# Judges--Is this a resend?



## HiRollerlabs (Jun 11, 2004)

Dog comes back with the last marked retrieve and sits at the line. A land blind is next. When the handler turns to handoff the last marked bird ot the judge, the dog takes off on its own into the field. The dog is recalled by the handler, lined up and sent on "back" and completes the land blind.

Was this a resend on a blind? The handler only said "back" once.


----------



## Miriam Wade (Apr 24, 2003)

HiRollerlabs said:


> Dog comes back with the last marked retrieve and sits at the line. A land blind is next. When the handler turns to handoff the last marked bird ot the judge, the dog takes off on its own into the field. The dog is recalled by the handler, lined up and sent on "back" and completes the land blind.
> 
> Was this a resend on a blind? The handler only said "back" once.


I'm not a judge, but I wouldn't call it a resend. The dog was never sent in the first place. I probably wouldn't be thrilled if it took a while to get the dog out of the field and under control, but it doesn't change the fact that the dog wasn't actually sent until lined up and handler gives him a "Back".

What I have seen are dogs that no go on a blind and are allowed a second "Back". That is not allowed, but seems to get carried once in a while anyway. Sigh.

M


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Not a resend in my book.


----------



## birdboy (Feb 9, 2009)

I would say no on the resend. Judge would probably mark it as an auto cast, depending on the level. Seasoned/senior you could probably get away with it. Finished/master you are looking at some serious controll mark downs.


----------



## steve schreiner (Jun 15, 2009)

Thomas D said:


> How far into the field did he get?
> 
> HT or FT
> 
> ...




How did the dog respond to the recall...? How much trouble getting lined up and sent the second time..?

All good questions ...not a recast in my book but all the above questiions play a part in the score....The word resend should be ....recast....
some judges will call the call back a "pick up " and you are out.....Keep your eye on the dog at all times and expect the unexpected....Steve S


----------



## cpmm665 (Jan 6, 2009)

If the dog left the Handler on it's own, without being cued/sent on a blind, the dog was out of control. In an AKC senior, a dog gets a controlled break, though I would apply that to a marking situation. 
I suspect this situation could occur if I trained in field ABC considerably and we usually run a blind to the old oak tree, fido might anticipate "knowing" where to get the next bird. A good reason not to test where you train.
Why did the Handler turn away from fido to hand over the previous bird? Keep your eye on the dog and the bird at your back...the Judges will retrieve it.


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

Poor line manners not a resend.

Tim


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

Per the HT rulebook, a recast (resend) applies only to marks. Therefore, it has to be something else.


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

Did the handler have to blow the whistle to either stop the dog or get the dog to return to the line,did the dog come back on its own or "pop" when it realized it hadnt been sent

and the $85 question, was the dog dropped or was the dog called back....


----------



## Eric Johnson (Dec 23, 2004)

If AKC, why would Chapter 4, Section 4, not apply? 

"After delivering a bird to its handler, a dog shall stand or sit close to its handler until given further orders."

Seems to me that the issue of whether it's a recast or not is moot. It seems to me that the dog is out for a 0 in trainability.


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

It's not a resend. And *if* I were to put you out for a 0 in trainability, I would not have let you run the blind.


----------



## Eric Johnson (Dec 23, 2004)

I agree with Glen. I'll try to say it better.....

If the judges were to act on the behavior, it would be a 0 in trainability and the dog would not have even run the blind. If the judges weren't going to take this approach, it would not be a recast since the dog was never cast in the first place. In the latter case, the dog was simply "out of control" for a period of time and the judges would have to deal with it/score it from that standpoint.


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

captainjack said:


> It's not a resend. And *if* I were to put you out for a 0 in trainability, I would not have let you run the blind.


Unless the other judge was not sure. Then he would run the blind so you could confer.


----------



## Brokengunz (Sep 3, 2011)

in a senior test, my dog left on her own 3 steps, then stopped realizing she didnt hear the go word. I re-heeled the dog and sent. Judge dropped us for that. said if I would has given a cast instead of reheeling it would have been ok.


----------



## HiRollerlabs (Jun 11, 2004)

The dog only went a few feet, was called back immediately by the handler with voice (not whistle), lined up easily and was allowed to run the blind. This was in a Master Hunter stake. The dog had very good work up to that point and after. The judges passed the dog and she was awarded a ribbon.

