# Field Trial Rules – Another Question



## Jim Pickering (Sep 17, 2004)

I would like to see some discussion on what other interrupt the intent of this rule to be.

TRIAL PROCEDURE
8. . . . In no circumstances
should the judges have the guns move to
another position to mislead dogs in their marking.

Obviously it is intended to prohibit judges from having a gun throw a mark then move some distance away from the position from which the bird was thrown and remain visible to pull the dog off the mark. This would certainly be effective way to trick the significant percentage of dogs that mark guns instead of the actual bird.

In five derby stakes I run this year there were one or more setups where judges instructed the gun(s) for the memory mark and in one case all guns on water marks to throw the bird and face away from the direction of the throw.

I can think of no reason to do this except to “mislead” the dogs and therefore IMHO this is a violation of the intent of the above rule and therefore an illegal test.

What do you other field trialers think, legal or not?


----------



## Jay Dufour (Jan 19, 2003)

I think it is an effort to mislead the dogs....but they did not actually move position on the plain.I doubt it actually worked though,as many people train with Butch Greens and birdboys that sit in a chair or bike facing the line in a neutral position.Did you feel that it mislead any of the dogs ?.If so,it would just be ANOTHER thing to train on!


----------



## Sue Kiefer (Mar 4, 2006)

Train on misleading dogs?????????????????
I'm with Jim.
Set up tests that test marking and quit being lazy or maybe lack of knowledge at setting up "Good Marking " tests??? This WAS a Derby right???????????
Sue


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

Jim Pickering said:


> In five derby stakes I run this year there were one or more setups where judges instructed the gun(s) for the memory mark and in one case all guns on water marks to throw the bird and *face away from the direction of the throw*.


If it is the opposite direction of the throw? What is the purpose other than to mislead? 

If they are instructing the guns to face a neutral position like the line. I have no problem with it. 

Of course, I'm all for having retired guns in the derby and this wouldn't be an issue at all. Get back to natural marking dogs instead of the trained response of going left or right of the gun depending on which side of the handler the dog was sent. ;-)


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

I like that Doug guy... 

Yall are such pessimists! Maybe the judges didn't want the gunners looking into the sun or sit facing into a cold wind. Hey, it could happen. LOL

SM


----------



## Criquetpas (Sep 14, 2004)

Have them face the mark period! On a Neutral sit after about half the field is run you sometimes get a slouch sit away from the fall from the bird thrower that is misleading. I call it "I am cold, wet, hungry, bored , hot or all of the afortementioned!" You are only looking at 8 marks most of the time, these "little dogs" will let you know who can mark the chickens the best without trickery! if you have some dog sense about you and know what a derby dog should be able to do, you will get answers. If they all do the first series or even the second, so what! If time management is a problem with the numbers, then change your game plan, but, not trickery. I would rather see a partial or retired gun then the the "chair shuffle".


----------



## kip (Apr 13, 2004)

i dont think i have ever had a dog smart enough to distinguish between which way a gunner was facing.


----------



## Kyle B (May 5, 2005)

I don't know, if it seems your dog cares which way the gunner is facing, he probably didn't mark the bird and the handler is coming up with excuses for why his dog didn't do the test.


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

kip said:


> i dont think i have ever had a dog smart enough to distinguish between which way a gunner was facing.


That's because your dogs mark the birds.


----------



## Criquetpas (Sep 14, 2004)

Doug Main said:


> That's because your dogs mark the birds. [/QUOT
> 
> Doug you got a point! BUT it keeps it simple and uniform to just have then face the birds.
> I can't argue the marking point of a good marker is a good marker , even if the birdboy spins three times with a beenie umbrella on his head then throws the bird, the good ones will find the mark.


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

I've trained with multiple people who use the bird boy to "help" a young dog stay on the right side of a gun. Whether is it a fake toss or the bird boy stands and holds his arm out, as if to cast the dog to the right side. Dogs who are consistently trained like that would probably pay more attention to which way the bird boy is facing more so than dogs that have not seen that in training.

For my dogs, it does not matter which way they are facing..... they will probably hunt both sides regardless. HAHA

I have no problem facing the bird boys at the line and usually do that when i judge derbies. But as Earl pointed out, it's important to make sure they are sitting up right and are visible. A gun facing you shows up better than a side profile.

SM


----------



## scott spalding (Aug 27, 2005)

Young dogs are tought to stay on the right side of the gun. The gunner facing the fall is a tool used in training. Even a great marking dog will use the tools learned in training in a tough situation. It is simple facing the guns away from the fall has a intent. I do not agree with the intent I think we can be more creative with Derby dogs. No tricks and tough marks.
________
ass Webcams


----------



## kip (Apr 13, 2004)

shayne it all depends if its the local girls softball team or the boys track team which way the face when you are judging.


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

scott spalding said:


> Young dogs are tought to stay on the right side of the gun. The gunner facing the fall is a tool used in training. Even a great marking dog will use the tools learned in training in a tough situation. It is simple facing the guns away from the fall has a intent. I do not agree with the intent I think we can be more creative with Derby dogs. No tricks and tough marks.


Well said.

SM


----------



## kip (Apr 13, 2004)

scott spalding said:


> Young dogs are tought to stay on the right side of the gun. The gunner facing the fall is a tool used in training. Even a great marking dog will use the tools learned in training in a tough situation. It is simple facing the guns away from the fall has a intent. I do not agree with the intent I think we can be more creative with Derby dogs. No tricks and tough marks.


 i agree on the tough marks but in all my years i dont think it really makes a difference. i have never had the guns face the oppisite way but i do like for the to face more towards the line to make them easy to pick out.


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

kip said:


> shayne it all depends if its the local girls softball team or the boys track team which way the face when you are judging.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA i learned that from you!

SM


----------



## Mark Sehon (Feb 10, 2003)

I like to face the gunners toward the line in a derby. The gunners a lot more visible. I have never faced the gunners, the opposite way.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Mark Sehon said:


> I like to face the gunners toward the line in a derby. The gunners a lot more visible. I have never faced the gunners, the opposite way.


I am with Kip and Mark on this one

But as a practical matter, if you have bird BOYS, you are going to ... over the course of the day ... going to have to live with some deviation


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

Having the bird boys face away is misleading the dogs, intentional or not. 

We also train on marks that are only shot and not thrown. 

The dogs also get used to how far a duck will be thrown and that its generally thrown @ a angle back.


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

Ted Shih said:


> I am with Kip and Mark on this one
> 
> But as a practical matter, if you have bird BOYS, you are going to ... over the course of the day ... going to have to live with some deviation



Judge to marshall get on the radio and ask the thrower to sit up please.


----------



## Barry (Dec 11, 2007)

scott spalding said:


> > Young dogs are tought to stay on the right side of the gun.
> 
> 
> How come so many do go behind the guns? Does that mean that they are out or that's a failure?
> ...


What do you think the intent is? Let me guess, to trick the dogs? To many what if's to get into the intent thing. I don't think judges lay awake at night trying to figure out ways to trick dogs. What about retarted guns? What about 20 degrees with the wind in your face? I'm not telling the guns to face into it. 
When you have elevation, I have often shot birds straight away from the line at trials. They have a tendency to land within a 180 degree fall area. Without any no birds. You soon find out who the markers are. How would a dog who is taught not to go behind the gun react in this situation? 
Everyone seems to forget about bird placement and judging the work. Dogs don't have to fail a test completly to finish the trial. 
Anymore can dogs still have average work and finish the trial? 



> No tricks and tough marks


.
That's the way it's supposed to be. IMHO


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

Having the thrower face AWAY from the bird I consider a trick. There are times when facing a thrower NEUTRAL can add to a test since it forces dogs to make decisions on the run as they approach that fall. That decision making process is not something I'm usually looking for from a Derby dog. As a judge I'ld rather look for a different mark to offer.

JMO

Tim


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

Barry said:


> Anymore can dogs still have average work and finish the trial?


Last year I was dropped after the second series of a 15 dog derby, along with 7 other dogs, because my dog hooked the gun... even though he did a good job on the mark. Judge even told me they threw out the dogs that went on the wrong side of the gun.

It's not uncommon to hook a gun and be green, or have a little squiggle on one bird and be green... or thrown out all together. I ran a derby recently where there were about 6 dogs that hammered every mark.

SM


----------



## kip (Apr 13, 2004)

i have never droped a derby dog that came back with both birds.


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

I am with Kip on that one. Thats a diservice to all involved.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Steve Amrein said:


> Judge to marshall get on the radio and ask the thrower to sit up please.


And ask again, and again, and again, and again

And usually no marshall

Been there, done that


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

kip said:


> i have never droped a derby dog that came back with both birds.


Me either.

SM


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

I've finished a Derby and didn't get a JAM <sigh> at the time as a newbie, that hurt on so many levels.....I remind myself of that feeling when I'm judging.....to some JAMs mean nothing, but to some they still mean something...

FOM


----------



## kip (Apr 13, 2004)

a 50cent ribbon can go a long way in bringing new blood and new money into the game.


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

kip said:


> a 50cent ribbon can go a long way in bringing new blood and new money into the game.


I watched two dogs do a decent job on the last series of a derby at the triple d/q... neither got jams.

I'm with Kippy... a minor stake green goes a long way.

SM


----------



## 1st retriever (Sep 2, 2008)

Shayne Mehringer said:


> I watched two dogs do a decent job on the last series of a derby at the triple d/q... neither got jams.
> 
> I'm with Kippy... a minor stake green goes a long way.
> 
> SM


I can't wait to get my first one! Then I will have something to show for the butt print in the couch cusion for being in front of the computer on this site learning!


----------



## Barry (Dec 11, 2007)

Shayne Mehringer said:


> Last year I was dropped after the second series of a 15 dog derby, along with 7 other dogs, because my dog hooked the gun... even though he did a good job on the mark. Judge even told me they threw out the dogs that went on the wrong side of the gun.
> 
> It's not uncommon to hook a gun and be green, or have a little squiggle on one bird and be green... or thrown out all together. I ran a derby recently where there were about 6 dogs that hammered every mark.
> 
> SM


And I have seen what you have described. That's a total travesty to the sport. If I start with 15 I usually like to finish with 17. If you know what I mean. I don't think that is what the for fathers had in mind years ago when all of this started. What chapter and paragraph in the rules says it's a major fault to hook a bird? 

I can remember when a good hunt in the area was as good as a pin. And why not? Any dog can line out and step on a bird how many can get out there and hunt and come up with it, without leaving the area or going to another bird? What ever happened to hunt and seek game theory? Now I know at some point one starts to trash up the test, but I don't think that is what we are talking about here. I do realize that there are good dogs out there and that the game has advanced but really, judging is judging, tearing out sheets and penciling is quit another. 

Oh yeah, and by the way even though 6 dogs hammered every mark doesn't mean that one wasn't a little better than the rest. All judges see things a little bit different. Doesn't mean they have to hammer the rest of the field because 6 did it well. 

That goes back to what a lot of people complain about now, setting up test to make good dogs look bad. IMHO the sign of a good test is one where you get a lot of answers without getting a lot of pickups. Let the judges do their job and separate it out. 


Some people don't want the judge to have to judge. They want a either your in or out type of test, no gray area. That takes all of the judging out of the hands of the judge and lucky dog big hunt wander on the bird in the last wins the trial. Does that sound familiar? How many times have you seen where you hunt or handle in the first and get dropped and in the last dogs are given places with championship points for having a big hunt or handling. Now that's consistency. 

By the way is it just me or I'm I the only one who sees these same people being asked to judge over and over. Why????


----------



## Paul Rainbolt (Sep 8, 2003)

Judge marks not lines, some judges just dont get it.


----------



## lanse brown (Apr 22, 2004)

If a new Derby owner/handler is entered in either SLRC or Memphis's Derby this spring they had better be prepared to have fun, get a 2nd and 3rd and 4th call back and a ribbon. Even if they fail we will need a test dog for the next series and if it's dead birds then we may need another test dog. My philosophy of judging Minor Stakes is to HAVE FUN. Be fair, be helpful, and hope that in 8-10 years someone comes up to you and says "I ran a Derby under you years ago." Ask them "Did you have fun?" and the answer should be Yes! Infact if the poor slob is still around and hasn't been run off by rude , ego centric people then the Derby judges will have done their job. Actually this is the case that I encountered with a very attractive girl who is a Microsoft employee and the girlfriend of Mark Madore. She ran a triple D/Q 7-8 years ago that I was a part of and not only is she still around, but she probably gets a discount training her dog. She said "yes" she had had fun. What more is there???


----------



## Mark Sehon (Feb 10, 2003)

First derby I ever ran was under Lanse at the 3DQ!!


----------



## kip (Apr 13, 2004)

all women have an great advantage running under lanse and shayne!


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

kip said:


> all women have an great advantage running under lanse and shayne!


The gallery could start a pool to bet on which one of us gets slapped first!

SM


----------



## kip (Apr 13, 2004)

thats it! ive got it now. shayne is the new lanse. i wondered who would come along and be as perverted.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

kip said:


> shayne is the new lanse.


minus hundreds of all-age placements and numerous Double Headers

Lanse IS a LEGEND

Shayne is but a pimple on an an elephant's butt....;-)


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

EdA said:


> minus hundreds of all-age placements and numerous Double Headers
> 
> Lanse IS a LEGEND
> 
> Shayne is but a pimple on an an elephant's butt....;-)


,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,


----------



## kip (Apr 13, 2004)

EdA said:


> minus hundreds of all-age placements and numerous Double Headers
> 
> Lanse IS a LEGEND
> 
> Shayne is but a pimple on an an elephant's butt....;-)


 i ment in personality.


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

kip said:


> thats it! ive got it now. shayne is the new lanse. i wondered who would come along and be as perverted.


I can only aspire to be Lanse and will never even come close to what he has accomplished... both in dog experience and perversion!!!

I'm not a pimple Ed!

Kippy you going to the triple D/Q?

SM


----------



## kip (Apr 13, 2004)

no because the judges suck!


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

> Oh yeah, and by the way even though 6 dogs hammered every mark doesn't mean that one wasn't a little better than the rest. All judges see things a little bit different. Doesn't mean they have to hammer the rest of the field because 6 did it well.


Hi Barry, That's where I think judges are in a quandary. If we make it difficult enough to clearly separate the 6 dogs that are having a good day and have hammered every bird, we are we are hammering the rest of the field. Personally, I'd rather have more test and clearly separate the 6 dogs that have done real well through three.





> Some people don't want the judge to have to judge. They want a either your in or out type of test, no gray area. That takes all of the judging out of the hands of the judge and lucky dog big hunt wander on the bird in the last wins the trial. Does that sound familiar? How many times have you seen where you hunt or handle in the first and get dropped and in the last dogs are given places with championship points for having a big hunt or handling.


I want enough test in the last that the dogs do separate themselves. I don't want a little squiggle here or an extra whistle on the land blind separating 1st from 2nd. If it turns out I had to much test in the last and only one dog does it and he sob's the bird and nobody else did then I screwed up and had to much test. But still, one dog did find the bird on his own when all the others failed. 

The last bird in the 4th is almost always a harder bird than than the last bird in the first.


----------



## Karen McCullah (Feb 28, 2007)

kip said:


> all women have an great advantage *running under *lanse and shayne!


is that what you boys are calling it now?? 

seriously though, most of the derbies i ran this fall were very discouraging. there were some really great dogs running too and i think the judges focused on them more than anything, and forgot the average joes and janes running with them. I dont want them to dumb up the test, but if my dog does gut it out with a smart hunt, he should be carried to the next series, not dropped because he didnt pin it, hooked the gun, etc. 

if it means that i get to play in the derby when my dog picks up all the birds, and i can get a greenie, you can increase my entry to $70.50, I wont mind!


