybe a slow or sloppy start? The next 2 point penalty appears to be for missing the line by a few feet as described by Ken.

For the left bird, there appear to be two penaltiesfor whistles as described by Ken.

On the right hand bird it looks like the judges assessed a 5 point penalty for being off line.

For the long bird, it looks like the judges assessed a 5 point penalty for the initial line being off plus 2 points for the whistle and another 2 points for not being perfectly on target following the back cast.

That leaves a 5 point penalty at the point or immediately after Dozer picked up the long bird that doesn't tie to anything in Ken's description and was not noted at all by judge 1.

All of this is purely hypothetical based on the times indicated for each score and Ken's description. I think the approach of using three judges and only accepting scores where two judges agree is as fair as anything anyone can reasonably expect -- that is to say, sometimes it will be wrong but usually not too much. 

A one point difference between being "in" or being "out" is obviously meaningless as a distinction in the performance of the dogs. However, if you look at all the scores, there was no significant gap of more than a couple of points among contestants until you got into the second half of all contestants.

It looks to me like everyone tried to be fair within the limits of of the format. The most arbitrary aspect of the whole process seems to have been the decision to only call back 12 dogs since a number of the dogs excluded had the potential of making it into the top four depending on performance in the next round.

By any measure, it is also clear that Ken and Dozer did a great job and could have been in contention for the money if called back assuming that any of the top four dogs had a mediocre round.


----------



## Paul Yates (Mar 3, 2005)

jeff t. said:


> So, if only one dog incurs the penalty (let's say only one dog has a no go)..does that mean the judges can come back after the fact and jack up the level of the penalty as they see fit? 5 pts, 30 points, 40 points, 50 points?


Jeff, if you read the rules you will see that there is NO governing body so yes they can do whatever they like and you/handler have no recourse, except as Tackett put it, maybe a good old fashion butt whoopin.

But in the end what does that fix. You still got screwed and Tackett still lined his pockett with your cash.


----------



## wenglish (Mar 13, 2006)

come on guys its all about the dogs and a dog game.


----------



## FowlDogs (Dec 31, 2004)

Paul Yates said:


> jeff t. said:
> 
> 
> > So, if only one dog incurs the penalty (let's say only one dog has a no go)..does that mean the judges can come back after the fact and jack up the level of the penalty as they see fit? 5 pts, 30 points, 40 points, 50 points?
> ...


I don't think it is done after the fact. The additional points on a penalty are determined before the first dog is run and is consistent for all dogs.


----------



## Tall Gunner (Apr 17, 2007)

YardleyLabs said:


> I think this discussion is suffering from too much analysis of too few facts. First, the computer is clearly capable of recording a 10 point penalty since judge 1 actually recorded a 10 point penalty for each of the four times the guns were pointed out.


That's not a 10.....It's a 0 with a check mark next to it. 



Now, I want someone to try and explain to me what the last 5 point penalty is for........Here's Ken's despcription of the last retrieve.....

"Long bird last.................

There were 2 hay bails that portrayed a "slot" for the line to the mark. Unfortunately, some marks fell to the left of the left hay bail, but for the most part the mark was between them. Our mark fell dead center which was a rather shorter throw. I could see the bird from line. Dozer's line was gonna put him slightly to the left of the left bail. (5-10 yards) I hit the whistle and gave a right hand back.............Dozer turned and immediately saw the bird and went to it. It was a white/black ATB. Again, I saw the bird from line. " 

It appears as though that's an added no go penalty. Only judge 1 must have forgot to add it? 

I really wish someone would explain his scoring (per each mark) to us, so we could all understand it, and learn something about SRS scoring. Any judges care to do so?


----------



## Ken Newcomb (Apr 18, 2003)

If someone had videoed the run then we could post on utube and analysize it based on the time markers......then we all would know.


----------



## YardleyLabs (Dec 22, 2006)

Tall Gunner said:


> YardleyLabs said:
> 
> 
> > I think this discussion is suffering from too much analysis of too few facts. First, the computer is clearly capable of recording a 10 point penalty since judge 1 actually recorded a 10 point penalty for each of the four times the guns were pointed out.
> ...


You're right, my mistake.


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

> Stop comparing this to a FT. This is a made for TV game where money exchanges hands both to/from the owner of the game and the player. The players deserve a fair accounting of their score. The owner of the show and the judges they employ should be held to a high standard and should not be allowed to *make it up as they go along*. This is not a FT and holding judges accountable is not abuse.