Thank you...it was fun to read everyone's thoughts!!


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

HiRollerlabs said:


> The dog only went a few feet, was called back immediately by the handler with voice (not whistle), lined up easily and was allowed to run the blind. This was in a Master Hunter stake. The dog had very good work up to that point and after. The judges passed the dog and she was awarded a ribbon.
> 
> Thank you...it was fun to read everyone's thoughts!!


I've seen dogs all over the place in all levels in all venues. The most common occurance is with a pro or very experienced AM that is very familiar with the judges and is kind of having a BS session while the dog mills about sniffing this and that. Handler calls dog to heel and presses on. Most inexperienced handlers are so afraid of something going wrong that they don't take their eyes off the dog.


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

Brokengunz said:


> in a senior test, my dog left on her own 3 steps, then stopped realizing she didnt hear the go word. I re-heeled the dog and sent. Judge dropped us for that. said if I would has given a cast instead of reheeling it would have been ok.


Mark or Blind?


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

Thomas D said:


> Unless the other judge was not sure. Then he would run the blind so you could confer.


Absolutely! There are many situations where I say, "play on" and we'll talk about it later.

Once the call is made, it can't/won't be changed. So I'd rather have a disappointed handler (thought he was OK, but gets dropped) than drop someone and wish I hadn't.

JS


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Just curious... those of you who would zero the dog out in trainability why a -0-? Why not lets say a two, or a one, or a three. or a..... ?


john


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Jeez you hunt test guys are hard core. If this were a field trial the handler would just call his dog back, properly line him up and send him on the blind, no big deal. I doubt the judge would even note it on his page.


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

John Robinson said:


> Jeez you hunt test guys are hard core. If this were a field trial the handler would just call his dog back, properly line him up and send him on the blind, no big deal. I doubt the judge would even note it on his page.



Well said, John! I agree. I have seen HT judges score blinds to ridiculous standards many times in recent years.

Unfortunately, this is what the HT game is becoming; scrutiny of minutiae instead of evaluating a dog's worth as a hunting companion.-Paul


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

John Robinson said:


> Jeez you hunt test guys are hard core. If this were a field trial the handler would just call his dog back, properly line him up and send him on the blind, no big deal. I doubt the judge would even note it on his page.



I agree. Based on several recent threads, it seems as though there are more than a few here that would prefer to judge a dog on the mat, not in the field


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

paul young said:


> Well said, John! I agree. I have seen HT judges score blinds to ridiculous standards many times in recent years.
> 
> Unfortunately, this is what the HT game is becoming;* scrutiny of minutiae instead of evaluating a dog's worth as a hunting companion*.-Paul


Where's the like button.


----------



## steve schreiner (Jun 15, 2009)

Ted Shih said:


> I agree. Based on several recent threads, it seems as though there are more than a few here that would prefer to judge a dog on the mat, not in the field


I agree Ted....I make note of things that occur but I want to see the field work...You have to remember that a lot of people have been with unruly dogs on hunting trips and it spoiled the hunt...so ..they make control a very high priority when it comes to evaluating a hunting companion.... Steve S


----------



## Kelly Greenwood (Dec 18, 2008)

Don't hunting dogs spend 90% or more of their time on "the mat" ? Shouldn't some consideration be on what hunting retrievers do most of the time? A hun ting dog that can only do what it is supposed to do 10% of the time might not be much fun while hunting and even worse if it can't do the 90% work it might never get (and you may never get to shoot) the remaining 10% of the work. 
Of course I want to see every dog work in the field that is the best part. I want every dog to pass every test. If the rules said that judging did not start till after dog leaves line and gets in the field then that is how we would judge every dog, but the rules cover the mat and even coming up to the mat.


----------



## A team (Jun 30, 2011)

paul young said:


> Well said, John! I agree. I have seen HT judges score blinds to ridiculous standards many times in recent years.
> 
> Unfortunately, this is what the HT game is becoming; scrutiny of minutiae instead of evaluating a dog's worth as a hunting companion.-Paul


Agree 100%, in my brief experience to the hunt test games in the recent year couple of years I've noticed more emphasis on did the dog/handler challenge the blind. I've seen seasoned handlers walk away confused because they were told to pick up their dogs because they did not challenge the blind. 