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

Wiredlabz said:


> is that what you boys are calling it now??
> 
> seriously though, most of the derbies i ran this fall were very discouraging...
> 
> if it means that i get to play in the derby when my dog picks up all the birds, and i can get a greenie, you can increase my entry to $70.50, I wont mind!


The Derby is not for the faint of heart. To win you usually need 8 perfect birds. More green ribbons could be given out. I've been known to give more than the club had on hand.

The real reward in judging a Derby is when some stranger comes up to you at a trial and thanks you for carrying their dog and awarding them their first ribbon. 

JMO

Tim


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

Wiredlabz said:


> is that what you boys are calling it now??
> 
> seriously though, most of the derbies i ran this fall were very discouraging. there were some really great dogs running too and i think the judges focused on them more than anything, and forgot the average joes and janes running with them. I dont want them to dumb up the test, but if my dog does gut it out with a smart hunt, he should be carried to the next series, not dropped because he didnt pin it, hooked the gun, etc.
> 
> if it means that i get to play in the derby when my dog picks up all the birds, and i can get a greenie, you can increase my entry to $70.50, I wont mind!


I'm half way on board with you here!

You've got 8 marks to find a winner. The judges job is to find the top 5 dogs with adequate separation. I'm all for dogs playing as long as they are hanging in there in the minor stakes, but a judge has to sort out the great dogs... even if that means leaving the average joes and janes behind in the process. Setting up tests, even just the first 2 series, with the joes and janes in mind penalizes the great dogs because you will end up with a 2 mark derby (the memory bird of the last 2 series). Ending up with 6 dogs who have smacked every mark and one toe-nail out of place resulting in a jam is far more criminal than starting hard and getting harder, even if it's too much test for joe and jane.

No one likes that, but thats where the derby has evolved. Normally, you've got 8 marks, consisting of 4 exposed gun doubles, to find the best marking dog (not the most trained dog) and that is not an easy task when the dogs today mark as good as the all-age dogs, some even better. Every mark has to have some meat to it or you'll end up with no separation - most of the time.

Test hard enough to get separation between your top 5 dogs and recognize the work of every dog that picks up all the birds by carrying them to every series and giving them a jam. Oh, and have fun while your doing it!

It's really awesome when Joe or Jane is running a great dog tho!!!!

SM


----------



## Karen McCullah (Feb 28, 2007)

I agree though! I think the tests should be progressively more difficult. If my dog goes out, I'd rather it be on a mother of a mark, than on something that was unfair or illegal, that's all I'm sayin' 

however, some of the marks ive seen recently were not fair, because of the problems mentioned above...dogs not SEEING the marks at all, before during or after the throw. that doesnt even give a dog chance, even ones that mark well. it rewards the LINING dogs IMHO, trained to go to where they think it is and just follow the line and probably wind the bird, instead of the dogs who would KNOW where it would be if they could have marked it completely.

and whoever heard of a rotation in a derby anyway??!!


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Wiredlabz said:


> ....and whoever heard of a rotation in a derby anyway??!!


I have...;-)

A rotation in the Derby is for one reason and one reason only (IMHO): to make sure that dog #1 (or 2 or 3) doesn't have to run #1 (or 2 or 3) in all four series. Now, if you don't think that's _fair_, rolleyes and all, I'd like to hear why.

All eyes regards,

kg


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

K G said:


> I have...;-)
> 
> A rotation in the Derby is for one reason and one reason only (IMHO): to make sure that dog #1 (or 2 or 3) doesn't have to run #1 (or 2 or 3) in all four series. Now, if you don't think that's _fair_, rolleyes and all, I'd like to hear why.
> 
> ...


I like the idea of a rotation in the derby!

SM


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

Doug Main said:


> Of course, I'm all for having retired guns in the derby and this wouldn't be an issue at all. Get back to natural marking dogs instead of the trained response of going left or right of the gun depending on which side of the handler the dog was sent. >


And Shayne concurred on the retried marks is a Derby. Depending on the grounds, field of dogs, I wouldn't rule it out either. I've seen good Derby dogs eat up retired marks a few years back at a 3DQ. Not too long ago on this forum, it was considered crazy to throw retired birds in a Derby. I think having the guns facing away from the throw serves no useful purpose.


----------



## Jim Pickering (Sep 17, 2004)

Doug Main said:


> If it is the opposite direction of the throw? What is the purpose other than to mislead?
> 
> If they are instructing the guns to face a neutral position like the line. I have no problem with it.


Doug, help me understand your position. Do I understand that if judges instructed guns to throw a bird then turn and face 180 degrees away from the mark that would be misleading to the dogs and therefore contrary to the rules. However, if the mark is thrown 45 degrees angle back and the gun is instructed to turn and sit facing the line that would be ok. How can 180 degrees be unacceptable but 135 degrees is ok? Fair is having the guns face the mark thrown. Having the guns face 180 derees comes closer to being fari than having the guns face the line.



> Of course, I'm all for having retired guns in the derby and this wouldn't be an issue at all. Get back to natural marking dogs instead of the trained response of going left or right of the gun depending on which side of the handler the dog was sent. ;-)


I can almost agree with you on this. Allow retired guns and add blinds. There is certainly no way to train a dog to run the concept marks in today's derby without the dog being quite solid on handling.


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

Jim Pickering said:


> < Allow retired guns and add blinds. There is certainly no way to train a dog to run the concept marks in today's derby without the dog being quite solid on handling.


Certainly you suggest blinds in jest? I like Derbies being about marking and a good retired bird is a mark.


----------



## Karen McCullah (Feb 28, 2007)

K G said:


> I have...;-)
> 
> A rotation in the Derby is for one reason and one reason only (IMHO): to make sure that dog #1 (or 2 or 3) doesn't have to run #1 (or 2 or 3) in all four series. Now, if you don't think that's _fair_, rolleyes and all, I'd like to hear why.
> 
> ...


well first of all it's a "confused" smiley, not a rolleyes----

i had never seen one and i dont recall that being in the rulebook (i know im going to get slammed for this, newbie that i am)

also, and as i posted on the other thread, because i was one of the ams standing around, guess who had to run early every time because the pros weren't there? rotation is to mix it up, not make it worse.

still confused regards,


----------



## Jim Pickering (Sep 17, 2004)

For those of you who think having the guns face the line is acceptable, I will attempt to make my case then go back to the training videos. I am all for instructing the guns to face whatever way makes them the most visible before the marks are thrown, but once the marks are down the only neutral position is facing the mark. If the dog does not know where the gun is after the marks are down it likely dogs not know where the mark is either.

I realize that field trials long ago lost any semblance to a day’s hunt except that both involve dogs, game birds and retrieving, however, the rules still read as follows:

_BASIC PRINCIPLES
1. The purpose of a Non-Slip Retriever trial is to determine
the relative merits of Retrievers in the field.
Retriever field trials should, therefore, simulate as nearly
as possible the conditions met in an ordinary day’s shoot._

For those of you who do hunt how often do you shoot a bird then turn your back to the bird before you send your dog to retrieve. For those who do upland hunting how many want your dog hunting behind you? Neutral from a dog’s prospective is in front of the gun. 

I will grant you the some dogs pay no attention to the guns but other most definitely are sensitive to the guns and the direction the gun is facing. Maybe someone can explain to me why you would have the guns face any direction other than the mark after the birds are down unless you think that the gun facing the mark is helpful to at least some dogs. If so then by definition when you instruct the gun to face the line (away from the mark) are you not doing so to “mislead” the dogs or at least those who are sensitive to the guns?


----------



## Jim Pickering (Sep 17, 2004)

Mr Booty said:


> Certainly you suggest blinds in jest? I like Derbies being about marking and a good retired bird is a mark.


Yes my remark was in jest. However, I would prefer retired guns, triples and/or blinds, anything that is stright forward, over tricks to mislead dogs and I put instructing guns to face away from marks in that catigory.


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Wiredlabz said:


> well first of all it's a "confused" smiley, not a rolleyes----
> 
> i had never seen one and i dont recall that being in the rulebook (i know im going to get slammed for this, newbie that i am)
> 
> ...


Yep..."confused smiley"...my bad...

Rotations are mandatory in the all-age stakes, optional in the minor stakes. The reason I am for them in the Derby is that I have seen (FAR too many times) the one guy with one dog who is #1 out of XX entries run first every series because no one else is there to run. Same thing could happen if the guy is #7, #15, or #22. If pros know there is a rotation in the Derby (a loose one at best, but still a rotation), my experience has been that they _get it_ and will try a little harder to be where they are supposed to be for ALL of the stakes.

I used to be against them for the same reason that most people here have stated. However, in the spirit of FAIRNESS, I believe we should TRY to be fair to young dogs and give them the same opportunity to run under DIFFERENT conditions in each series. To me, that means NOT FIRST IN EVERY SERIES.

But that's just me....;-)


----------



## RF2 (May 6, 2008)

kip said:


> i have never droped a derby dog that came back with both birds.


Do you give a placement if one of the birds came from the bucket?


----------



## kip (Apr 13, 2004)

no but i would give a jam!


----------



## Barry (Dec 11, 2007)

Tim Carrion said:


> The Derby is not for the faint of heart. To win you usually need 8 perfect birds. More green ribbons could be given out. I've been known to give more than the club had on hand.
> 
> The real reward in judging a Derby is when some stranger comes up to you at a trial and thanks you for carrying their dog and awarding them their first ribbon.
> 
> ...


Isn't this what it's all about? The hunt test game is just full or disgruntled field trial newbies. We could have used their help instead of running them off.

IMHO


----------



## Barry (Dec 11, 2007)

K G said:


> Yep..."confused smiley"...my bad...
> 
> Rotations are mandatory in the all-age stakes, optional in the minor stakes. The reason I am for them in the Derby is that I have seen (FAR too many times) the one guy with one dog who is #1 out of XX entries run first every series because no one else is there to run. Same thing could happen if the guy is #7, #15, or #22. If pros know there is a rotation in the Derby (a loose one at best, but still a rotation), my experience has been that they _get it_ and will try a little harder to be where they are supposed to be for ALL of the stakes.
> 
> ...


Are you saying just because of rotation that the pro's will try a little harder to get there on time? Now that's a good one. The only thing that rotation has done is squelch the bitching and moaning of those that thought that all the draws were crooked. 
The same poor schmuck amateur that is 29 dog to run still ends up running in the first 5 dogs. What trials have you seen where the things work according to Hoyle? Or everyone runs in order?


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

Jim Pickering said:


> For those of you who think having the guns face the line is acceptable, I will attempt to make my case then go back to the training videos. I am all for instructing the guns to face whatever way makes them the most visible before the marks are thrown, but once the marks are down the only neutral position is facing the mark. If the dog does not know where the gun is after the marks are down it likely dogs not know where the mark is either.
> 
> I realize that field trials long ago lost any semblance to a day’s hunt except that both involve dogs, game birds and retrieving, however, the rules still read as follows:
> 
> ...


When i'm hunting, i sit back down in my chair facing the same way every time. Birds fall to the left, right, and back of me... and occasionally in the decoys, but i'm not that good of a duck hunter.

If you argue that facing any direction other than towards the bird is MIS-LEADING... then deductive reasoning tells us that facing towards the marks must be "leading".

Facing the guns toward the line, regardless of the direction of the throw, is the most fair. While leading is better than mis-leading, neither should be done by judges. Face the marks towards the line so they are more visible and let the dogs make the decision on their own.

I don't even like it when visible gun stands are pointing towards the bird, but i can't always address that.

I do not believe judges should face bird boys away from the mark. But I am more concerned about visibility from the line and comfort of the bird boy (looking into the sun, cold wind/rain, etc...) than i am whether they are facing towards the mark or towards the line. All things being equal, i will face them towards the line every time.

Just my .02

SM


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

I think this is a very simple thing to prepare the dog for. (which way the gunners face after throwing.)

JS


----------



## Kyle B (May 5, 2005)

Jim Pickering said:


> For those of you who think having the guns face the line is acceptable, I will attempt to make my case then go back to the training videos. I am all for instructing the guns to face whatever way makes them the most visible before the marks are thrown, but once the marks are down the only neutral position is facing the mark. If the dog does not know where the gun is after the marks are down it likely dogs not know where the mark is either.
> 
> I realize that field trials long ago lost any semblance to a day’s hunt except that both involve dogs, game birds and retrieving, however, the rules still read as follows:
> 
> ...



In that scenario, if I were standing 300 yards away from the guy who just shot a duck that landed 15 yards away from him.....I would tell him to go pick up the duck himself rather than send my dog (irregardless of which way he was facing).


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Barry said:


> Are you saying just because of rotation that the pro's will try a little harder to get there on time? Now that's a good one.


Nope. I'm saying that if pros are told, and know when they enter, that there's a REASON why the club is going to put a rotation in the Derby, that they are ON NOTICE that the club is trying to do the right thing by the dogs. They are then ACCOUNTABLE for where they are supposed to be. Most pros I know try to do that. All we're asking them to do is help us be fair to ALL the dogs inasmuch as we can.



> The only thing that rotation has done is squelch the bitching and moaning of those that thought that all the draws were crooked.


Spoken like a true cynic, Barry...;-)



> The same poor schmuck amateur that is 29 dog to run still ends up running in the first 5 dogs.


Not if clubs put this message in the holding blind of the Open's first series and in the premium on EE/with the AKC: "The first 10 dogs in the Amateur will run in order, regardless of their standing in the Open." Besides, the "poor schmuck" can choose to stand his ground and NOT run in the first 5 without penalty in my book.



> What trials have you seen where the things work according to Hoyle? Or everyone runs in order?


I've seen trials where folks TRY to do the right thing. I've seen trials where the Open ran in order all day Friday and the Derby still got done. I've seen trials where the first 10 dogs in the Am ran in order and then the order went to hell in a handbasket. I've seen it all too, Barry...I just choose to believe that there is a way to TRY to make it better rather than sitting back, saying it never will be, and offering ZERO in the way of helping it improve.

kg


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

Jim Pickering said:


> I will grant you the some dogs pay no attention to the guns but other most definitely are sensitive to the guns and the direction the gun is facing. Maybe someone can explain to me why you would have the guns face any direction other than the mark after the birds are down unless you think that the gun facing the mark is helpful to at least some dogs. If so then by definition when you instruct the gun to face the line (away from the mark) are you not doing so to “mislead” the dogs or at least those who are sensitive to the guns?


Fair is having the guns face the same for ALL the dogs! 

Derbies are supposed to be about marking. Not to the trained response of which way the bird boy is facing. ;-) 

Rather than trying to get all bird boys consistently facing the bird, why not train the dog so that it wasn't so dependent on the way the bird boy was facing? Are the dogs that can only mark the bird if the bird boy is facing it really the best making dogs?


----------



## Brandoned (Aug 20, 2004)

Kyle B said:


> In that scenario, if I were standing 300 yards away from the guy who just shot a duck that landed 15 yards away from him.....I would tell him to go pick up the duck himself rather than send my dog (irregardless of which way he was facing).


Good one Kyle!


----------



## John Gassner (Sep 11, 2003)

I think HRC tests have shown that dogs can and do mark off of the gun. To a lesser degree I think they can be conditioned to do this from gunners in the field.

When we shoot a flyer station or even a control bird we often use wingers. These tend to stay "facing the mark-bird". Since they will stay facing the mark, I contend that the other gunners should also.