This makes _entirely_ too much sense...please stop immediately....you'll destroy the necessary fluidity in scoring! :wink: 



> So i assume they kept scoring the whole time, even though they knew he was out?


How could they know the cut-off point BEFORE all the dogs had run??? :shock: 



> By the time he ran, they already knew the magic number.


Interesting that his edited score was 35 and the cutoff was 36.... 8) 



> No...Rog...Your right. That's why you have a score keeper that keeps the judges abreast of what they are scoring.


Did judge 1 have a hand cramp or what? :?: 



> So, if only one dog incurs the penalty (let's say only one dog has a no go)..does that mean the judges can come back after the fact and jack up the level of the penalty as they see fit? 5 pts, 30 points, 40 points, 50 points?


Sounds like they, or the producers, can do _whatever_ they damn well please _whenever_ they damn well please! :wink: That's the nature of TV, folks....they who controls the *coins*, controls the game!



> ...if you read the rules you will see that there is NO governing body so yes they can do whatever they like and you/handler have no recourse...


It's deja vu all over again! :lol: 

Welcome to the world of "made for TV" events. At least it's better than watching hockey or Australian rules football! :wink: 

Night and day regards,

kg


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

/Paul


----------



## Captain Mike D (Jan 1, 2006)

K G said:


> Interesting that his edited score was 35 and the cutoff was 36.... 8)
> 
> 
> kg


Hmm,
I'm having a little problem with the math

52 in round 2 minus 20 (since pointing out the stations wasn't written in the rules) plus the 4 from round 1 equals 36 (I think?)

If the last 2 dogs in the top twelve had a tie score (35) then the one with the lowest time would advance. Or a score of 34 would have been needed.

Guess JT and Shan must be flyin' around in black choppers tryin' to figure out how to screw all the FT folks and poor old ******** not a part of team waterdog.

Congrats Gut and Dozer on the strong showing!!


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

> I'm having a little problem with the math


Somebody else either here or on another of the several related threads straightened it out.

Regardless, at the end, if the cutoff had already been established, another hit here or there would ensure that the score would be out of the "callbacks."

Hey...when 12 is the magic number, somebody's got to bleed!  

kg


----------



## Aaron Homburg (Sep 23, 2005)

*srs*

*So am I safe to assume that because it is made for TV we can compare it to another 3 letter TV show????........ WWF or WWE whatever it is and Gutman and his entourage are The Outsiders ....trying to get a piece of the SRS Championship Belt?????    Don't click out of the post keep reading...I think I am on to something here........Shayne and Patrick could be in charge of making sure all the pretty girls are ringside....Dr. Ed....the illustrious manager or trainer ..........I think there are possibilities here..........Styling and Profiling!!!! Whhhooooo :twisted: 


Vince McMahon Regards,

Aaron*


----------



## Ken Guthrie (Oct 1, 2003)

In regards to the scoring and what Dozer's real number was.......

I'd like for someone with representation to step forward and possibly answer some of the questions I had after the posted scoring sheet.

I know I've taken the high road here. I know folks expected me to do this in a little different way. 

I have some really good friends in this game that have given me advice and I'm trying to use it. But as this thing goes on I'm starting to feel I should be who I am..........straight up.

I still want to try and eliminate the unfairness to these dogs I love so much.

Not the unfairness to me...............

This ain't about me. Heck....2 days vacation, 3 nights in a room, gas, ENTRY FEE, food, ect. Anyway you look at it I'm out $1,000. It's easy to sit back and say Dozer and I did a great job at our first event. But I expected to do well, and I didn't come just to play. 

This is about a dog that was called out, showed up, did what he was asked to do, and is sitting at home with others still playing.

If he went out fair.........so be it. But if he didn't let's put it on the table.

Please address the questions.


----------



## Tall Gunner (Apr 17, 2007)

I'm waiting also Gut...........A simple explanation of your scoring is all you are asking. How the hell can one learn how to play this game, if you can't understand how/why the scored you? 

And I love watching the game!! 

Waiting.........


----------



## maxx (Jan 1, 2005)

Ken I cant believe no one asked you this. Did you have fun? Or as JT would say did you have a big time?

I don't like to comment on stuff when I wasn't there so I really have no comments. It shows character that you took the challenge and did what you said you were going to do. For that I applaud you. 

I am sure you could give JT or any of the judges a call but I am guess this is probably the busiest week for them. Give it time I hope your questions get answered.