Blinds in the hunt test games are becoming increasingly difficult and as handlers we strive to train appropriately.


----------



## steve schreiner (Jun 15, 2009)

A team said:


> Agree 100%, in my brief experience to the hunt test games in the recent year couple of years I've noticed more emphasis on did the dog/handler challenge the blind. I've seen seasoned handlers walk away confused because they were told to pick up their dogs because they did not challenge the blind.
> 
> Blinds in the hunt test games are becoming increasingly difficult and as handlers we strive to train appropriately.


Have you ever seen someone avoid the line to the blind...? This is the very reason judges say to challenge the blind....What comes to your mind when you hear the word " challenge the blind " ? Steve S


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Kelly Greenwood said:


> Don't hunting dogs spend 90% or more of their time on "the mat" ? Shouldn't some consideration be on what hunting retrievers do most of the time? A hun ting dog that can only do what it is supposed to do 10% of the time might not be much fun while hunting and even worse if it can't do the 90% work it might never get (and you may never get to shoot) the remaining 10% of the work.
> Of course I want to see every dog work in the field that is the best part. I want every dog to pass every test. If the rules said that judging did not start till after dog leaves line and gets in the field then that is how we would judge every dog, but the rules cover the mat and even coming up to the mat.


Kelly, I don't think anyone is saying that only field work matters while line manners shouldn't be judged at all, just that some of the "zero points for trainability" comments leads me to believe maybe too much emphasis is placed on the mat in some hunt test judging. To me, the OP's scenario was a no big deal scenario, like I said I wouldn't even note it down in my book. . Now if the dog was wild on line, and the handler had a hard time even bringing the dog back on line, that is another story.

John


----------



## Brokengunz (Sep 3, 2011)

captainjack said:


> Mark or Blind?


it was a blind, senior test


----------



## A team (Jun 30, 2011)

steve schreiner said:


> Have you ever seen someone avoid the line to the blind...? This is the very reason judges say to challenge the blind....What comes to your mind when you hear the word " challenge the blind " ? Steve S


I have seen handlers obviously avoid the line to the blind, especially on shorelines. It's very obvious when the handler sends the dog fat to the waterside. I've also seen handlers send their dogs fat on the down wind side of a land blind. These are obvious examples of not challenging the blind. 

My humble observation was that the window for challenging the blind is becoming smaller and I personally don't have an issue with that. I enjoy watching a nice tight line to a technical blind and I enjoy training my dogs to hold a nice tight line to a technical blind.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Not a resend. As a judge I wouldn't even pay attention unless the dog didn't respond to handler. If you were a client I'd tell you to stay focused. You should have kept dog under control with primary focus on the dog not the judge or bird. A sit command fixes this

/paul


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

How far off the lazer line can one be before they are avoiding the test? At 100 yds ?. At 200, at 250? 

The old school yardstick was that the "fairway" was as wide as about 10% of the distance from the line.... That being the case you can see that at 100Yds the dog could be 5 yds off line and so on as the blind progresses. If the comments I have seen lately are indicative of the* new *norm, this increasing % idea is out the window, replaced with who knows what, and for a" keyhole", one must not be off line at all .

john


----------



## Eric Johnson (Dec 23, 2004)

One of the problems with this venue is that words really don't convey the circumstances. I read the original post and responded to it. When the original poster said, "...the dog takes off on its own into the field." I took that to mean it was an appreciable distance. The usual dance around that takes place when moving from one place to another...marks to blinds. I'd buy that...especially in a Senior dog (which we also didn't know.)

However, suppose the dog goes 30-40 yards into the field. In light of Chapter 4, Section 4, are you going to excuse that? The rule clearly says "... a dog shall stand or sit close to its handler until given further orders." I'm willing to learn. What distance do you use to just mark down vs. mark out?


----------



## BuddyJ (Apr 22, 2011)

To get all your questions answered Down East Hunting retriever club is having a judges seminar Sept 14th and Jerry Mann is going to be the instructor. He especially encourages handlers to attend this seminar to learn what is expected of a dog in a hunt test situation. This will be very educational even if you don't plan to ever become an AKC judge.