Last reason for this is that most marks (hopefully) are downwind. As a gunner I would hate to face into a brisk Kansas wind for 8 hours. As a hired birdboy I think I would tend to naturally turn away from the wind. This kind of kills keeping it the same.....

Jim is right on this. Not facing the marks either shows ones ignorance to the cause and effect or indifference. I'm not sure which is worse?


John


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

When I ran my 1st derby dog I was to dumb to know that running first every time was a disadvantage. I only had one dog and was right their for every test dog and gave the marshalls my number.


My youngest dog I ran the derby with at one trial when the marshall asked for my number I said 24 and they said they will put me down. I said no thank you I will run towards the end and work between the pros when they manage to show up.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

I think we ought to be more concerned with how the judges are judging the marks than which direction the guns are facing.


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> I think we ought to be more concerned with how the judges are judging the marks than which direction the guns are facing.


Based on what i've seen the last couple years at the derby, the biggest problem is not in how judges are judging marks. The problem is you hook a gun and go straight to the bird, your just about guaranteed a green. There are plenty of dogs that did not hook the gun and ran straight to bird, so its not really a problem with the judging of the work. It's a problem with the tests. But not all judges see that as a problem. Some judges will be high 5ing each other when its over, convinced they've just put on a great derby. Maybe i'm the one that is off my rocker, but i do not believe you've tested the dogs very well when the separation at the end of 8 marks is so minimal that you've hammered 8 marks and are green. No other stakes are like that.

I can appreciate the fact that it is supposed to be fun and attract new people and so forth. But the derby hasn't been the conduit for new blood in this sport for years and it became "real" when the top derby gets more recognition than the top open dog and $125k 24mo old dogs are bought and sold.

I'm not smart enough to have the answer, but that is a big problem i consistently see today and rarely saw 8-9 years ago.

Another big problem is _"oh we'll just do 2 down the shore in the last series and get 'em"_. A great topic for an article would be the difference between finding the best "natural marking" dog vs the "most trained" dog.

SM


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Shayne Mehringer said:


> I'm not smart enough to have the answer, but that is a big problem i consistently see today and rarely saw 8-9 years ago.


could it be the least experienced judges who are judging perhaps the most difficult stake to judge?

in the early 80s Dottie (Ramsey) Mikeska and I judged a derby with a bunch of very good derby dogs running, 5 series, the last was a water double with a big throw (by Tommy Martin, Bon) on a bird in the water and the gun retired, the retired gun seemed to bother the handlers more than it bothered the dogs


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Shayne Mehringer said:


> Based on what i've seen the last couple years at the derby, the biggest problem is not in how judges are judging marks. The problem is you hook a gun and go straight to the bird, your just about guaranteed a green. There are plenty of dogs that did not hook the gun and ran straight to bird, so its not really a problem with the judging of the work.
> SM


I would say that the quote above proves my point

Why is a dog that runs in a straight line to the bird scored higher for marking than a dog that runs directly to the bird in a banana outside the line or inside the line? 

Why is it that handlers think that hooking a gun is death?

Because judges are judging lines not marks ... and their tests are not hard enough to create separation


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> Because judges are judging lines not marks ... and their tests are not hard enough to create separation


Worth repeating, but quoting is easier.

SM


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

EdA said:


> could it be the least experienced judges who are judging perhaps the most difficult stake to judge?


Thats a big part of it fo sho. I've gotten funny looks from people when i've said the derby is the hardest stake to judge, but i wholeheartedly agree.

I'm far from an "experienced judge" in my opinion (number of judging assignments does not always translate into becoming a good/experienced judge), but i do have enough experience to respect how difficult it is to put on a quality derby.

As the all-age dogs have evolved over the years, the tests have evolved to stay ahead of them. That cannot be said for the derby. Maybe it is time for retired guns to become more common place in the derby.

SM


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Shayne Mehringer said:


> Another big problem is _"oh we'll just do 2 down the shore in the last series and get 'em"_. A great topic for an article would be the difference between finding the best "natural marking" dog vs the "most trained" dog.


Dennis is attempting to address this in an upcoming series on marking in Retrievers Online.


----------



## scott spalding (Aug 27, 2005)

don't you think by not factoring in the line it would be hard to get seperation in a good field of derby dogs. With two gunners up the dogs are going to get the birds. I am sure one could argue this would be acomplished with good bird placement. I don't think it is enough given the grounds avalible to the derby. The dogs just mark to good off the gunners.
________
Uggs


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

I posted this several years ago

When you judge are you looking at lines ... or marks?

First, let’s take a look at what the Rule Book says. According to the 

Supplement to the Standard Procedure:
Natural Abilities
(1) Accurate marking, or memory of "falls" is of paramount importance. However, this does not imply that dogs which excel in marking shall not be severely penalized, or even eliminated, for deficiencies in, or a lack of the other required "abilities." However, in Derby Stakes the ability to "mark" is all-important and dogs that are handled on a mark in a Derby Stake shall be eliminated. Even in our most exacting stakes, tests are usually so devised that "marked" birds constitute a large percentage of the retrieves by which each dog's performance is judged.


Ability to "mark" does not necessarily imply "pin-pointing the fall." A dog that misses the "fall" on the first cast, but recognizes the depth of the "area of the fall," stays in it, then quickly and systematically "hunts-it-out," has done both a creditable and an intelligent job of marking. Such work should not be appreciably out-scored by the dog that "finds" or "pinpoints" on his first cast. However, a dog which consistently, i.e., during an entire stake, marks his birds in a closer area, hence, more accurately than another dog, should be judged accordingly. All things are relative, and, conceivably, such differences in markings alone might be sufficient to determine the final placings in a particular stake.


Even with "marked" birds, a handler may be able to render great assistance to his dog by giving him "a line" in the direction of the "fall"; however, there is nothing he can do, short of handling, to aid the dog in recognizing the "depth of the fall." Often a dog gives definite indication of "memory," and of his marking ability, at or after delivery of a first bird, by aligning himself toward, or by looking eagerly in the exact direction of an unretrieved "fall"; at times, even leaving at once or leaving on command, but without benefit of a precise line to the "fall" given to him by the handler. There is no invariable method by which the relative merits of such perfect completions can be judged. Reference is made to Section 29 of the "Standard" with respect to the undesirability of conspicuously intensive lining.

Second, note what the rule book does not say:

That a dog’s marking ability is determined by the line it takes to the fall; and

That a dog that steps on the birds is markedly better than the dog who has a small hunt in a tight area around the bird.


I cannot tell you how frustrated I get when I hear people talk about lines as if they were marks. Several years ago, I ran my two litter mates FC/AFC Freeridin Wowie Zowie (Zowie) and FC/AFC Sky Hy’s Husker Power (Ace). On his marks, Ace tended to run straight. In contrast, Zowie tended to run in a banana on his marks.


In the first series of this Open, Ace took a straight line to the long retired bird, overran the mark, made several loops in the area of the bird, and then dug it up. In contrast, Zowie ran wide, hooked in hard, and then stepped on the bird. 


Several people tell me how good Ace’s mark was ... based almost entirely on his line to the Area of the Fall (AOF). I overhear others talk about how poor Zowie’s line was and how lucky he was to have gotten the bird.


I mention these comments because I think they reflect the over emphasis people play on lines. If you were to consult with the Rule Book, you would find that the marks were quite comparable.


When you judge, please remember that we are to judge marks, not lines. In fact, the Rule Book tells us we are to penalize excessive efforts to line our dogs!


Similarly, although all of us find a pinpoint marker worthy of praise, remember to recognize the value of a dog that sets up a tight hunt in the area of the fall.


Also remember that as the Rule Book notes, there are other signs of a good marking dog.

When they come to the line, they are looking for the guns, searching the horizon for any sign of white coats in the field.

When they return from a retrieve, you will often see them looking at the next bird they want to retrieve.

When they get to the mat, they will orient themselves, without any cues from the handler, towards the bird that they remember and want.


When you judge, remember that marks are so very much more than lines.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

scott spalding said:


> don't you think by not factoring in the line it would be hard to get seperation in a good field of derby dogs. With two gunners up the dogs are going to get the birds. I am sure one could argue this would be acomplished with good bird placement. I don't think it is enough given the grounds avalible to the derby. The dogs just mark to good off the gunners.


If I were judging and the only difference between placements was which dog ran straight lines, and which dog "hooked" guns, then I would feel that I hadn't done my job, and time permitting ... set off for another series


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

EdA said:


> could it be the least experienced judges who are judging perhaps the most difficult stake to judge?


In my opinion, this is a HUGE problem.


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> > Quote:
> > Originally Posted by scott spalding
> > don't you think by not factoring in the line it would be hard to get seperation in a good field of derby dogs. With two gunners up the dogs are going to get the birds. I am sure one could argue this would be acomplished with good bird placement. I don't think it is enough given the grounds avalible to the derby. The dogs just mark to good off the gunners.
> 
> ...


Both of those go to my whole point. Scott is saying when you have two dogs smack the marks and one ran a straight line, the straight line dog should win. And i know Scott saw a lot of that when campaigning Pink. No one would argue that the hooked gun dog should place above the straight line dog.

Ted is saying, thats not sufficient separation. 

I agree with both. But the root of the problem is not that the judges are judging lines... the problem is that their tests did not result in enough separation. There is RARELY time for another series and even if they did, it would likely be more of the same.

You are both speaking to the same problem, but you are putting the cart before the horse when talking about how to judge marks without the ability to setup good/tough/fair marks.

SM


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Shayne Mehringer said:


> . No one would argue that the hooked gun dog should place above the straight line dog.


I would

Insufficient separation means that the two are indistinguishable

We are to judge marks, not lines

If you say a direct line marked the bird better than a hooked gun, you are judging lines, not marks

Hence I say it is a judging problem

Ted


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Shayne Mehringer said:


> you are putting the cart before the horse when talking about how to judge marks without the ability to setup good/tough/fair marks.


Which is a judging issue.


----------



## Barry (Dec 11, 2007)

> I'm saying that if pros are told, and know when they enter, that there's a REASON why the club is going to put a rotation in the Derby, that they are ON NOTICE that the club is trying to do the right thing by the dogs. They are then ACCOUNTABLE for where they are supposed to be.


Seems to me that they don't need to be told or led around from place to place. It's their living! And besides no one ever holds them accountable for where they are supposed to be. What makes you think that if they have a few dogs in front of them in the Open that they will make on time to the Derby to be more fair to another competitor? Are you kidding me. The minors are secondary in nature. Unless they are running well and even then they are proned to stay at the Open until someone tells them to go to the Qual or Derby.



> All we're asking them to do is help us be fair to ALL the dogs inasmuch as we can


.
You shouldn't have to ask.



> Spoken like a true cynic, Barry...;-)


Cynic : Person who is motivated by self interest. And you think I have something to gain by this? Besides the fact that I ran 7 trials last year and ran in order one time and that happened to be in the last series of one of those trials. My only interest is in this sport, it's survival, and fairness for all who participate not the few who wine and moan that everyone is out to screw them. So do me a favor and get off the self indulgence BS and try not being so condescending. This discussion isn't about you or me, it's about all concerned FTer's.



> "The first 10 dogs in the Amateur will run in order, regardless of their standing in the Open."


What about the other 60 dogs in the Amateur? Haven't they been given a running number? Are the later dogs given a fairness star by not having to be in order. Look, I realize that everything doesn't go according to plan and at some point you just have to get it done. But if order is the rule of the game then it should be followed with consequences for those that break the rule. If you haven't noticed I'm not in the business of holding people's hands. 



> Besides, the "poor schmuck" can choose to stand his ground and NOT run in the first 5 without penalty in my book.


I don't know for sure, but I don't think your book accounts for much at the weekend trial unless your judging it. I've seen people that are #25 to run that show up to run in order and they get pushed aside or harassed because they were not there to run earlier when they were running out of or waiting for dogs. So I don't know what book it is that you use but it ain't holding water at some of the trials I've been to. 



> I've seen trials where folks TRY to do the right thing. I've seen trials where the Open ran in order all day Friday and the Derby still got done.


I've seen at most trials where people do the right thing without having to try. I to see a lot of trials where the Open and the Derby run without a hitch. If it happened all that often though we wouldn't be having this discussion.



> I've seen trials where the first 10 dogs in the Am ran in order and then the order went to hell in a handbasket.


Which is 90% of the time. That's why it is unfair to demand that the first 10 run in order. How about everyone runs in order? What's the matter with having the draw for the Open and with the same draw run in reverse for the Am. Usually 15 or so less dogs in the Am without much chance of having to be in two places at the same time.



> I've seen it all too, Barry...I just choose to believe that there is a way to TRY to make it better rather than sitting back, saying it never will be, and offering ZERO in the way of helping it improve.


Here is my ZERO.

In trials that I've have been associated with running we started the Qual on Friday at 8:00 AM and the Open at 9:00 AM and tell all pro's to run all their dogs at the Qual before going to the Open. The same thing on Sat morning if the Qual needs to finish. It has worked for us and for four years we have never had a Qual held up by a pro. And have always had enough time for the Derby dogs at the conclusion of the Open. But you know something, people still complained because the Open is supposed to have preference over the minor stakes,and should start earlier. Go figure. 

BTW, need I post my credentials to voice an opinion.
kg[/QUOTE]


----------



## scott spalding (Aug 27, 2005)

I am learning. I do not think the rules are as clear as some state. There are alot of factors in a single mark to be considered. Some dogs avoid the test but mark the bird this should be considered and often is not. The rules state also that dogs are to be tested on land and water. What about the dog that bannas around the water and pins the mark? Is this dog scored equal to the dog that fights the factors and pins the marks. Dogs that run strait challenge the test do they not.
________
INDICA STRAINS


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> I would
> 
> Insufficient separation means that the two are indistinguishable
> 
> ...


The whole thing is a judging problem. 

But in reference to picking a winner between the two dogs when the ONLY difference is one dog took a straight line to the bird, and the other dog hooked the gun and ran right to the bird. I'm going to give the nod to the dog that ran right to the bird. Not because i want to, but because i have to pick a winner. You can argue perseverance or disturbed cover or tell yourself it was a wind save or whatever you want against the hooked gun dog (no matter how petty or "reaching" it may be). But you cannot argue against the dog that ran the straight line. I would not be satisfied with my job as a judge if it ever came down to that, but put a gun to my head and make me pick - i'm picking the straight line dog. The difference between my stance and what Scott is talking about is that i would NOT be satisfied with my job as a judge, while many would be.

High 5s all around regards,

SM


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

scott spalding said:


> I am learning. I do not think the rules are as clear as some state. There are alot of factors in a single mark to be considered. Some dogs avoid the test but mark the bird this should be considered and often is not. The rules state also that dogs are to be tested on land and water. What about the dog that bannas around the water and pins the mark? Is this dog scored equal to the dog that fights the factors and pins the marks. Dogs that run strait challenge the test do they not.


The derby is about finding the best "natural marking" retriever and NOT the most "trained retriever".

Set up 8 marks that mean something and you shouldn't have to worry about how a dog got to the mark when your doing your placements.

SM


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Barry said:


> BTW, need I post my credentials to voice an opinion.


By no means. Don't know why you felt the need to write that, unless you've got a chip on your shoulder for some reason.

We're from different eras, Barry. You feel the way you do, I feel the way I do.

Let's move on.

kg


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

scott spalding said:


> What about the dog that bannas around the water and pins the mark? Is this dog scored equal to the dog that fights the factors and pins the marks. Dogs that run strait challenge the test do they not.