----------



## Ken Guthrie (Oct 1, 2003)

maxx said:


> Ken I cant believe no one asked you this.


Your joking right?



> I am sure you could give JT or any of the judges a call but I am guess this is probably the busiest week for them. Give it time I hope your questions get answered.


How would this benefit the dogs? This is a serious question.


----------



## maxx (Jan 1, 2005)

I just remember JT and everyone saying come over to SRS and you will have a big time so I had to ask. I was being a smartarse. 

I just meant don't expect much from them this week with everything going on and you said you would like your questions answered. Typically with the SRS you don't here much about it until the week after since some of them are in some rural areas with limited coverage, I practically felt like I was at this one. 

Is is a shame this wasn't a televised one. I wonder how that would have went.


----------



## spaightlabs (Jul 15, 2005)

editing room floor. Oh, you said how, not where... :shock:


----------



## Lyle Harne (Jul 7, 2004)

Ken, With what little information has been presented here by you, Roger, JT, and Shannon it's obvious that the missing rule wasn't the only discrepancy. It's also apparent from the postings that the folks at SRS are not accustom to being held accountable. If the goal is for the game to grow by attracting new people rather than attain growth by having the same players increase playing time by playing with more dogs. Then SRS might want to look at this debacle they caused with you and Dozer as a teaching moment. It seems as though many posters hold SRS above reproach and that when JT speaks it's the truth, no questions asked. If that's the case and that's the way SRS wants it the game may have achieved it's growth potential. 

SRS acknowledged the missing rule (or as JT said General Guideline) and corrected your score. Now they've decided to hang their hat on that error and ignore the other discrepancy(s).
*Justin Tackett wrote:*


> The facts are simple on this whole deal. We needed to make sure our General Guidlines were posted and we didn't....so we deserve whatever we get.


It's hard to ignore that the score sheet doesn't hold true these statements. 

*Justin Tackett wrote:*


> Here's why Ken had the score he did.
> 
> 1. He handled to the Area of Fall on two of the four marks. This is a major deduction at SRS. This cost him upwards of 20 faults by the time the whistles and poor line penalties were added.
> 2. *He had a no go...which cost him another 10.*
> 3. He had some small deductions on his other marks.





> That's correct Tom. But, the judges can use whatever penalty they like in a certain scenario as long as it's the same for everyone. Because a large part of this scenario was to truly test a dogs ability as a hunter and work from a remote situation...*the judges made it a 10 pt. deduction.* This is not uncomman at all.


*Ken Guthrie wrote:*


> If he went out fair.........so be it. But if he didn't let's put it on the table.
> Please address the questions.


Reasonable request. Ken you may have more questions but the answer to my post only has 2 answers and I'd like to hear which is correct before I make my decision on the integrity of the SRS game. I'm going to take the advice of those who consul you; I'm done. Good job Ken and give Dozer an attaboy for me.
Lyle


----------



## Ken Guthrie (Oct 1, 2003)

Lyle,

In your first quote, JT is incorrect in saying I handled to the area of the fall on 2 marks.

I did on the long bird, but the only other bird I handled on was the right hand bird and it wasn't to the area.

He was already in the area. In fact, I had to use the come in whistle, he came in too far, I hit it again, back and picked it up. He ran just past like missing a short retired.

Between the time I hit the whistle and the time he picked up the bird maybe took 5 seconds. That should tell you how close he was to the bird when I hit the whistle.

Of coarse, the score sheet should show this right? Since the judges hit the the 2 point button each time a whistle is blown. Wouldn't the times be very close?


----------



## Trevor Toberny (Sep 11, 2004)

Hey Ken,
Again you got screwed! Shannon and JT are just going to say its our fault and we are to blame but oh well. Thanks for the entry fee.


----------



## Steve Dannaway (Dec 13, 2006)

First and foremost, I was not at Hot Springs and I'm NOT speaking for the SRS.

However, I do want to correct that last statement. Shannon and JT do not receive any compensation from entry fees. That money is paid out 100% to the competitors. There's a set amount for the qualifiers and then the remainder is used as the "prize kicker" at the Crown.


----------



## Ken Guthrie (Oct 1, 2003)

Steve Dannaway said:


> First and foremost, I was not at Hot Springs and I'm NOT speaking for the SRS.
> 
> However, I do want to correct that last statement. Shannon and JT do not receive any compensation from entry fees. That money is paid out 100% to the competitors. There's a set amount for the qualifiers and then the remainder is used as the "prize kicker" at the Crown.