----------



## Sue Kiefer (Mar 4, 2006)

You have to use "common sense" when judging.................
"If" Ann's dog did go out into the field say 25yds. now what???
OMG 
Then as the judge you ask yourself did she get the dog under control in a timing fashion or did it take her some time .
Then you ask yourself is this a repeat offense???
I have been dropped in an Open for my dog being out of control.
It happened a million yrs. ago down at Bush with a wild ass Golden named Taz.
We had 2 No-birds. After coming to the line a 3rd time and another No bird "Taz" couldn't help himself. I knew I was toast as soon as my judge said No bird. "Taz" never did pick up a bird that day.
Quit looking for excuses to drop dogs that haven't left the line. 
Please set up challengeing tests and judge them to a higher standard.
Sue


----------



## Bubba (Jan 3, 2003)

Sue Kiefer said:


> You have to use "common sense" when judging.................
> "If" Ann's dog did go out into the field say 25yds. now what???
> OMG
> Then as the judge you ask yourself did she get the dog under control in a timing fashion or did it take her some time .
> ...



What she said.

Don't wanna drop a dog that loves to gettum regards

Bubba


----------



## widowmaker (Feb 4, 2009)

Is a re-send an eliminating fault?

I have read and re-read the rule book and cannot find any rule or guidance in regard to re-sends on blinds. The rule book does address a no go as confusion is not permitted on a blind. I read this as dog don't go, you don't get a second send. However I see no rule addressing a dog that breaks on its blind, is stopped then is sent. 

So my point is even if it was a re send, is that alone grounds for elimination?


----------



## Margo Ellis (Jan 19, 2003)

Sounds like a "slight" trainablity issue and that was all, hard to ding a hunting dog for lots of go. It is when they are knocking over the bucket, gun stand, my chair..... jumping at birds.... um let's see the list goes on.  
Repeated issues need to be addressed, one time infractions that are minor are to be noted. IMHO


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

widowmaker said:


> Is a re-send an eliminating fault?
> 
> I have read and re-read the rule book and cannot find any rule or guidance in regard to re-sends on blinds. The rule book does address a no go as confusion is not permitted on a blind. I read this as dog don't go, you don't get a second send. However I see no rule addressing a dog that breaks on its blind, is stopped then is sent.
> 
> So my point is even if it was a re send, is that alone grounds for elimination?


There is no reference to "re-send" in the rulebook. Thus, it is not an elimination fault per se. Like others have said you could eliminate for Trainability. There is reference to "re-cast", but that is on marks only.


----------



## cdalt (May 9, 2011)

HiRollerlabs said:


> The dog only went a few feet, was called back immediately by the handler with voice (not whistle), lined up easily and was allowed to run the blind. This was in a Master Hunter stake. The dog had very good work up to that point and after. The judges passed the dog and she was awarded a ribbon.
> 
> Thank you...it was fun to read everyone's thoughts!!


This exact same scenario happened to me with a young dog last year in the master! There was a land triple than a double blind after the marks. Many dogs had handles on the marks and some dogs double handles on the marks and were called back. My young one had excellent marks and great blinds. We were not called back because I had to re-heel him after giving the judge the 1st bird from the 1st blind and he took off for the second blind where he was re-heeled after a few feet. This was a field trial dog with derby points at the time. I thought he just hammered the test when we realized he was the only dog not called back. I couldn't believe it, dogs with handles on marks were called back and we were not. I asked the Marshall and the judges said it was a controlled break on the blind. I responded that there are only breaks on marks not blinds and the judges said well than it was a trainability issue. Trainablility even though he re-heeled instantly, sat crisply on the whistle, and took nice casts to the blind. To me I thought he demonstrated great trainability but he must have got a score of 0. It was sad to see him dropped for excellent work in the field but dropped for too much desire to go on the second land blind. This was the last hunt test I ran and went back to field trials.


----------



## cdalt (May 9, 2011)

Ted Shih said:


> I agree. Based on several recent threads, it seems as though there are more than a few here that would prefer to judge a dog on the mat, not in the field


That is unfortunate to see judges with that perspective, with a good sound test a dog that has bad line manners will hinder his or her work in the field. When the birds are going off, I enjoy watching the dog on the mat and can get a good idea of whats going to happen in the field by how the dog behaved on the mat. However, sometimes that wild dog on the line does manage to do the test or catch a glimpse of a key bird at the last second, at least for that series but maybe not the next.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

cdalt said:


> This exact same scenario happened to me with a young dog last year in the master! There was a land triple than a double blind after the marks. Many dogs had handles on the marks and some dogs double handles on the marks and were called back. My young one had excellent marks and great blinds. We were not called back because I had to re-heel him after giving the judge the 1st bird from the 1st blind and he took off for the second blind where he was re-heeled after a few feet. This was a field trial dog with derby points at the time. I thought he just hammered the test when we realized he was the only dog not called back. I couldn't believe it, dogs with handles on marks were called back and we were not. I asked the Marshall and the judges said it was a controlled break on the blind. I responded that there are only breaks on marks not blinds and the judges said well than it was a trainability issue. Trainablility even though he re-heeled instantly, sat crisply on the whistle, and took nice casts to the blind. To me I thought he demonstrated great trainability but he must have got a score of 0. It was sad to see him dropped for excellent work in the field but dropped for too much desire to go on the second land blind. This was the last hunt test I ran and went back to field trials.


I wonder how those judges would judge a similar situation I have had with my hi-roller, that being as I am fine tuning his line to the blind I occasionally say "good" when he is looking out correctly, as his name is Gus, he sometimes takes off on the G sound. Like you I catch it immediately re-line him and send him on "back". It never has been an issue in field trials, plus I have gone away from using "good" when working with him, but I wonder what those judges you had would deal with my situation. Your story goes to my point about some hunt test judges throwing the baby out with the bathwater by being overzealous on line manners with otherwise well mannered dogs. I underlined some because I have run under a number of HT judges who aren't so anal.

John


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

The dog left the line without being sent, and was stopped and recalled. I don't see how it could be ruled anything else, but a controlled break.

As a handler, I would have just let the dog roll, and played it off like I had sent it. 
That way, at worst I get marked down for a PIL. Not a zero for a controlled break in Master.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

copterdoc said:


> The dog left the line without being sent, and was stopped and recalled. I don't see how it could be ruled anything else, but a controlled break.
> 
> As a handler, I would have just let the dog roll, and played it off like I had sent it.
> That way, at worst I get marked down for a PIL. Not a zero for a controlled break in Master.


Broke on what? There is no such thing as a break or controlled break on a blind.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

John Robinson said:


> There is no such thing as a break or controlled break on a blind.


 Why not?

I don't see anything in the rulebook, that says controlled breaks can only happen on marks.



> 2. A controlled break is generally when a dog leaves to retrieve before being sent, but is quickly brought under control by verbal command or whistle and returns to the handler. A controlled break in Master calls for a “0” score (Ch. 5, Sec. 5 [6]).


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

copterdoc said:


> Why not?
> 
> I don't see anything in the rulebook, that says controlled breaks can only happen on marks.


It does say that it has to be a deliberate intent to retrieve. I don't see in this fact set where that could be possible. The dog did not know that there was anything to retrieve at that point, since the handler had not even begun to line it for the blind.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

DoubleHaul said:


> It does say that it has to be a deliberate intent to retrieve.


 That would be the deciding factor.



DoubleHaul said:


> I don't see in this fact set where that could be possible. The dog did not know that there was anything to retrieve at that point, since the handler had not even begun to line it for the blind.


 So, was it going out for a ham sandwich?


----------



## Miriam Wade (Apr 24, 2003)

copterdoc said:


> Why not?
> 
> I don't see anything in the rulebook, that says breaks can only happen on marks.


Actually, a controlled break is not allowed in Master, but I agree with John. How can you have a break on a blind? Typically, judges will say, "You're on your own" on a blind. The handler controls the mat in terms of lining up, cues, etc. If you aren't waiting for a judge to release you-you can't have had a break of any kind.

M


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

DoubleHaul said:


> It does say that it has to be a deliberate intent to retrieve. I don't see in this fact set where that could be possible. The dog did not know that there was anything to retrieve at that point, since the handler had not even begun to line it for the blind.


That's what I'm trying to say, in order for it to be a break, the dog has to break on something, what is the dog breaking on? There was no mark thrown to give the dog the temptaion of something to retrieve. As a judge I would assume the dog thought he had been sent, the handler realized this and said "no, not yet", then sent him on the blind. Again, aren't there larger control issues in actually running the blind for Judges to worry about?