Shame on the judges for setting up a test that allows a dog to cheat and still get the bird

Good for the dog to get the bird

Judge marking, not training

Set up tests that don't require the trained response - e.g. staying in the water when running the bank will do

When you leave the derby and start competing in the AA stakes, you will find that if you can simply get 6 or 8 birds cleanly, you probably are blue

Ted


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

Jim Pickering said:


> However, I would prefer retired guns, triples and/or blinds, anything that is stright forward, over tricks to mislead dogs and I put instructing guns to face away from marks in that catigory.


As early as 1977, I saw a triple used in the last series of a Derby. I'm surprised to hear that they haven't become more common in Derbies by now.


----------



## Criquetpas (Sep 14, 2004)

Ted Shih said:


> I think we ought to be more concerned with how the judges are judging the marks than which direction the guns are facing.



BUT isn't there more uniformity for a full profile , maybe a angle toward the side the bird is being thrown, then having a eventual "slouch" with maybe the bird boy facing almost away, WHEN it's your turn to run! You can't really control the sun, wind and rain, but you can control to a point the throw, the angle of the throw and the chair in a "marking stake" .


----------



## Barry (Dec 11, 2007)

Ted Shih said:


> I posted this several years ago
> 
> When you judge are you looking at lines ... or marks?
> 
> ...


Page 28 Sec 22 The jugdes must judge the dogs for A: their natural ability's incliding their memory, intelligence, attention, nose, courage, perseverance and style, and B: their abilities acquired threw training, including steadiness, control, response to direction, and delivery.

I think A has to do with natural ability's. B has to do with the training aspect. IMO The response to direction describes the lines acquired threw training. And I to think that they matter, however not as a main factor as to weather a dog should be dropped or not. Unless said dog is way off line or had one heck of a banana. In the same respect a dog can be dropped for grossly cheating the water under the same provision even though he pinned the mark but ran 100 yards around the pond to do so.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

I think the dogs get a better view of the gun when the gunners are in a neutral position, but others are more concerned about the cue position provides


----------



## scott spalding (Aug 27, 2005)

I don't think that I said I would be happy with having to judge lines myself to pick my placements. But what I can tell you is I ran 29 derby this year and there were quite a few that had to have come down to that from were I was standing. I think judges are afraid to push these young dogs because of the fact they will lose dogs. I can think of a few that I felt the leading dogs were never tested to the extent of there ability. That being said I hope to judge two trials a year starting this spring. I read what everyone posts trying to gather a better understanding from people like Ted and Ed and shane along with many others who have given back. I have not felt until this year I could bring anything productive to the table as far as judging goes but I will give it a shot starting with the derby and Q.
________
MEDICAL MARIJUANA PATIENTS


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

EdA said:


> could it be the least experienced judges who are judging perhaps the most difficult stake to judge?


Many years ago, grand Chessie gentleman, Jess Mitchell, made a very similar comment saying that the Derby required the most experienced judges, rather than the least experienced ones who were more often assigned there.


----------



## Barry (Dec 11, 2007)

K G said:


> > By no means.
> >
> >
> > > Don't know why you felt the need to write that, unless you've got a chip on your shoulder for some reason.
> ...


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Scott

Congratulations on a great derby year. I think it is great that you are looking to give back to a sport that has given you so much excitement and satisfaction.

I suspect that there will be those who differ with me, but when I judge the Derby:

- My first priority is to find a winner
- My second priority is to have as many dogs finish as possible given my first priority

However, if the field demands that the tests get sufficiently hard that some dogs will fall by the wayside ... so be it

I have not awarded, and have no intention of awarding, placements based on a dog's line.

Ted


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

Criquetpas said:


> BUT isn't there more uniformity for a full profile , maybe a angle toward the side the bird is being thrown, then having a eventual "slouch" with maybe the bird boy facing almost away, WHEN it's your turn to run! You can't really control the sun, wind and rain, but you can control to a point the throw, the angle of the throw and the chair in a "marking stake" .





Ted Shih said:


> I think the dogs get a better view of the gun when the gunners are in a neutral position, but others are more concerned about the cue position provides


I agree with Ted. When the bird boy slouches in the chair when it is turned toward the bird, he becomes less visible. If it is an angle back throw, he becomes hidden by the back of the chair.


----------



## greg magee (Oct 24, 2007)

Ted Shih said:


> I would
> 
> Insufficient separation means that the two are indistinguishable
> 
> ...


Too many variables come into play to say across the board that you are not judging lines. If dog "A" does not cave to any factors, and fights wind, terrain, and water, shows perseverance and is stylish compared to dog "B" who is not as stylish, falls or caves to every factor, but hooks the gun and goes straight to the bird each time I'm here to tell you dog "A" wins. On paper it might just look like a hooked gun but there are other things to be considered when judging these dogs. You could make the argument that I'm judging lines but I'm under the impression that I'm looking at the big picture. The dog that uses the less lead in my pencil is usually the winner in my book.
Using your argument Ted, you could say a dog that gets out early and hooks the gun should be score equally as well as the dog that stayed in the water and went right to the bird. Maybe you would like to add a caveat to your statement about not judging lines.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> I think the dogs get a better view of the gun when the gunners are in a neutral position, but others are more concerned about the cue position provides


Undoubtedly this could become the next issue for The Subcommittee On Rules to the Retriever Advisory Committee to address, further micro-managing of the rule book.......:shock:

The guns MUST (not shall) be seated so as to reflect the direction of the throw........

No Smilie For Tongue In Cheek Regards....;-)


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

greg magee said:


> Too many variables come into play to say across the board that you are not judging lines. If dog "A" does not cave to any factors, and fights wind, terrain, and water, shows perseverance and is stylish compared to dog "B" who is not as stylish, falls or caves to every factor, but hooks the gun and goes straight to the bird each time I'm here to tell you dog "A" wins. On paper it might just look like a hooked gun but there are other things to be considered when judging these dogs. You could make the argument that I'm judging lines but I'm under the impression that I'm looking at the big picture. The dog that uses the less lead in my pencil is usually the winner in my book.
> Using your argument Ted, you could say a dog that gets out early and hooks the gun should be score equally as well as the dog that stayed in the water and went right to the bird. Maybe you would like to add a caveat to your statement about not judging lines.


As i stated earlier... you can make some, no matter how weak, arguments against the hooked gun dog... and you can not make any arguments against the dog that ran straight to the bird. 

Straight dog wins, or lets come back on Monday and run another series or two. Personally, i'd lose less sleeps over rewarding the straight line dog than i would causing a Monday layover cuz i didn't have tough enough tests.

SM


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

greg magee said:


> Too many variables come into play to say across the board that you are not judging lines. If dog "A" does not cave to any factors, and fights wind, terrain, and water, shows perseverance and is stylish compared to dog "B" who is not as stylish, falls or caves to every factor, but hooks the gun and goes straight to the bird each time I'm here to tell you dog "A" wins. On paper it might just look like a hooked gun but there are other things to be considered when judging these dogs. You could make the argument that I'm judging lines but I'm under the impression that I'm looking at the big picture. The dog that uses the less lead in my pencil is usually the winner in my book.
> Using your argument Ted, you could say a dog that gets out early and hooks the gun should be score equally as well as the dog that stayed in the water and went right to the bird. Maybe you would like to add a caveat to your statement about not judging lines.



Is not caving to factors and getting out of the water early a natural or trained trait?

I was at a trial in Minnesota last summer when a contestant asked why he didn't place higher than a dog that got out early on a water mark. The judge stated that we were judging the mark not the training. I have that judges name written down in a little notebook.


----------



## greg magee (Oct 24, 2007)

Shayne Mehringer said:


> As i stated earlier... you can make some, no matter how weak, arguments against the hooked gun dog... and you can not make any arguments against the dog that ran straight to the bird.
> 
> Straight dog wins, or lets come back on Monday and run another series or two. Personally, i'd lose less sleeps over rewarding the straight line dog than i would causing a Monday layover cuz i didn't have tough enough tests.
> 
> SM


I have no problem with your (RN) logic Shayne. It was the "Tedisms" that I took exception too.


----------



## greg magee (Oct 24, 2007)

Buzz said:


> Is not caving to factors and getting out of the water early a natural or trained trait?
> 
> You can sell that to some one who sits up in the dumb tree in the dumb tree forest. It's a water test for christ sake!


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

greg magee said:


> Buzz said:
> 
> 
> > Is not caving to factors and getting out of the water early a natural or trained trait?
> ...


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

greg magee said:


> Using your argument Ted, you could say a dog that gets out early and hooks the gun should be score equally as well as the dog that stayed in the water and went right to the bird. Maybe you would like to add a caveat to your statement about not judging lines.


No, I would say that I failed to do my job if a dog could cheat the water and get the bird cleanly. 

No caveat needed.


----------



## scott spalding (Aug 27, 2005)

primary not only unless I am reading incorrectly.
________
Extreme Vaporizer 240V


----------



## greg magee (Oct 24, 2007)

Ted Shih said:


> greg magee said:
> 
> 
> > No, it's a derby
> ...


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

greg magee said:


> Ted Shih said:
> 
> 
> > Please refer to post 104
> ...


----------



## scott spalding (Aug 27, 2005)

Some dogs like water before training begins and some never like it. This has to be considered in a water test.
________
EXPERT INSURANCE


----------



## greg magee (Oct 24, 2007)

Ted Shih said:


> No, I would say that I failed to do my job if a dog could cheat the water and get the bird cleanly.
> 
> No caveat needed.


When you have enough experience and know that your test was straight forward and the dog just didn't have enough gas in the tank to get there, you'll learn not be be so hard on yourself. Comes with time. You'll be alright. take care,


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

greg magee said:


> When you have enough experience and know that your test was straight forward and the dog just didn't have enough gas in the tank to get there, you'll learn not be be so hard on yourself. Comes with time. You'll be alright. take care,


Thanks so very much for the words of encouragement.

I will sleep so very well tonight.


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

greg magee said:


> Buzz said:
> 
> 
> > Is not caving to factors and getting out of the water early a natural or trained trait?
> ...


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

scott spalding said:


> Some dogs like water before training begins and some never like it. This has to be considered in a water test.


I'm a simple guy with a simple little brain, so i like to keep things simple in my judging philosophies.... 

Don't do anything that has never been done. Don't do anything that flirts with the edges of the rulebook. Place birds, not bird stations. Test hard, judge easy.

I have found that sticking to those simple philosophies will remedy the need for much discussion between you and your co-judge about placements and callbacks. It also minimizes risk of pissing off your customers that you are judging. That last part may not apply to everyone. 

SM


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

EdA said:


> Undoubtedly this could become the next issue for The Subcommittee On Rules to the Retriever Advisory Committee to address, further micro-managing of the rule book.......:shock:
> 
> The guns MUST (not shall) be seated so as to reflect the direction of the throw........
> 
> No Smilie For Tongue In Cheek Regards....;-)


That's not beyond belief, they have already done so in another aspect of the Derby

john


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

I see a lot of this beaching early and back-siding verbage*. At what point does the fact that the gun is retired enter the judging of the mark equation. I haven't seen too many stay out down the shore AA marks lately.

Is there a wrong side to a retired gun regards

john

* no i, look it up


----------



## greg magee (Oct 24, 2007)

Buzz said:


> greg magee said:
> 
> 
> > Well, another name for the notebook, different page however.
> ...


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

You're one heck of a nice guy Greg.

I'm not a judge, so I don't get to have an opinion?

OK


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

john fallon said:


> Is there a wrong side to a retired gun regards


No. 

Some folks get too hung up in the route the dog took, rather than where the dog hunted.

SM


----------



## greg magee (Oct 24, 2007)

Buzz said:


> You're one heck of a nice guy Greg.
> 
> I'm not a judge, so I don't get to have an opinion?
> 
> OK


Dave, everybody here is intitled to their opinion. It just carries a little more weight if we are enlightened to your background and experience so we know what basis your forming your opinion on. 
Thanks again for that heart felt introduction via PM. Your mother must be proud. Greg


----------



## mjh345 (Jun 17, 2006)

Buzz said:


> greg magee said:
> 
> 
> > Well, another name for the notebook, different page however.
> ...


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

greg magee said:


> Dave, everybody here is intitled to their opinion. It just carries a little more weight if we are enlightened to your background and experience so we know what basis your forming your opinion on.
> Thanks again for that heart felt introduction via PM. Your mother must be proud. Greg


Well, with your vast experience, I'm sure you can answer the question I posed then. Is staying in the water and fighting factors a trained or a natural ability? Rather than hearing about dumb people sitting in dumb trees in a dumb forest, I would really like to know the answer. You see, if it is a natural ability, then I can save myself a lot of time, money, and work on my next dog. It won't require solid basics and transition training. I'll just go looking for those puppies that naturally fight factors and stay in the water. Even if they cost a little extra, it will surely be worth it.

And yes, to say that my mom is proud would be an understatement. But you know how moms can be.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Buzz said:


> You're one heck of a nice guy Greg.
> 
> I'm not a judge, so I don't get to have an opinion?
> 
> OK


Don't worry, Buzz

I don't have enough experience, either.

But, Greg assures me that in time, I will see the light.


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

So when does a person have enough experience?

FOM


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

FOM said:


> So when does a person have enough experience?
> 
> FOM


This game changes so much that being "current" is as necessary as being "experienced".

SM


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Shayne Mehringer said:


> This game changes so much that being "current" is as necessary as being "experienced".
> 
> SM


Would you mind expanding on that thought.

john


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

What good Derby judge is going to set up cheaty water marks? I've worked and run a bunch of Derbies and have asked judges why such a sever angle to the shore in a Derby. They usually tell me they want to see if the dogs can hold the line. Crazy!!! I'm with Ed, often the most difficult stake to judge gets the least experienced judges. And, the least desirable grounds. Just some of the reasons why I like minor stakes having their own weekend.


----------



## Jim Pickering (Sep 17, 2004)

I certainly got behind on this thread while out training today.



Shayne Mehringer said:


> If you argue that facing any direction other than towards the bird is MIS-LEADING... then deductive reasoning tells us that facing towards the marks must be "leading".
> SM


I believe that is exactly what I said so we are in agreement on this point. Again the flip side of you argument is that if the gun facing the mark is leading, then facing the gun away is misleading and while the rules do not prohibit leading the dogs the rules do prohibit *misleading* the dogs. I should rest my case here but others may not agree so easily. 



> Facing the guns toward the line, regardless of the direction of the throw, is the most fair.


In the end we may have to agree to disagree on this point, but what the heck, I will try one more time. I will preface my case by saying that some dogs could care less which way the gun is facing. If I were judging I would certainly look most favorably on this dog or dogs if I could identify them. However, the discussion was intended to be about the rules and specifically the one the prohibits positioning guns to misleading dog. 

I believe you are looking at it from a judge’s prospective and if you seriously want to be fair to *all* dogs you should be looking at it from the dog’s prospective. Please take a look at the two diagram posted below Setup #1 and Setup #2 are identical except for the direction the gun is facing as indicated by the small arrow at the gun identified by the letter “G”. In the Setup # 1 the gun is facing the mark. In Setup # 2 the gun is facing the line. At the risk of overly complication this let’s assume that the go bird (not shown) was a flyer a little shorter in distance and well to the right and shot to the right. 