That may be true, but how does that change my monetary contribution?


----------



## Steve Dannaway (Dec 13, 2006)

Ken Guthrie said:


> Steve Dannaway said:
> 
> 
> > First and foremost, I was not at Hot Springs and I'm NOT speaking for the SRS.
> ...


It doesn't. The previous post just implied to me that Shannon and JT in some way directly benefited from your entry fee.


----------



## Trevor Toberny (Sep 11, 2004)

I wish Ken would get answers to his questions from the SRS. They seem to answer me and others if we speculate wrong and try to set us straight on the rules and regs.


----------



## Steve Hester (Apr 14, 2005)

wenglish said:


> come on guys its all about the dogs and a dog game.


Nah, it's all about the RTF bus.........people inferring that the SRS intentionally screwed Guthrie is total bull ****.


----------



## Steve Dannaway (Dec 13, 2006)

fowl hunter said:


> I wish Ken would get answers to his questions from the SRS. They seem to answer me and others if we speculate wrong and try to set us straight on the rules and regs.


Once again, NO SRS ENDORSEMENT ON THIS ONE.

Here's the issue, it's Ken's word and description of his run versus the judges' score sheet and description of what happened. If this was a televised event, we could get an answer pretty easily. But since it wasn't and there's no chance of it being resolved, why would anyone want to come into here and fight about it?

It would be tantamount to a Red Sox fan calling WNBC and talking about how A-Rod's "Mine" was totally screwed the spirit of the game and he should be banned for life. Since my company has a lot to do with this whole issue, I'd be 1000x happier if it all could be resolved, but the honest truth is, it can't. There will always be people thinking that something was done deliberately and there will always be people thinking that saying it wasn't. 

I jumped in to make clear a point that I know 100% to be the truth in all of this which was about the entry fees. As for the rest of it, I don't even start to imply that I have the answer. Does anyone?


----------



## Ken Guthrie (Oct 1, 2003)

Steve,

I agree with your post and I think you will understand why I chose not to blame anyone of anything becuase it's my word against theirs.

What would that do? Nothing as you've said.

If you don't mind me asking, what business are you in?


----------



## Steve Dannaway (Dec 13, 2006)

Ken Guthrie said:


> Steve,
> 
> I agree with your post and I think you will understand why I chose not to blame anyone of anything becuase it's my word against theirs.
> 
> ...


I don't mind - always like free plugs - CreativeAnswer.com. We're a media brokerage group that provides technical services to the SRS, WD, RTF, and many others in the sporting dog realm. And in case, the wording of the messages or the disclaimers at the top didn't give it away, I'm attorney too.


----------



## Lyle Harne (Jul 7, 2004)

> Here's the issue, it's Ken's word and description of his run versus the judges' score sheet and description of what happened.


But here's the rub. Steve you seem like a reasonable guy go back and read the posts on both threads that are going. You'll see that JT has provided enough information to draw some conclusions that make your statement false. Heck save yourself some time and read Ken's first post and look at the score sheet then read my most resent post. It has to raise some questions for you.
Lyle


----------



## Wildfowl Adventures (Aug 11, 2004)

What statement did Steve make that is false?


----------



## Josh Conrad (Jul 3, 2005)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> When was the last time anyone at a FT was able to go up to a judge and ask to see the math that dropped his dog from competition? I don't think FT's should get all high and mighty regarding this, this is a lot more "mystery" surrounding how some dogs don't place or jam...
> 
> /Paul


Yeah BUT.. :wink: If your gonna show your score sheet, it better damn well JIVE!! If not, keep it hidden. :!:


----------



## Steve Dannaway (Dec 13, 2006)

Lyle Harne said:


> > Here's the issue, it's Ken's word and description of his run versus the judges' score sheet and description of what happened.
> 
> 
> But here's the rub. Steve you seem like a reasonable guy go back and read the posts on both threads that are going. You'll see that JT has provided enough information to draw some conclusions that make your statement false. Heck save yourself some time and read Ken's first post and look at the score sheet then read my most resent post. It has to raise some questions for you.
> Lyle


You've found my weakness...having never owned a dog much less run one in a trial, I can't even begin to correlate the score sheet with Ken's description, so all his points have been lost on me.

I don't know what the actual deal is and I don't comment on a situation without knowing the full details where I can make my own decision, so I'm staying quiet on this situation. (You can insert your own lawyer joke here).