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

copterdoc said:


> That would be the deciding factor.
> 
> *So, was it going out for a ham sandwich?[/*QUOTE] That's the question you have to ask yourself, I would just assume the dog thought he'd been sent, because there is no other resonable alternative.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

John Robinson said:


> .....As a judge I would assume the dog thought he had been sent, the handler realized this and said "no, not yet", then sent him on the blind. Again, aren't there larger control issues in actually running the blind for Judges to worry about?


 I certainly agree.

However, I believe that the handler's actions after the fact, made what didn't need to be Judged, into something that could really only be Judged as a controlled break.


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

copterdoc said:


> That would be the deciding factor.
> 
> So, was it going out for a ham sandwich?


Who knows? The judges could have tossed the remains of their ham sandwich out there. 

Could have been chasing a butterfly, smelling the bitch in season who just ran, whatever. I'd put it down as a minor D.A.H. and move on and run the blind. I certainly could see where two particularly anal judges would drop me for it, so I prefer to keep my eye on my dog instead of jawing with the judges, but if I were in the chair no way would I drop the dog for doing what was described.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

John Robinson said:


> That's what I'm trying to say, in order for it to be a break, the dog has to break on something, what is the dog breaking on? There was no mark thrown to give the dog the temptaion of something to retrieve. As a judge I would assume the dog thought he had been sent, the handler realized this and said "no, not yet", then sent him on the blind. Again, aren't there larger control issues in actually running the blind for Judges to worry about?


W

I get depressed when I read threads like this and discover how many people are focused on the mat, and not on the field. It doesn't require much skill to judge a dog that is 3 feet from you on a mat. It does require a great deal of skill to judge a dog in the field. I wish people would focus on the latter and not the former.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

copterdoc said:


> That would be the deciding factor.
> 
> So, was it going out for a ham sandwich?


How do you know the dog left to retriever something? Honestly has a judge you have no idea if the dog left to pee on a bush, go to the truck, run to see people etc. Your putting intent on the dog and you have no way of knowing what that dog was going to do. Judges should look for ways to pass dogs, not fail them.

/Paul


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> W
> 
> I get depressed when I read threads like this and discover how many people are focused on the mat, and not on the field. It doesn't require much skill to judge a dog that is 3 feet from you on a mat. It does require a great deal of skill to judge a dog in the field. I wish people would focus on the latter and not the former.


I agree - there are way too many other things to look at than making a mountain out of a mole hill - I can understand if a judge wants to mark the dog down for trainability a point or two, but to fail a dog, really??


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> How do you know the dog left to retriever something?


 I don't.

That's why I said that would be the deciding factor.

I'm not saying that *I* would have dropped the dog. 

I'm saying that as a handler, *I *would not recall a dog that leaves the line, intent on retrieving something. Even if all that was left to retrieve was a blind, that I had not yet lined the dog on.

I would not recall the dog, because I believe that doing so, tells the Judges that I did not send the dog. 

It falls under the "don't make the Judges think", unwritten rule of handling. And I don't see how they would have any other choice, but to rule it a controlled break. I would consider being allowed to run the blind, a gift.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

copterdoc said:


> I don't.
> 
> That's why I said that would be the deciding factor.
> 
> ...


You have had several very experienced judges say they wouldn't even note it down in their book, what is there to think about? A guy or gal is lining their dog up on a blind, there is the normal amount of fussing around trying to line the dog up perfectly with the handler quietly talking to his dog, the dog missinterprets one of these quiet comments as the send command, the handler quickly stops his dog, re-heels, eventually lines the dog up and sends on the blind, how in the world do you call that a controlled break? Judges can think all they want, it will never be a break. As a handler I'm going to re-heel and properly line my dog up for the best chance to complete a tough blind.

John


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

John Robinson said:


> .....what is there to think about?.....


 The difference between getting called back to the next series, and not getting called back to the next series.

The safe move, is to just let the dog go, and handle.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

I can't believe that we are having this discussion. No wonder so many people I respect are depressed about the quality of judging in Field Trials.


----------



## Golddogs (Feb 3, 2004)

copterdoc said:


> The dog left the line without being sent, and was stopped and recalled.* I don't see how it could be ruled anything else, but a controlled break.
> 
> *As a handler, I would have just let the dog roll, and played it off like I had sent it.
> That way, at worst I get marked down for a PIL. Not a zero for a controlled break in Master.


No Mark...............No Break.