Note the blue line of dog #1 in setup #1. This dog takes the water and carries a straight line to the mark. Does it appear that the direction the gun was facing helped this dog? I would read that it did not, certainly not on a 200-300 yard mark. Now consider the line (orange) to the mark taken by dog #2. This dog flared the water and/or sucked toward the flyer guns putting it on a line wide right of the memory mark gun, but as the dog approached the gun it broke hard left to get in front of the gun. Did the direction the gun was facing lead this dog to the mark or did this dog suddenly remember where the mark was located. I tend to think the gun was an aid to the dog. No doubt this is why some of you think facing the gun toward the line removes that help to the dog gone astray. Before you reply, read on.

Now look at Setup # 2 in which the gun if facing in toward the line. Look at dog #2 in orange first. Again this dog flares the water and is headed wide right but to this dog the gun is facing to the dog’s left. To get in front of the gun the dog again turns hard left passes in front of the gun and bingo to the bird. Contrary to what you believe the gun facing the line will still lead this dog to the mark. Lastly look at dog #1 in blue in Setup #2. Again this dog takes the water and carries a straight line toward the bird. But to this dog the gun is facing to its right so this dog breaks hard right to get in front of the gun and then hooks around the gun to the bird. By facing the gun toward the line you have helped to wayward dog and mislead the dog that had the better mark on the bird.

You guys can poo-poo this as you will, but there it is in living color; a dog’s prospective of using guns to mislead some dogs.
.



> Just my .02


Just my change for your .02


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

Jim, in the very first post you are talking about Derby. If Derby judges set up water marks where the dogs have a chip of water, with an angle entry...then I say the judges should be taken off line and shot!


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

Jim

If dog A was that schooled in staying in front of the gun in setup #2, why did it then go behind the gun without an extended hunt in front of the gun?

I'm NOT convinced!


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

Doug Main said:


> Jim
> 
> If dog A was that schooled in staying in front of the gun in setup #2, why did it then go behind the gun without an extended hunt in front of the gun?
> 
> I'm NOT convinced!



Is staying in front of the gun a trained or natural ability?

Maybe I should add that to my puppy wish list.


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

If the Blue dog in setup 2 deviated that much because of how the gun was facing, he must not have had much confidence in his mark. I have never witnessed that extreme level of influence (dog is on line to pound the mark, then turns 90 degrees) on a dog. 

However, if i was judging and did witness such a thing, the dog's mark on the bird, or a piece of trash on the ground would both come to mind before i would consider the facing of the bird boy to be the cause of the drastic deviation. 

Maybe i am just not that smart, but it would have never popped into my head "wow, that dog broke down and went completely around that gun because he assumed the bird was directly in front of the gunner due to how i positioned him". I'm being very open minded about this and trying to "get it" but it is not registering with me.

As a judge, my biggest concern with setup 1 is a 100lb kid in an oversize bag chair will not show up very good facing angle back like that.

Did this happen before or after they ran lunches? 

SM


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

Buzz said:


> Is staying in front of the gun a trained or natural ability?
> 
> Maybe I should add that to my puppy wish list.


It's natural. EIC, CNM, running straight lines... all hereditary. Just need that darn test for the line thing and we're set!

SM


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

Shayne Mehringer said:


> It's natural. EIC, CNM, running straight lines... all hereditary. Just need that darn test for the line thing and we're set!
> 
> SM


You can have them natural lining dogs. 

I'm waiting for that genetic test to identify the exceptional markers. I can teach them to line well enough. ;-)


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

Doug Main said:


> You can have them natural lining dogs.
> 
> I'm waiting for that genetic test to identify the exceptional markers. I can teach them to line well enough. ;-)


Typical... looking for the easy way out. HAHAHAHA

SM


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

john fallon said:


> Is there a wrong side to a retired gun....


There is where the bird _is_, and where the bird _ain't_.....how the dog got there doesn't much matter as long as he's where the bird _is_.



Shayne Mehringer said:


> This game changes so much that being "current" is as necessary as being "experienced".


I sure wish we could get _that_ written into the rule book as a judging requirement...sure would cut down the pool but it just _might_ be worth it....;-)

kg


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

K G said:


> There is where the bird _is_, and where the bird _ain't_.....how the dog got there doesn't much matter as long as he's where the bird is.
> kg


That there should be a signature line

john


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

I was thinking the same thing John. Pure genius!

SM


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

From experience - It is an advantage to run when there is an established scent path & the area of the fall is well scented. Those who run late get the advantage of that path. If I own a dog that runs a sound line. I do not want to run that dog early as it will make the dogs running later look better than they are. The dog that runs a straight line, carrying it to depth (called perseverance) just shows itself to be further along in the process. 

At 300 yards a square 15 yard throw is at a roughly 4-5 degrees off a straight line to the gunner, possibly there should be a greater consideration to seeking a harder way for any dog to maintain the perfect line, using available hazards.


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

Mr Booty said:


> Jim, in the very first post you are talking about Derby. If Derby judges set up water marks where the dogs have a chip of water, with an angle entry...then I say the judges should be taken off line and shot!


Hi Mr. Booty, You and I are gonna disagree. I think using a water obstacle on a land mark like this is good use of terrain and cover. Derby, Q, or all age.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

K G said:


> There is where the bird _is_, and where the bird _ain't_.....how the dog got there doesn't much matter as long as he's where the bird _is_.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Sure would mess with Marvin's theories....

/Paul


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

Marvin S said:


> At 300 yards a square 15 yard throw is at a roughly 4-5 degrees off a straight line to the gunner, possibly there should be a greater consideration to seeking a harder way for any dog to maintain the perfect line, using available hazards.


Actually it's 2.86˚ off the line to the gunner.


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

Buzz said:


> Actually it's 2.86˚ off the line to the gunner.



Are you using a calculator or a slide rule??? :twisted:

JS


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

Interesting about training in a derby.

It was during one of the last derby's that my dog ran I thought was pretty well trained ran a test that most set ups were some what arbitrary to training. Some of the marks the dog ran with her ears back and did not like where the birds were thrown and the position of the gunners. I think she was thinking she was being set up for a correction. She did manage to finish and Jam but I was extremely disappointed. The dog that won I think was less than a year old. While some things like this segment of training like which way the gun is facing is important I think in the long run you are going to be much better off. I have seen quite a few derby dogs that were awesome natural markers that have not done well or even washed in their later career. I also think that some dogs are fair markers and are trained well and will go on to do well.


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

JS said:


> Are you using a calculator or a slide rule??? :twisted:
> 
> JS


Buzz is probably hopelessly mired inthe 20th century. My calculator says it's 2.862405226111747532699.........ad nauseum degrees.  

Nit picking to the nth degree regards,

:shock: :shock:


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

Howard N said:


> Hi Mr. Booty, You and I are gonna disagree. I think using a water obstacle on a land mark like this is good use of terrain and cover. Derby, Q, or all age.


Big water yes, cheaty water no. But, that's just me and one reason why my dogs don't run Derby until they have been throuroughly trained on cheating singles.


----------



## scott spalding (Aug 27, 2005)

Shane please have Mr or Ms 125k get a hold of me. The derby is interesting because you have many levels of dogs all in one stake. You have many dogs just beging water work and some ready to run all age stakes. I think if you took the top ten derby dogs this year and ran them all on stand up doubles with the gunners up facing the fall you would play hell trying to get seperation without judging there line to the mark. Like I say I am new and have been wrong many times. We had the privledge of running against all but a couple of these dogs and I don't think it could be done. I agree with not using cheaty marks but I cannot think of two many trials this year were they were not used.
________
Easy vape ebay


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Danny said:


> Are you serious? I had no idea a derby dog would go for that much cash!


That is a FARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR extreme. Only one person I know of pays that kind of money regularly for "BIG" young dogs...I'm sure there are several others out there who can as well.

There are a good number who will pay that for titled dogs......

Good for _them_ regards, 

kg


----------



## Jim Pickering (Sep 17, 2004)

Doug Main said:


> Jim
> 
> If dog A was that schooled in staying in front of the gun in setup #2, why did it then go behind the gun without an extended hunt in front of the gun?
> 
> I'm NOT convinced!





Shayne Mehringer said:


> If the Blue dog in setup 2 deviated that much because of how the gun was facing, he must not have had much confidence in his mark. I have never witnessed that extreme level of influence (dog is on line to pound the mark, then turns 90 degrees) on a dog.
> 
> However, if i was judging and did witness such a thing, the dog's mark on the bird, or a piece of trash on the ground would both come to mind before i would consider the facing of the bird boy to be the cause of the drastic deviation.
> 
> ...


I would have been pleasantly surprised if this thread actually changed anyone’s mind and totally shocked if they admitted it on the forum. The intend was to get judges to think about what they are doing and the possible ramifications. 

I do appreciate knowing how different people interrupt the rule; that is most helpful to me in deciding which trails to run and when to stay home and train my dogs. The rules do allow for a wide range of interruption and because I interrupt the rules one way does not mean that I am right and all others are wrong. I would add vice versa but I will never admit to being wrong.


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

scott spalding said:


> Shane please have Mr or Ms 125k get a hold of me. The derby is interesting because you have many levels of dogs all in one stake. You have many dogs just beging water work and some ready to run all age stakes. I think if you took the top ten derby dogs this year and ran them all on stand up doubles with the gunners up facing the fall you would play hell trying to get seperation without judging there line to the mark. Like I say I am new and have been wrong many times. We had the privledge of running against all but a couple of these dogs and I don't think it could be done. I agree with not using cheaty marks but I cannot think of two many trials this year were they were not used.


I'm pretty confident you can run the top 10 derby dogs on 4 doubles and have a winner without judging lines. But i'm typically cocky and over confident too, so take it for what its worth. I've judged some really good derby dogs and never had to resort to comparing lines, but i've been blessed with good grounds and good co-judges. Knock on wood.

If Mr or Ms 125k is interested, they will contact you... if they haven't already. Hell i just wish Mr or Ms 12.5k would call me!

SM


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

Jim Pickering said:


> I would have been pleasantly surprised if this thread actually changed anyone’s mind and totally shocked if they admitted it on the forum. The intend was to get judges to think about what they are doing and the possible ramifications.
> 
> I do appreciate knowing how different people interrupt the rule; that is most helpful to me in deciding which trails to run and when to stay home and train my dogs. The rules do allow for a wide range of interruption and because I interrupt the rules one way does not mean that I am right and all others are wrong. I would add vice versa but I will never admit to being wrong.


Brother Jim... i have admitted i was wrong before but unfortunately i am over my quota (thats 25 cents to my gangsta homies) for this year already. Hit me up in 11 months.

SM


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

Shayne Mehringer said:


> I'm pretty confident you can run the top 10 derby dogs on 4 doubles and have a winner without judging lines. But i'm typically cocky and over confident too, so take it for what its worth. I've judged some really good derby dogs and never had to resort to comparing lines, but i've been blessed with good grounds and good co-judges. Knock on wood.
> 
> If Mr or Ms 125k is interested, they will contact you... if they haven't already. Hell i just wish Mr or Ms 12.5k would call me!
> 
> SM


I had a pro at our trial tell me that on our grounds he could probably come up with a single that most of the dogs there that day would have serious trouble picking up. I don't know if he was blowing smoke up my butt or not, but he hadn't been drinking when he said it.


----------



## Jim Pickering (Sep 17, 2004)

Ted Shih said:


> I would say that the quote above proves my point
> 
> Why is a dog that runs in a straight line to the bird scored higher for marking than a dog that runs directly to the bird in a banana outside the line or inside the line?
> 
> ...


Sorry to go so far back in this thread, but I have just had time to put my thoughts together. The qoute is post #73 from page 8.

I will attempt to answer your first question in a round about way. First, I do agree that too much emphasis is put on lines as opposed to mark, but with all due respect if I am reading you correctly you are taking it a bit far the other way. In my opinion lines to the marks cannot be ignored. One has to consider why a dog took the line it did. The reasons are not always obvious but when they are, they should not be ignored.

About 14 years back I had one or more derby dogs for five consecutive years. For the past 8-10 have not had a dog that was ready for derby by age two so I have been away from the derby part of the game until this year. What I saw this year on average was MUCH better that what I experienced 10+ years back. Sure I encountered some bad test setup and some bad judging, but not on the level it once was. There is definitely room for more imporvement and hopefully these discussions can make some small contribution.

Getting back on subject, banana lines of the same magnitude left or right regardless of where the gun is in the equation are equal on any given mark except to the extent that a dog takes such a line to avoid some factor such as water, cover or other rough going. Courage and perseverance are natural abilities that should be evaluated in all dogs including derby dogs whenever possible. Avoiding rough going should not be a fatal fault depending on degree, but it certainly should not be ignored even when judging derby dogs. IMHO 

The criteria for evaluating a dog’s line to a mark should be the amount of ground disturbed. If you read on to the end of the section or the rules you posted you will see that it speaks to determining the degree of penalty based on among other factors the amount of ground disturbed. Granted this section is focused on AOF and the dog staying in the area or not, but my interruption of the overall rules is that the ground disturbed getting to the AOF should also be considered. I believe that we need to keep in mind that much of the rules were written at a time when a 50 yard mark was a biggie and the dog and handler started in what would now be the AOF. Considering ground distrubed unnecessarily, the straighter the line the less ground disturbed. That is not to say that a straight line is the Holy Grail and should significantly outscore a slight banana. However, some where before the banana become so bent that the dog was closer to the mark on the mat than at the apex of the banana the banana ceases to be on a par with a straight line.

I could become even more obnoxious given that I have figured out how to post diagram, but here is another of a derby test that I ran this year. It was run in the corner where two levee roads intersected. The memory mark was about 170 yards thrown down the shore and the go bird was about 70 yards thrown back up the shore. I have indicated the lines taken by three dogs, #1 in green, #2 in orange and #3 in blue.

Ted, if I understand your interruption of the rules, dogs #1 and #2 would be scored equal and both better than dog #3. Is that correct?

I would welcome opinons from anyone who thinks he/she knows the rules.


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

Dog 2 wins, now whose cooler can i steal a beer from?

SM


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

I hate that i just ended the above sentence with a preposition. 

SM


----------



## Golddogs (Feb 3, 2004)

Not a FT guy, but I would rank Jim's dogs as 2,3,1 in order of scores.

# 2 did the cleanest marks.
#3 had a very tight hunt in the AOF on the left bird and pinned the right mark.
#1 had a wind aided left bird and decent right mark.

JMO


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

> Dog 2 wins, now whose cooler can i steal a beer from?


He don't win but he is well on his way but according the regs he ain't to be marked way above the blue one. 

I guess you'd have to have been there and seen something we dont see, to put the green ones work over it.
All three are back

For instance I would like to know why that green guy held the side of that levee all the way out ? Too much hillside work maybe ? Any indication that he knew where the bird was all along or did he hit the road and get lucky?

just thinkin' out loud regards


john


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

john fallon said:


> He don't win but according the regs he ain't to be marked way below the yellow one.
> 
> I guess you'd have to have been there and seen something we dont see, to put the green ones work over it.
> All three are back
> ...


Dog 2 IS the yellow one.... and the winner. (if your having a one series derby)

SM


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

Based on your diagram - Dog #1 avoided the test, Dog 2 avoided a portion of the test & was saved by the wind on both birds, Dog 3 did the test, missed the bird by a small distance upwind, had a 2 pass hunt slightly deep & came up with the bird. In my book dog 3 did the best job & would be the dog I would want to own, regardless of how some one who's done little Derby campaigning misinterpret's the rules. 

BTW, nice diagram.



Jim Pickering said:


>


----------



## Karen McCullah (Feb 28, 2007)

Not to critique the artwork at ALL Jim, but is there water in this picture? Like along the levee? Or is it all land? 