There are people on this board who are infinitely more qualified than I to discuss this thoroughly. Like I said earlier, I just jumped in on what I knew for certain, otherwise, I'm staying out of it. Which I personally wish more people would do, but that's their prerogative and one of those things I took an oath defend their right to do so.


----------



## Trevor Toberny (Sep 11, 2004)

you stated his word against there and it what the judges said.Look at the judges score sheets 2 oout of 3 had him with low enough points to be in the crown.


----------



## Steve Dannaway (Dec 13, 2006)

fowl hunter said:


> you stated his word against there and it what the judges said.Look at the judges score sheets 2 oout of 3 had him with low enough points to be in the crown.


Remember, for the score to register, it has to agreed upon by at least two judges within 3 seconds. If one score a 5 and another a 2, there's no fault scored. 

That being said, I must be missing the point entirely. There's 52 points that I see on the score sheet. Take off the 20 for the missing rule and that leaves 32 - add the 4 from R1 and that's 36 according to my math.


----------



## Ken Guthrie (Oct 1, 2003)

Steve Dannaway said:


> Ken Guthrie said:
> 
> 
> > Steve,
> ...


So were you the guy JT called about the other rules that were left off the website?


----------



## pupaloo (Jan 6, 2006)

This is sad, and why I hate these types of competitions. It is supposed to be about the dogs...why is everything a conspiracy against the losers, or in favor of the winners?

It is a screw-up on the part of SRS that not all the rules were posted, or whatever all that is about. But the bottom line is that with the penalties for the non-posted rules thrown out, the judges scored your dog one point too high to make the cutoff. Everyone at one point or another thinks the judges should have scored them better. That's why no one judges their own dog-no objectivity. 

Mr. Guthrie, you knew what was expected of you and your dog when you agreed to go-to have the best performance you could at each test setup.
You agreed to go-you went-you ran your dog-you didn't move up to the next level. That's how it goes sometimes. Take the high road, and quit whining. If you want to prove something, train for this type of test, now that you have run one-and do better next time.


----------



## Steve Dannaway (Dec 13, 2006)

Ken Guthrie said:


> So were you the guy JT called about the other rules that were left off the website?


Unfortunately, yes, that was me.

Ken, I do apologize that something my group had a hand in led to this problem and I know there's nothing I or anyone else can say that can change what's happened. All I can do is offer an apology. From what I heard, you and Dozer had a great run and I really would like to see the two of you in action sometime.

Based on what I've seen in this and the other threads, there seem to be a group of people who are just ACHING for a fight and I'm not willing to give them anymore fodder for it. Ken, if you have any other questions that I can answer, you can PM me. Otherwise, I'm done publicly on this topic.


----------



## Tall Gunner (Apr 17, 2007)

All of this can be put to bed by a simple explanation of Ken's scoring summary. Can someone do this? Or do you simply not want to expose some other type of errors in the scoring of Dozer? 

You want to enlighten us all? 

Still waiting......... :?


----------



## bruce (May 18, 2004)

*Umpres, Baseball and Dogs*

Sitting here reading the most entertaining thing going on in dogdom ... reminds me of an old baseball saying about Umpires ... winners win in spite of them and losers lose because of them. We all love a conspiracy throy nad can empathize morre with the loser than the winner [at least I can] but the Real Winners get up, dust themselves off and in the words of a Ramngers Fan say "just wait until next time" ... ok now I'm up to 4 cents and back off my soap box enjoy your day


----------



## TxFig (Apr 13, 2004)

I can't resist throwing my .02 in.

Folks - here is the bottom line: 

So long as the SRS is run as
* a for profit event 
* where the contestants compete for real money
* by private individuals instead of a sanctioning body
* allowing other folks with financial ties to the organizers to participate

There will always be an air of suspicion. It is unavoidable, even if the organizers do everything above board and completely honest. When things happen which are simple human mistakes (such as leaving out a rule), the air of suspicion will grow exponentially.


There is a rule that a pastor taught me a long time ago (when talking about "rules for pastors"). It is not good enough to avoid doing the wrong thing. You must also avoid the APPEARANCE of doing the wrong thing.

Whether Guthrie was screwed or not is only speculation by all on this board. But the fact that it APPEARS he was screwed is undeniable.

And that's a bad thing for the SRS. And by association, it's a bad thing for all retriever events.


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

*Click*

You know what that sound is.... :wink: 

Chris


----------