Dog gets a ding on trainability. Could the handler just let it roll? Sure, but why? Establishing control is the mark of a good handler and I appreciate that. Dog can't be allowed to run the show.

Keep your standards high regards.


----------



## Sam Melish (Apr 23, 2012)

Let's really muddy the waters. From the original post the dog left without being sent. What if the dog had realized he hadn't been sent and returned to the handlers side on its own. Now as a judge what am I judging? Just asking.


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

copterdoc said:


> The difference between getting called back to the next series, and not getting called back to the next series.
> 
> The safe move, is to just *let the dog go, and handle*.



at this point none, but the OP, even know if the dog went in the direction of the blind retrieve.
a simple "hey stupid, you are still working here" and a pat on the leg, by the handler should be all ya need.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

It isn't a FT. It is a Master HT.

Nobody is trying to win. They are just trying to stay alive. If a dog leaves the line, and is immediately called back and re-sent in a Master test, at any point during the test, it is *probably* not going to pass. And the reason that is given, is that it was a controlled break. That sticks, because it is described in the rulebook.

Believe me, it happens. Read posts #14 and #40.

If you carry, you are lucky, the Judges were being nice, or there was some sort of extenuating circumstance.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Sam Melish said:


> Let's really muddy the waters. From the original post the dog left without being sent. What if the dog had realized he hadn't been sent and returned to the handlers side on its own. Now as a judge what am I judging? Just asking.


The OP's and your scenario actually happens more often than you would think. At least in field trials it's no big deal. As I described earlier, we are dealing with high powered, anxious to retrieve dogs, fiddle-faddling them on line trying to get the perfect line, it isn't uncommon for a dog to jump the gun now and then, I have had it happen more than once. Sometimes the dog realizes that Dad didn't say "back" or Gus, he said something else, and my dog re-heels himself. We just settle down, continue to line up, then run the blind. I have never had a judge say anything about it. Now if I said "Back" and the dog left then re-heeled himself, we would be out as no-goes are not allowed on blinds. That is another topic of debate as to why they wrote "confusion as being sent" into the rules for marks but not blinds.

John


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Every time I hear the words Zero the dog out for Trainability the hair stands up on the back of my neck.

There are four components to consider when judging trainability, and while in some cases shoddy work in one of them may somewhat outweigh the others I find it difficult to believe that a dog, would not have shown enough redeeming work in _steadyness controll response _and _delivery_ to the point that the sum of it's total work warrants a -0-in trainability

So , if the dogs work shows a lot of trainability throughout the event over all, how does one fail the dog that has one miss-step? . 


john

BTW The word Trainability appears *nowhere* in the FT Rulebook ..... no wonder it is a HT thing.


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

I'm going to attempt to inject some common sense into this discussion for those in favor of dropping the dog for this situation;

First I'd like to remind you, as judges at a hunt test, our job is to evaluate the dog's worth as a hunting companion.

So, here we are duck hunting. The dog has retrieved a marked bird or three and now is being lined up by the hunter (handler) to retrieve a bird it did not see fall. The guns are silent for the moment as we attempt to get this bird picked up before it drifts or swims away and is lost. This particular dog is eager to do a very complex, abstract behavior (for a dog) in order to retrieve this bird for us. In it's eagerness, it mistakenly thinks it's being sent. The hunter stops the dog immediately and the dog returns to their side immediately. The dog is lined up properly, sent, and completes the retrieve in an acceptable manner.

You're telling me you would not hunt with this dog? For that, friends, is the question we are tasked with finding the answer to when we judge at a hunt test.

i'm NOT going to zero that dog!-Paul


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

I have seen this happen to several well known HT pros. They gave a quick whistle and handled to the blind. Guess they didn't want to take any chances.


----------



## cdalt (May 9, 2011)

copterdoc said:


> I don't.
> 
> That's why I said that would be the deciding factor.
> 
> ...


I think that is the difference between handlers and I am not saying your less of a handler by all means, you know your dog. By the way I enjoy the ham sandwich quote, too funny. Personally I would not just let the dog go without being sent. I would demonstrate control of the dog by re-heeling him and taking my time getting him lined up, then hand down with a good send. The reason I feel this way is when a handler lets the dog go without being sent the dog has a I'm in control attitude for the rest of the blind. To me the dog may be less compliant during the blind if he goes on his own. It's like who is in the drivers seat dog or handler. As a judge I don't care about how the handler sends his or her dog. All I care about is judging the 1st third, 2nd third, and last third of the blind.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

cdalt said:


> I think that is the difference between handlers and I am not saying your less of a handler by all means, you know your dog.....