And as a student of the game, is the wind the only thing pushing the kids right or is there any terrain shift in the...oh wait...that's heavy cover, never mind...but are there any terrain changes?

so they are avoiding the cover on the long mark and riding the levee on the short one? and letting wind push?

ps. not to hijack, but how hard does wind have to blow to influence a dog? the notes say 20-25mph....where does it start?

ps #2..i think dogs 2 and 3 did better work, the only thing is that the straighter line put the dog on the wrong side of the wind....good tight hunt...all are back, but I like #2 better only because the way I learned is that when looking at the picture, the cleanest one wins, which would be number 2, less lead. or highlighter in this case.


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

Darn good drawing of a good test Jim.

I'd like to see more but if I'm judging dog 2 is cleanest with no hunts. He may have fallen for the the judges traps but he recovered and put himself in the area of the fall just slightly downwind of each bird and disturbed very little cover. I believe a dog that uses the wind is mentioned int he book.

Dog 3 did the best *trained *job in my opinion. He nailed the short bird and held his line through the water cover and didn't square the shoreline. He missed the long bird by about the same amount as dog 2 but upwind of the bird. He knew he was in the area of the fall and hunted the area of the fall (assuming his entire hunt is on the paper and he didn't have a sashay or two off the edge). I'd really liked to have seen these two dogs jobs in real life to see if I'd have drawn the work the same as the judge here.

Dog 1 is just a dog and is third out of 3.


----------



## John Gassner (Sep 11, 2003)

Shayne Mehringer said:


> I hate that i just ended the above sentence with a preposition.
> 
> SM


Who are you and what have done with Shayne? Yesterday using too correctly, today prepositions.

I think at least one the Stacies is keeping tabs on Shayne!


John


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Marvin S said:


> In my book dog 3 did the best job & would be the dog I would want to own, regardless of how some one who's done little Derby campaigning misinterpret's the rules.


Marvin

Not sure who you are referring to here, but I suggest you read pages 50-52 of Retriever Field Trial Judging - A Manual. The authors of the Manual obviously do not agree with you.

But hey, they probably haven't run many derbies, and that probably explains their "misinterpretation" of the rules.

Ted


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> Marvin
> 
> Not sure who you are referring to here, but I suggest you read pages 50-52 of Retriever Field Trial Judging - A Manual. The authors of the Manual obviously do not agree with you.
> 
> ...


Now you know why he, by his own website doesn't qualify to judge....

/Paul


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

Ted Shih said:


> Marvin
> 
> Not sure who you are referring to here, but I suggest you read pages 50-52 of Retriever Field Trial Judging - A Manual. The authors of the Manual obviously do not agree with you.
> 
> ...


Jim asked for an individual's opinion of this test per the rule book - He also asked you for your opinion. I have the rule book in front of me amended to September 2006. Nowhere do I see any reference to any manual. Did I miss something?

I believe I have made reference to this manual you reference, in past posts, that the Derby section may be the weakest section.

I was referring to the many Derby book holders who determine who the winners & losers will be.





Howard N said:


> Darn good drawing of a good test Jim.
> 
> I'd like to see more but if I'm judging dog 2 is cleanest with no hunts. He may have fallen for the the judges traps but he recovered and put himself in the area of the fall just slightly downwind of each bird and disturbed very little cover. I believe a dog that uses the wind is mentioned int he book.
> 
> Dog 3 did the best *trained *job in my opinion.


Somewhere, someone has to explain where having a Derby dog trained is a detriment. Doesn't being a non slip retriever mean they have some training. Doesn't delivering to hand mean they also have some more training. & on.

My vision of an untrained dog as explained on these forums is one that shows the day of the trial, the owner verifies AKC registration, the entry fee is paid & the owner shows at the line with a dog on a rope, holding it while the birds go down. That way we could find that natural marker & the work would not be tainted by any training. 

I think we carry this fascination with finding & rewarding the natural marker overshadow what's really important in the evaluation of Derby performance. JMO


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Marvin S said:


> Based on your diagram - Dog #1 avoided the test


Marvin,

Based on your many years of experience I am shocked that you would/could accuse a dog of "avoiding the test" as if that was something the dog decided to do.

Dogs do things in many ways to accomplish their goals, some we do not understand, the use of that phrase ("avoided the test") should be foreign to someone who has a basic understanding of the things that a dog might do in a quest for the bird.


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

EdA said:


> Marvin,
> 
> Based on your many years of experience I am shocked that you would/could accuse a dog of "avoiding the test" as if that was something the dog decided to do.
> 
> Dogs do things in many ways to accomplish their goals, some we do not understand, the use of that phrase ("avoided the test") should be foreign to someone who has a basic understanding of the things that a dog might do in a quest for the bird.


Sing it with me now..... "And then a hero comes along, with the strength to carry on........"

Tied at the half is not good enough regards,

SM


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Marvin S said:


> Nowhere do I see any reference to any manual. Did I miss something?


I think you missed the boat

No doubt a renaissance man such as you claim to be is familiar with the Manual.

In the Introduction it states

This manual represents the group effort of a number of field trialers who, among themselves, represent more than 300 years in field trial competition, close to 1,000 points as field trial judges (including many National Champions) and untold thousands of hours observing, training, and handling retrievers in the field.

The manual was organized and drafted under the Retriever Advisory Committee, Subcommittee on Rules. The Directors of both the National Retriever Club and the National Amateur Club have reviewed this manual and endorsed its distribution to field trial competitors as a way to improve judging.

Most people viewed the publication of the Manual as a significant effort to improve judging.

It would seem that because it fails to reference your website it is beneath your attention.

Ted


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Marvin S said:


> Somewhere, someone has to explain where having a Derby dog trained is a detriment.


Try reading the Rule Book

Part II Evaluation of Dog Work

*Natural abilities are of great importance in all stakes, whereas abilities acquired through training are of less importance in the Qualifying Stake than those carrying Championship Points and are of comparatively minor importance in the Derby* *stake.*


Also consider that
- Handling a dog in the Derby mandates elimination
- You can bring a dog to line with a lease in the Derby
- And a controlled break does not require elimination in the Derby

Why?

Because in the derby we are focused upon Natural, not Trained Abilities

Ted


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Please note the following faults

Moderate:
2) Disturbing too much cover either by not going to the area or leaving it.
3) Reluctance to enter rough cover, water, ice, mud or other situations involving unpleasant going for the dog.
10) Going out of the way by land to a fall, to an excessive degree to avoid going into the water on a water retrieve.

Minor
1) Going out of the way by land, to an excessive degree on the return from a water retrieve.

Please note that "disturbing too much cover" only applies to two situations: (1) not going to area; or (2) leaving it. 
No water issues are presented in the hypothetical.

I suppose if you wanted to take an extreme position you could argue that the dog was "reluctant" to enter rough cover, but I am not buying it from the diagrams.

I think you - and others - are confusing judging with training. In training, we work on getting the dogs to run straight. In judging, we reward dogs that dig up the bird, whether they took the straight path or not.


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

EdA said:


> Based on your many years of experience I am shocked that you would/could accuse a dog of "avoiding the test" as if that was something the dog decided to do.


Regardless of what the verbiage is, that's how the performance looks on the diagram. 



Ted Shih said:


> The manual was organized and drafted under the Retriever Advisory Committee, Subcommittee on Rules. The Directors of both the National Retriever Club and the National Amateur Club have reviewed this manual and endorsed its distribution to field trial competitors as a way to improve judging.
> 
> Most people viewed the publication of the Manual as a significant effort to improve judging. Ted


I too view it as a step in the right direction when "Experience with dogs in the field" seems to have gone the way of "farming with horses".


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Marvin S said:


> I too view it as a step in the right direction when "Experience with dogs in the field" seems to have gone the way of "farming with horses".


So read it.


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

Marvin S said:


> "Experience with dogs in the field"---------- "farming with horses".





Ted Shih said:


> So read it.


I've done all of the above - in fact, while doing the 2nd I have viewed many whom I exchange pleasantries with on these forums.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Marvin S said:


> I've done all of the above - in fact, while doing the 2nd I have viewed many whom I exchange pleasantries with on these forums.


No doubt that is why so many are knocking at the door asking you to judge


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

By the way, Marvin, throughout this thread, I have referred to the Rule Book.

I am still waiting for you to support your position with the Rule Book.

Farming with horses is hardly relevant here.


----------



## Richard Halstead (Apr 20, 2005)

I don't want to say that I know more than any one else but I would say to Marvin if you want to emphasize your thoughts use bold *text* rather than smaller text.

Ted is there a possibility that you might have misinterpreted the manual?

A good judge will use cover to alter the line to make the bird harder to find. Not to change the placing of dogs that didn't cut the cover. In the derby the birds have a smaller area of fall and number three did not hunt the AOF. In the drawing the deduction for not taking the cover is not as severe as the hunt. We need to remember this is a minor stake.

As far as getting more judging assignments than Marvin, it often happens that way because your dogs are competative. What better way to keep them from being the competition than you being a judge. There are least seval classes of judges 1. Remove dogs by having the owner judge 2. Not a good judge but will take every assignment offered 3. Competent Judge 4. Etc....


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

Ted Shih said:


> Moderate:
> 2) Disturbing too much cover either by not going to the area or leaving it.
> 3) Reluctance to enter rough cover, water, ice, mud or other situations involving unpleasant going for the dog.
> 10) Going out of the way by land to a fall, to an excessive degree to avoid going into the water on a water retrieve.
> ...


I see the diagram & can picture the test - Dogs 1 & 2 exhibited all 3 moderate faults you present to some degree - As for the return, that was not discussed in the hypothetical but, if it's serious enough to bring up in the faults then by deductive reasoning it is serious enouigh to warrant consideration in evaluation of a dogs overall performance. & more so in the act of retrieving. 



Ted Shih said:


> By the way, Marvin, throughout this thread, I have referred to the Rule Book.
> 
> I am still waiting for you to support your position with the Rule Book.


No Ted, you referred to the Judges Manual, which is a collection of opinions, some good some not so, put together by people with considerable experience in the sport. 



Jim Pickering said:


> I will attempt to answer your first question in a round about way. First, I do agree that too much emphasis is put on lines as opposed to mark, but with all due respect if I am reading you correctly you are taking it a bit far the other way. In my opinion lines to the marks cannot be ignored. One has to consider why a dog took the line it did. The reasons are not always obvious but when they are, they should not be ignored.
> 
> About 14 years back I had one or more derby dogs for five consecutive years. For the past 8-10 have not had a dog that was ready for derby by age two so I have been away from the derby part of the game until this year. What I saw this year on average was MUCH better that what I experienced 10+ years back. Sure I encountered some bad test setup and some bad judging, but not on the level it once was. There is definitely room for more imporvement and hopefully these discussions can make some small contribution.
> 
> ...


Ted - I happen to agree with Jim P in what he has posted - I too believe you are over reacting. While I can't post diagrams as Jim can I'll try to give a word example.

A few years back I was running a trial & happened to be in a position to watch 2 of the dogs that eventually placed. They were performing reasonably equally except on the last bird of the water mark. One of the dogs had 2 distinct hunts on the way to the memory bird (75 yards out) & an additional hunt at the memory bird while the other had only a hunt on the memory bird. The dog with 3 hunts was awarded 2nd place.

I always felt it had something to do with the fact that they were both clients of the same trainer & it added another QAA dog to that trainers stable. But by your logic the two hunts on the way to the bird did not factor into the dog's performance. 



Richard Halstead said:


> Ted is there a possibility that you might have misinterpreted the manual?
> 
> As far as getting more judging assignments than Marvin, it often happens that way because your dogs are competative. What better way to keep them from being the competition than you being a judge. There are least several classes of judges 1. Remove dogs by having the owner judge 2. Not a good judge but will take every assignment offered 3. Competent Judge 4. Etc....


I'll use Richard's comment to answer the judging thing. I've stated before, I don't care if I judge or not. I will not kiss up to anyone to get an assignment, as will not many who are far more qualified than I. I would prefer to discuss the issue without personal comments other than to give credit where credit is due. 

Ted, You have a lot of fans so you do have a responsibility to be accurate rather than try to drive your opinion down someone's throat. While primary means 1st in order, it does not mean that is the only consideration. I could give an example or two but am probably running out of space.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Richard Halstead said:


> Ted is there a possibility that you might have misinterpreted the manual?


Richard

Read pages 50-52. Then you tell me what your interpretation is.

Ted


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Richard Halstead said:


> A good judge will use cover to alter the line to make the bird harder to find. Not to change the placing of dogs that didn't cut the cover. In the derby the birds have a smaller area of fall and number three did not hunt the AOF. In the drawing the deduction for not taking the cover is not as severe as the hunt. We need to remember this is a minor stake.


Richard

I was challenged to use the Rule Book to defend my position.

If you believe that the Rule Book supports your decision, I would ask you to cite it, as others have asked me to do so.

Ted


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Richard Halstead said:


> As far as getting more judging assignments than Marvin, it often happens that way because your dogs are competative. What better way to keep them from being the competition than you being a judge. There are least seval classes of judges 1. Remove dogs by having the owner judge 2. Not a good judge but will take every assignment offered 3. Competent Judge 4. Etc....


Richard

As far as the ask someone to judge to eliminate his dogs from competition - this is bunk, pure and simple ... at least as it applies to me. 

I have three judging assignments this year. San Jose, Mid Iowa, and Lincoln Trail. I ran Mid Iowa last maybe four or five years ago. I have never run San Jose or Lincoln Trail. I do not run the California, South East or Iowa east circuits. 

So reconsider your theories.

Ted


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Richard Halstead said:


> As far as getting more judging assignments than Marvin, it often happens that way because your dogs are competative.


Richard

Marvin is fond of mentioning his many years of experience in training, competing, and judging dogs in supporting his positions on judging . That being the case, is it not fair to ask:

1) How often does he judge?
2) What have his dogs done competitively?

You might take me to task if my criticisms were limited to those two questions - but of course, they are not

Rather, I have chosen to support my positions with the Rule Book.

If I have taken an extreme position, it is at least with the support of the Rule Book. 

I have chosen to quote both the Rule Book and the Judges Manual. If there is a better, reliable source of guidance, I am waiting to be enlightened. 

Ted


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

Maybe The test shown should become a poll


and after the vote a quick explanation of why using your own opinion. Maybe with that opinion should give you minor stake judging experience as per AKC


Jim I know one of your girls had quite a derby career. What was the quality judging then vs now ?


----------



## Richard Halstead (Apr 20, 2005)

Maybe I am wrong I thought the derby judged pure marking ability not traits acquired through training. The last time I was asked to judge was about when Elwood was a derby dog maybe '93. At that time there wasn't a judging manual and ideas about judging were formed through discussion and the rule book. Your recourse is to bully the people you disagree with than have a discussion.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Richard Halstead said:


> Maybe I am wrong I thought the derby judged pure marking ability not traits acquired through training. The last time I was asked to judge was about when Elwood was a derby dog maybe '93. At that time there wasn't a judging manual and ideas about judging were formed through discussion and the rule book. Your recourse is to bully the people you disagree with than have a discussion.


I see 

If people push me to defend my position, it is discussion
If I push people to defend their position, it is bullying.

Who is kidding whom?

If you - or anyone else - want to push me on the Rule Book ... fine
But, be prepared to defend your position with the Rule Book, as I have done. 

Cite chapter and verse .... not what you or others may think that the Rule Book says ... often people think that the Rule Book says what it does not

For example, the words "progress to the blind" are absent from the Rule Book
Similarly, the words "disturb cover unnecessarily" are specifically modified

So to eliminate confusion, and to improve clarity, is it too much to ask that people do what they have asked me to do .. support their position with the Rule Book?

A lot of time and effort by some very qualified people went into the Retriever Manual

I am surprised that so few people bother to read it. I think that if you were to read pages 50-52 in the Manual, you would find that the discussion there bears directly to Jim's diagram. But, hey, you tell me that I misunderstood the Manual, without having read it yourself. 

By the way, if you believe that the derby is about natural ability and not trained ability - as by the way, I do - then why would you ... or anyone else that takes that position ... score a dog according to its line or "avoidance" of cover or water, etc. if it got the the bird in a direct, if not straight fashion?

Ted


----------



## Richard Halstead (Apr 20, 2005)

Is this like Perry Mason where the trial prosecutor hammers me with questions until I breakdown and admit that dog #3 wins because he had a poorer mark but took the cover. If it makes you feel better than you can be right because you can quote the "Book".


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

From the FT rule book:


> Dogs which disturb cover unnecessarily, clearly well out
> of the area of the “fall,’’ either by not going directly to that
> area, or by leaving it, even though they eventually find the
> bird without being handled, should be penalized more
> severely than those handled quickly and obediently to it


I am a little bit confused. Regardless of whether it is a derby or not, is anyone asserting that dog #1 *should NOT* be penalized for unnecessarily disturbing cover well out of the area of the fall area by not going directly to the area?


----------



## Richard Halstead (Apr 20, 2005)

I think Ted was arguing that dog #3 took the cover en route to the mark and #1 ran the shore. I think the marks should be set up so the dog that cheats has little chance of finding the bird.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Richard Halstead said:


> I think Ted was arguing that dog #3 took the cover en route to the mark and #1 ran the shore. I think the marks should be set up so the dog that cheats has little chance of finding the bird.


I am not taking any position 

I am asking people to justify their position with the Rule Book


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Richard Halstead said:


> Is this like Perry Mason where the trial prosecutor hammers me with questions until I breakdown and admit that dog #3 wins because he had a poorer mark but took the cover. If it makes you feel better than you can be right because you can quote the "Book".


See previous post.

I am not taking any position.

So, your Perry Mason analogy is inappropriate.

I am asking people to defend their positions with the Rule Book.

Nothing more or less


----------



## Vicki Worthington (Jul 9, 2004)

> SECTION 10. A Derby Stake
> *Derby stake tests are limited
> to marked retrieves *and dogs which are handled on
> such retrieves shall be eliminated from competition.
> ...


These passages from the rules and standard make it pretty clear to me.
While abilities acquired through training may be considered, they should be of relatively minor importance. 

To me, a series wherein a dog demonstrates a couple of poor lines is not grounds for dismissal, but it may be evidence of poor marking if it happens repeatedly. When comparing dog to dog at the completion of all testing, to me, clearly dogs which proceeded directly to the area of the fall indicated a better mark. Since the derby is all about marking, that's the way I would see it.

Also, if a dog is "lost" way out of the area & the wind gives the bird(s) away from a great distance from the fall, that, to me, is not a good mark.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Doug Main said:


> From the FT rule book:
> 
> I am a little bit confused. Regardless of whether it is a derby or not, is anyone asserting that dog #1 *should NOT* be penalized for unnecessarily disturbing cover *well out of the area of the fall* area by not going directly to the area?


Rule Book states

Dogs which disturb cover unnecessarily, *clearly well out
of the area of the “fall,’’* either by not going directly to that
area, or by leaving it, even though they eventually find the
bird without being handled, should be penalized more
severely than those handled quickly and obediently to it 

I am not prepared to state that the dog was "clearly well out of the area of the fall"

Maybe other people are

But I think that they are just reaching for straws


----------



## Vicki Worthington (Jul 9, 2004)

If we're talking about a derby, then that is not a passage that would necessarily apply here because a dog that handles is *OUT* by rule in the derby.

If this was an actual derby test, we should really not be second-guessing the official judges of that stake/test. They were privy to information not presented and to conditions not necessarily expressed. It is always easy to say what "you would have done in that situation" when you really aren't in that situation.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Vicki Worthington said:


> If we're talking about a derby, then that is not a passage that would necessarily apply here because a dog that handles is *OUT* by rule in the derby.
> 
> If this was an actual derby test, we should really not be second-guessing the official judges of that stake/test. They were privy to information not presented and to conditions not necessarily expressed. It is always easy to say what "you would have done in that situation" when you really aren't in that situation.


No second guessing here. I am not awarding placements

As for Rule

Moderate:

2) Disturbing too much cover either by not going to the area or leaving it.

I think that Doug was arguing that the passage re: handling provides understanding of what disturbing too much cover means


----------



## Mark Rosenblum (Apr 19, 2008)

Vickie, Ted, others- Goldstein and I are Judging the DQ down in Nawlins. Prior to this thread we thought we were capable; now, not so sure! We will carry the rule book and judges manual along with a copy of Zagats guide. Vickie, you can be the sommelier. Jan 23-25.

PS we are available next Jan/Feb for an assignment in the Napa Valley


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

Mark Rosenblum said:


> Vickie, you can be the sommelier. Jan 23-25.
> 
> PS we are available next Jan/Feb for an assignment in the Napa Valley


From experience, if you visit there, don't let yourself get talked into being the driver.


----------



## greg magee (Oct 24, 2007)

Theodore, It appears to me that you take the rule book and the judges manual much too literally. You seem to wield it like a Sunday morning televangelist with his Bible. Jimmy Swaggert comes to mind. Much like the Bible, the rule book and the manual are great tools for how trials should be run. But I feel the writers of these books left a lot of room for interpretation. They gave the individual judge the latitude to choose for himself the dog HE feels meets the criteria set forth in the AKC rules and guidelines. There is no right or wrong. That’s why there are two judges. Two people with opposing views after four series can find some common ground. They can come to a conclusion that is fair and just without the need to wave the rulebook and manual under each others nose. I have never judged a trial where my co-judge pulled out the rule book why we were deciding placements. And I hope I never do. I have also never judged a trial where a contestant came up to me and asked me to justify my placements with a rule book in their hand. So I must be doing something right. I'm sure the Sunday morning televangelist could wave his bible under all our noses and question the way we live our lives. I for one wouldn't like it. Because most of these guys are the biggest hypocrites. I hope your not. But Time will tell.


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> No second guessing here. I am not awarding placements
> 
> As for Rule
> 
> ...


Ted is correct, that was the reason I quoted that section on evaluating marking from the rule book.

It is the only part of the book that supports your statement:


Vicki Worthington said:


> When comparing dog to dog at the completion of all testing, to me, clearly dogs which proceeded directly to the area of the fall indicated a better mark.


;-)


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

greg magee said:


> Theodore, It appears to me that you take the rule book and the judges manual much too literally. .


And you seem to consider it not at all.


----------



## Greg Heier (Jan 3, 2009)

I would call all three back and could not yet place the dogs. 

I would also look at sytle which is the second criteria you are specifically directed to judge in a derby (marking ability and style are supposed to be the two most important traits). I say this somewhat tongue in check, but I would note that one of the things the rules specifically mention as to style is the dog's water entry. Dog #1 only had just one opportunity to demonstrate its water entry and dog's two and three had two each.  Of course that might be a good or bad thing depending on the dog's attitude towards its work. 

All three had good marks and you can't yet say which is the best marker unless they continue to show similar patterns over the course of the trial. I would have some concern about dog #1's reluctance to enter water and would look for other instances where it might be avoiding situations involving tough going for the dogs which could justify a seperation of these dogs, even in a derby i.e. If lines are bad because the dog refuses to take on "tough going" than that is a moderate fault in the standard procedures.

Just my take.

Greg Heier


----------



## greg magee (Oct 24, 2007)

Ted Shih said:


> And you seem to consider it not at all.


Theodore,
I would think that my record of speaks for itself. Feel free to poll any of the well respected people that I have judged with in regard to my knowledge and understanding of the rule book and what represents good dog work. I think you'll find that you'll be surprised and that your summary is completely unfounded and without merit. There is no reason to be animous in your responses. We're all here to help.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

greg magee said:


> There is no reason to be animous in your responses. We're all here to help.


Greg

I suggest you look in the mirror.

I have not accused you of lacking experience, yet you have told me that in time - and with experience - I will see the error of my ways.

I have not called you any names, yet you chose to call me a Jimmy Swagert

Just who is displaying animosity here?

Ted


----------



## greg magee (Oct 24, 2007)

Ted Shih said:


> Greg
> 
> I suggest you look in the mirror.
> 
> ...


Theodore,
I think I said with time and experience you'll learn not to be so hard on yourself. That was more about self help than it was being animous. I compared you to a televangelist but did not call one. Jimmy Swaggert was the only one I could think of. No animousity there and none intended. I have at times been a little condenscending, more for dramatic effect than anything else. And thats nothing you're a stranger to. So in closing, I still say you would be hard pressed to find some one who will testify on your behalf about my ignorance of the rules of our game and what constitutes good dog work. Good luck and take care.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Greg

I think you having been drinking too much of the kool aid

Ted


----------



## Jim Pickering (Sep 17, 2004)

Marvin S said:


> Based on your diagram - Dog #1 avoided the test, Dog 2 avoided a portion of the test & was saved by the wind on both birds, Dog 3 did the test, missed the bird by a small distance upwind, had a 2 pass hunt slightly deep & came up with the bird. In my book dog 3 did the best job & would be the dog I would want to own, regardless of how some one who's done little Derby campaigning misinterpret's the rules.
> 
> BTW, nice diagram.


Marvin, I thank you for your post and opinion. I understood what you were saying; it must be a grumpy old fart thing.


----------



## Jim Pickering (Sep 17, 2004)

Howard N said:


> Darn good drawing of a good test Jim.
> 
> I'd like to see more but if I'm judging dog 2 is cleanest with no hunts. He may have fallen for the the judges traps but he recovered and put himself in the area of the fall just slightly downwind of each bird and disturbed very little cover. I believe a dog that uses the wind is mentioned int he book.
> 
> ...


Thanks for your post and opinion also Howard. It *is* difficult to evaluate dog work from a diagram. It is tough enough when you have watched the dogs, drew the diagrams yourself and are using it to refresh your memory to decide placement. This one is certainly not to scale, but the point was to stimulate some discussion and see how others interrupt the rules. Or stated differently to see to what extent other FT judges and handlers are on board with Ted’s interruption.

Notwithstanding the rules I will take dog #3 any day of the week.


----------



## Jim Pickering (Sep 17, 2004)

Ted Shih said:


> Richard
> 
> Read pages 50-52. Then you tell me what your interpretation is.
> 
> Ted


As Ted suggested I re-read pages 50-52 of the book, Retriever Field Trial Judging A Manual. I will withhold my opinions on the book in general because I have great respect for the author’s many years of service to AKC retriever games, but my respect for the man dose not require that I agree with his interruption of the rules. I cannot copy and post the exact diagrams given the book is copyrighted but hopefully I am within my rights to draw a similar diagram for those who do not have the book. In both Figure 1 and Figure 2 the author sees the work of both dogs to be equal. He sees dog #1 to be exhibiting an ability acquired through training and therefore ignores the line to the mark as i understand would Ted. I see something entirely different. I see that dog # 1 has exhibited the natural ability of courage which is lacking in dog #1A. Therefore I would rank the work of dog #1 significantly better than dog #1A in the left hand diagram and still a bit better in the right hand diagram.










Note that the line is well back from the water in the left diagram and much closer to the water in the right. The author states that the mark in the right diagram is less cheaty and therefore more appropriate for a derby stake. With that I do agree, but I disagree that the work of both dog is equal. One judge can call the straighter line training and ignore it if he/she truly believes that training should not be a part of a derby stake; I will call it courage and reward it. Unfortunately both are probably within plausible interruption of the rules. All we can do is to train our dogs, assuming assuming we does the training, as we each interrupt the rules and try to avoid those judges who have a dramatically different interruption.


----------



## Jim Pickering (Sep 17, 2004)

One more post with some parting thoughts on derby stakes and I will step aside and let you guys go at each other.

So long as marking concepts are the order of the day in all age stakes, marking concepts will be the order of the day in the derby stakes. No attempt to totally separate marking in derby stakes from marking in the remainder of the game will ever be successful. The ability to do marking concepts is to a significant degree ability acquired through training. Right or wrong that is the way it is and most likely will be.

One can certainly cherry pick the rules and draw almost any conclusion he/she would like to draw. If training is not to be considered or judged in a derby stake the rule should read, “The derby stake is for dogs not yet 2 years old and which have never been trained.” Handlers could let the dog drag them to the line on lead, try to hold the dog in place until the birds are thrown the turn the sucker loose to see what happens.

I am still wet behind the ears compared to folks like Lance, Ed and others, but as long as I have been involved abilities acquired through training have been a part of derby stakes. Most people who run derby stakes could compile a lengthy list of areas where training is required so I will not do that here. Suffice it to say that significant training is required. Penalties for faults on abilities acquired through training should be lenient but judged none the less. 

Stepping away from the rules for the moment who runs dogs in derby stakes that are not pretty solidly trained through basic including swim-by and de-cheating? If one does chose to run a dog that is not properly trained I feel safe in saying that the kindest thing the judges could do for you and your dog is to drop the dog and send you home to complete the training. After running a couple derbies with the dog carried through four series while cheating the water and running amuck for a green ribbon you can pretty much forget moving up to the next level. Therefore, I am lost as to why some want to encourage new people to run untrained dogs to become trial wise. 

In 2008 I ran a ton of trial and judged only once. This year the plan is to run significantly fewer trials and catch up on the judging and if at all possible to judge the derby stakes. I have agreed to three trials to date unless I get fired because of this thread and post. So if you see my name in the premium you should have a fair idea of what to expect. Hopefully my co-judges and I will have adequate ground and water so that we are not forced to put up super cheaty tests and/or to rely on marking concepts but I have judged when I did not have that luxury. I can promise that given the option of a cheaty water test or no water test I will push for a cheaty test. I judged with one well known individual who told me that he knew that the dogs could swim so he did not need to watch them swim. Not me, if there is water and time available I want to see which dogs have the courage to make the long swim. 

I am a believer in carrying as many derby dogs as time will allow. So come on out and time permitting I will be more than happy to let you take you dog to an early end to its FT career. :twisted::twisted:


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

I don't know how anyone can derive "courage" from these diagrams.

We don't know if dogs 2 and 3 slinked into the water.
We don't know if dog 1 really slammed into the water.

All we know is that dogs 2 and 3 took more water than 1.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

I will quote from the Manual and hope that the authors appreciate that the quotation is for the purposes of discussing judging 

Page 50

*Today, the Derby dog who holds the angle into and across the water will almost always outscore the Derby dog who avoids the water and runs around directly to the bird. In fact, both dogs showed perfect marks and under the rules should be scored evenly.*

Emphasis added

In the diagram from the Manual, the dog that holds the angle is quite similar to dogs 2 or 3 from Jim's diagram. The dog that runs the bank is quite similar to dog 1.

In addition, I would note that there was no one author to the Manual, although Pete Simonds was very influential in its creation and publication. Rather, a number of experienced competitors and judges contributed to, reviewed, and edited the Manual.

At any rate, I think that the Manual should be consulted often when dealing with judging issues such as the one presented here. And although there are topics in the Manual with which I disagree, this is not one.

As Tim Carrion noted in a related thread, if I were the judge, I would be of the opinion that I, as a judge - for a variety of reasons (e.g. maybe the wind picked up after we set up our test), had laid an egg, and had three dogs running neck and neck to the next series. I would not be prepared to make judgments of the relative merits of these three dogs based on this test.


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

Ted, that quote is one of the reasons I don't hold the judging book in high esteem. They're saying a dog who avoids cover and water is equal to a dog that doesn't. I can't buy into it.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Howard N said:


> Ted, that quote is one of the reasons I don't
> hold the judging book in high esteem. They're saying a dog who avoids cover and water is equal to a dog that doesn't. I can't buy into it.


I would say that is what they say for Derby dogs
That is not what they say for AA dogs.

I buy into it because taking lines into water and cover are trained, not natural abilities and the Derby is about natural abilities.


----------



## scott spalding (Aug 27, 2005)

Ted would you say then dogs are not born with the ability to run straight without training or just that the ability to line must be taught.
________
LovelyWendie


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

scott spalding said:


> Ted would you say then dogs are not born with the ability to run straight without training or just that the ability to line must be taught.


Some dogs run straight from birth, most are trained to do so.

I have seen no dogs who consistently ran straight into cover, water, etc. at an angle without training.


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> Some dogs run straight from birth, most are trained to do so.
> 
> I have seen no dogs who consistently ran straight into cover, water, etc. at an angle without training.


I have been around and owned multiple puppies that seemed to always take the straight line. Cover, water, etc... didn't matter, they ran straight. Rex puppies seemed to be that way, or maybe that was the Cosmo in them, but i saw it consistently. As the pups get older, their desire to retrieve grows - as did their desire to get to the bird the "easiest" way possible. They end up being black hearted criminals just like the rest of the dogs out there.

There is nothing natural about a dog fighting a cross wind in water angling down a shoreline.

The rub between "natural" vs "trained" ability is that no dog is born with the ability to consistently step on 300 yard marks. How much of that level of marking is natural and how much of it is trained? The great markers are born, but their training has enhanced their "natural" ability to do it well.

SM


----------



## Greg Heier (Jan 3, 2009)

I guess I will direct this at Ted,

Given the fact that dog #1 did not get in the water on the shorter bird in the scenario, has not the dog at some level indicated a "reluctance to enter.... water" as referred to in the section on moderate faults on page 55 of the Field Trial Rules and Standard Procedures for Retrievers. I understand that the test looks somewhat "cheaty," which would be a mitigating factor in assessing the degree of "penalty", but I find it difficult to understand how one could conclude that the dog #1 had no reluctance at all to enter the water given the fact that he did not get in. Even if reluctance to enter the water as opposed to willingness to enter the the water is a purely "trained" ability, a point I would not concede, I would still have to give the nod to a dog in a derby that indicated a willingness to enter water as opposed to a dog that indicated a reluctance to enter water by running around the water (assuming all other things were exactly equal). I know that marking and style are the primary things being judged and that natural abilities are paramount, but if all other things were exactly equal, the dog that went relatively straighter has indicated to me a "relatively" greater willingness to take on water (rough going) and the dog that ran around the water indicated a "relatively" greater reluctance to take on the water (rough going).

Also, at what point in a derby should a dog be penalized for "going out of the way by land to a "fall" to an excessive degree to avoid getting into the water on a water retrieve"? Page 56. If your answer is "never," as long as the dog does not hunt the bird, I would disagree and could come up with a extreme example if you like. If your answer is it would have to be really "excessive," than I think you have to concede that what is "excessive" is a relative term that reasonable people could differ on. Or are you actually saying that if the bird is not physically in the water than it is not a "water retrieve" within the intent of the rule?

I agree marking is marking, but if nothing else seperates, I will take the dog that entered the water over the dog that did not for the reasons above, even if the authors of the Manual disagree. I think my position is supported by the rules above.

Greg Heier 

P.S. I hope I never judge a derby that is decided by these type of discussions. I don't think I have experienced one yet.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Greg

Somewhere earlier, I listed the moderate fault for "going out of the way by land to a fall to an excessive degree to avoid going into the water."

I don't think the dog went out of the way to an "excessive degree."

Others may disagree. 

Sure, at some point it becomes discretionary. But, I don't see it here.

In addition, I think it is important to note that the dog got into the water fine on the memory bird.

From my perspective, the biggest water cheats I have personally known were often the dogs with the greatest desire to retrieve - they simply didn't want to be bothered with the extra time required to get a bird via water.

If you characterized the dog's land path as a desire to get the bird rapidly ... rather than as a lack of courage ... does that change how we characterize the work?


----------



## Steve (Jan 4, 2003)

Doug Main said:


> Fair is having the guns face the same for ALL the dogs!
> 
> Derbies are supposed to be about marking. Not to the trained response of which way the bird boy is facing. ;-)
> 
> Rather than trying to get all bird boys consistently facing the bird, why not train the dog so that it wasn't so dependent on the way the bird boy was facing? Are the dogs that can only mark the bird if the bird boy is facing it really the best making dogs?


That sums it up very well.


----------



## Greg Heier (Jan 3, 2009)

Ted wrote,

"From my perspective, the biggest water cheats I have personally known were often the dogs with the greatest desire to retrieve - they simply didn't want to be bothered with the extra time required to get a bird via water.

If you characterized the dog's land path as a desire to get the bird rapidly ... rather than as a lack of courage ... does that change how we characterize the work?"

True enough. I would concede that has often been true in my experience as well. I would even concede that the best marking dogs I have seen have the uncanny ability to correct their path when they do "cheat" factors and still somehow make it into the area of the fall without hunting elsewhere. 

I also agree that judging lines is generally not a good way to judge marking, which I think is the main point you are trying to make. We are in total agreement on that point. I just can't get to the point of saying that if all I had left to judge on in a derby(all other things especially marking ability and style being exactly equal), I am still going to assess a minor penalty for reluctance to enter the water for a dog that would not get in the water and reward the dog that did enter the water with the higher placement. I would feel the same way about other deviations from the "line" if I thought the deviation was caused by the dog avoiding other types of rough going like heavy cover or difficult terrain. I guess that what I am saying is that even if these are "trained" attributes, they still would have to count for something if you were unable to seperate two dogs in the paramount areas of marking ability or style (a highly unlikely but hypothetically possible scenario).

Don't know that we will totally agree, but don't think we are that far off in our thinking either.

Greg Heier


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

gdog said:


> I also agree that judging lines is generally not a good way to judge marking, which I think is the main point you are trying to make...
> I guess that what I am saying is that even if these are "trained" attributes, they still would have to count for something if you were unable to seperate two dogs in the paramount areas of marking ability or style ...
> Greg Heier


Greg

Thanks for the concise summary.

Yes, my point was/is simply that all too often people talk about "lines" as though they were "marks", which, of course, they are not.

And, I agree with you about trained abilities, of course they count for something ....

But, you probably knew that we were not that far off. We both like the same kind of dogs ... both as owners/handlers and as judges.

I think people are too ready to skip from natural ability through style to trained ability without really considering the progression ... all they care about is the line. 

In training, all of us are striving to have our dogs line like dog 3. But, when we judge, we need to put our training hat aside and put on our judging hat. 

And I don't think you can underestimate the value of being there. Suppose dog 1 ran like a screaming banshee to the short bird and left a huge wake with his water entry on the memory bird .... does that enthusiasm count for anything? I hope so. 


Ted


----------



## Steve (Jan 4, 2003)

Doug Main said:


> is anyone asserting that dog #1 *should NOT* be penalized for unnecessarily disturbing cover well out of the area of the fall area by not going directly to the area?


He ran around the heavy cover, therefore disturbing less of it.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Doug Main said:


> From the FT rule book:
> I am a little bit confused. Regardless of whether it is a derby or not, is anyone asserting that dog #1 *should NOT* be penalized for unnecessarily disturbing cover well out of the area of the fall area by not going directly to the area?


I would

I don't think dog 1 was "well out of the area of the fall"


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

Shayne Mehringer said:


> I have been around and owned multiple puppies that seemed to always take the straight line. Cover, water, etc... didn't matter, they ran straight. Rex puppies seemed to be that way, or maybe that was the Cosmo in them, but i saw it consistently. As the pups get older, their desire to retrieve grows - as did their desire to get to the bird the "easiest" way possible. They end up being black hearted criminals just like the rest of the dogs out there.
> 
> There is nothing natural about a dog fighting a cross wind in water angling down a shoreline.
> 
> ...


Shayne, I'm only on my third dog so it can be considered anectotal evidence. Well not my third, but the third that I actually trained beyond the bare minimum. I have seen all 3 as young little fire breathers run straight through factors and obstacles. Then they get a few months of experience running marks and start rolling with terrain and running around obstacles. Maybe cheating is a learned ability, one that we might be better of not teaching them by running them on set-ups that are conducive to this undesirable behavior before they have the training that allows us to deal with it.

I hesitated to write this, given my breathtaking lack of credentials.


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

I have notice in this thread, in the poll thread derived from this one, and also when involved in discussions about marking, that some marking efforts by retrievers are discounted as "wind saves", "wind gave away the bird" or "the mark was wind-aided", etc., as if these are bad things when it comes to a dog's marking ability. Certainly it may well be a critisim of an ill-conceived test set-up but I don't believe it should generally be attributed negatively to the dog that has been aided by the wind in retrieving a mark. A dog that uses the wind to assist him in finding a bird demonstrates, in my opinion, a trait to be desired in a retriever. It is an integral part of successful marking & a trait to be sought after in breeding or choosing a pup. The FT rules clearly say that a dog's ability to "use the wind" is a valuable trait and a part of being a good marking dog.

Page 26 says" Accurate marking is of primary importance. A dog
which marks the fall of a bird, uses the wind, follows a
strong cripple, and will take direction from his handler
is of great value.

When the rules states "a dog which marks a fall", IMO it means that a dog was alert and saw the fall and used all his faculties (sight, intelligence, memory, his nose, etc) to take a course to the fall that gives the dog the best opportunity to successfully retrieve the mark. Therefore if a dog takes a course to take full advantage of the wind, good for the dog. If a judge sets up a test where a dog that did not mark the bird but is rewarded by means of the wind, shame on the judge but don't penalize the dog.


----------



## John Gassner (Sep 11, 2003)

Therefore if a dog takes a course to take full advantage of the wind, good for the dog. If a judge sets up a test where a dog that did not mark the bird but is rewarded by means of the wind, shame on the judge but don't penalize the dog.

Amen!!!!!!!


----------



## Richard Halstead (Apr 20, 2005)

Richard Halstead said:


> Maybe I am wrong I thought the derby judged pure marking ability not traits acquired through training. The last time I was asked to judge was about when Elwood was a derby dog maybe '93. At that time there wasn't a judging manual and ideas about judging were formed through discussion and the rule book. Your recourse is to bully the people you disagree with than have a discussion.


Quote:
SECTION 10. A Derby Stake
*Derby stake tests are limited
to marked retrieves *and dogs which are handled on
such retrieves shall be eliminated from competition.

PART II — EVALUATION OF DOG WORK
Natural abilities are of great importance in all stakes,
whereas abilities acquired through training are of less
importance in the Qualifying stake than in those carrying
championship points, and *are of comparatively
minor importance in the Derby stake*.

(1) Accurate marking, or memory of “falls’’ is of paramount
importance. However, this does not imply that
dogs which excel in marking shall not be severely penalized,
or even eliminated, for deficiencies in, or a lack of
the other required “abilities.’’ However, *in Derby stakes
the ability to “mark’’ is all-important and dogs that are
handled on a mark in a Derby Stake shall be eliminated*. 
(emphasis added) 

*Ted face it I was right, the manual you like to quote did a disservice to the minor stakes. I rest my case.*


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

John Gassner said:


> Therefore if a dog takes a course to take full advantage of the wind, good for the dog. If a judge sets up a test where a dog that did not mark the bird but is rewarded by means of the wind, shame on the judge but don't penalize the dog.
> 
> Amen!!!!!!!


yep, amen II


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Richard Halstead said:


> Quote:
> SECTION 10. A Derby Stake
> *Derby stake tests are limited*
> *to marked retrieves *and dogs which are handled on
> ...


I have no idea what you are trying to say.

I have made no mention of handling. Nor did I quote any portion of the Manual relating to handling. Nor does the portion of the manual which I quoted relate to handling. In fact, I would argue that the portion of the Manual which I quoted supports your first highlighted text.

Ted


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Richard Halstead said:


> *Ted face it I was right, the manual you like to quote did a disservice to the minor stakes. I rest my case.*


I will quote from the Manual and hope that the authors appreciate that the quotation is for the purposes of discussing judging 

Page 50

*Today, the Derby dog who holds the angle into and across the water will almost always outscore the Derby dog who avoids the water and runs around directly to the bird. In fact, both dogs showed perfect marks and under the rules should be scored evenly.*

Emphasis added


This is the only portion of the Manual that I quoted.

Explain to me how it addresses handling or provides a disservice to the minor stakes.

Ted


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

Ted Shih said:


> *Today, the Derby dog who holds the angle into and across the water will almost always outscore the Derby dog who avoids the water and runs around directly to the bird. [/quote]*
> 
> *As it should - except it should read always - period.*
> 
> ...


----------



## greg magee (Oct 24, 2007)

I would like to thank Jim Pickering for starting one of the best, thought provoking threads I've seen on here in a very long time. This thread as well as the other (poll) have let many people of varying degrees of experience weigh in with some thoughts on how to conduct a good Derby. I just read this whole thread again from beginning to end. Watching it evolve from Jim's very straight forward question into a must read for everyone even considering judging a Derby or any other stake for that matter. Great stuff everybody. Thanks again Jim.


----------



## Connie Swanson (May 31, 2005)

I wasn't going to enter into this, but there's a pretty consistent assumption here on the part of several folks that has me concerned; it's been briefly addressed, but needs to be discussed more fully, because it certainly affects judging Derby:

How is it possible to assume that a Derby dog's failure to enter water (or bust cover, or.....) is a lack of (or measure of) courage?!!!?

A young puppy can reveal natural courage and/or honesty toward water & I will pay lots of attention to that as I evaluate that pup's potential, but by the time a pup is ready to run Derby, if it has any brains & desire, it will have figured out that "cheating" is the fastest way to the bird. After that, training is the only thing that teaches the pup that we handler/trainer/judges prefer a direct route (straight line?).

The only reason we would call a Derby dog who cheats at a trial "black-hearted" is that we assume most of these dogs are in fact highly trained by this time: but the point is that a judge cannot possibly determine a Derby dog's marking ability (or courage, or intelligence, or any other God-given attribute) by whether that pup takes a straight line to the bird when faced with hazards intended to deflect it.

Unless, of course, we all admit that for a long time now, Derby, esp. in the US, has not been primarily about marking. And never again will be. And I don't think that's just because judges don't know how to set up tests or judge; I think alot of it is simply because we are competitive folks who keep pushing the boundaries, refining our skills as trainers, & we happen to be working with extraordinary creatures who answer the challenge. 

For better or worse, I doubt that this evolution will be stopped or reversed. Needless to say, I run very few Derbies.

Connie


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

I agree Connie. This summer I attended the Judy Aycock/Mitch Patterson judging seminar where they gave multiple examples of how marks are judged incorrectly and set up incorrectly, derby to all age. It's too bad no one ever captured their discussions on video and made them into a DVD. Judy was very clear on how to judge and so was Mitch, and although they had minor differences, everyone could see how there is a difference in "training" set-ups vs "judging" set-ups, and how judging has come to change over the years, particularly since many judges work with pros and the pro is the one who said the straight line wins. 
I know they said they are not going to give another seminar, but they did give out a judging manual, and maybe they could collaborate on a DVD. hint hint.


----------