 I think that it's a difference between the games we play.

In HT, recalling the dog after it leaves the line is just really, really, really, out of place. The only "acceptable" explanation, is that the dog broke. 

In Master, you don't get any controlled breaks. The rulebook is very clear on that.

You can't show the dog the gun stations before you signal that you are ready, and you only get one chance to send the dog per retrieve. 
If the dog goes before you were ready, the initial line you get, is the line you've got to turn into passable blind work.

If you wanted a better line, your dog should have stayed there, until you sent it!


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

Chopterdoc,

Just note, 
any thread that Ted Shih and John Fallon completely agree with each other.
Is a sign you may want to ruminate over your position.
check out post #15 and the post by Paul Young, who is a gunt test judge.


----------



## russell.jason2 (Mar 13, 2011)

I have always heard that hunt test are more about hunting than field trials...after reading this thread, I don't think so. Think I will stay in field trials, might not get many ribbons but I rather be judged on my dogs performance and my ability (or lack thereof) to help my dogs execute. I have tried to educate myself on rule book and I just don't see how this is an issue. I really enjoyed reading post #66, thought it was spot on. Jason


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

I seriously disagree with this being a controlled break or a resend or anything other than a dog having a momentary slip in manners AT WORST. I find it to be incredibly stupid judging that gives the game a sour note, as well as alarming that there are some that think it falls within THEIR intepretation of the rules to drop a dog for what's been described, that they seem to be seriously looking for ways to drop a dog. Lazy judging. I've run a fair amount of SH and MH tests, at no time would I consider what my dog did, as described by the OP, a controlled break, nor would I start handling the dog, I'd just call her to heel and get her under control, line her up and send her on the blind, no big deal. Now if I were in the process of lining up my dog and she took off, different story, I'd whistle stop and start casting from there, but not if the dog just bounced off the line a couple feet while I was giving a bird to a judge (not that I would EVER take my eyes off my dog;-) ). Some of these threads about judging and rule interpretation just leave me really shaking my head. Wish everyone would have to post their real names so I'd know who to avoid running under, not because I fear my dog failing, but because I really don't deem some people worthy of judging.


----------



## Eric Johnson (Dec 23, 2004)

First of all, can we narrow this to a discussion of hunt test or field trial rules and judging? The original question applied to a hunt test. Now several folks are talking about the "mat" which I've never seen in a hunt test situation. I have a sense that issue being discussed is dealt with differently in field trials and hunt tests.

Secondly, in a hunt test, a dog that leaves the handler's side on a blind (sent or otherwise) can't be called back and "re-sent". If by "re-sent" people mean recast, "A recast occurs when a dog makes a start toward a marked fall,..." This appears several times within the rule book and in each case, the reference is to a mark which excludes a blind. This is "black letter law" in a hunt test. The dog is out.

Finally, in an attempt to focus the discussion, I asked what the approximate dividing line is between a dog being marked down and a dog being marked out for leaving unsent from the handler's side. In short, about how far is too far? The AKC hunt test regulations would seem to imply there is very little room for personal interpretation but maybe I misunderstand.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Eric Johnson said:


> First of all, can we narrow this to a discussion of hunt test or field trial rules and judging? The original question applied to a hunt test. Now several folks are talking about the "mat" which I've never seen in a hunt test situation. I have a sense that issue being discussed is dealt with differently in field trials and hunt tests.
> 
> *Secondly, in a hunt test, a dog that leaves the handler's side on a blind (sent or otherwise) can't be called back and "re-sent". *If by "re-sent" people mean recast, "A recast occurs when a dog makes a start toward a marked fall,..." This appears several times within the rule book and in each case, the reference is to a mark which excludes a blind. This is "black letter law" in a hunt test. The dog is out.
> 
> Finally, in an attempt to focus the discussion, I asked what the approximate dividing line is between a dog being marked down and a dog being marked out for leaving unsent from the handler's side. In short, about how far is too far? The AKC hunt test regulations would seem to imply there is very little room for personal interpretation but maybe I misunderstand.


I have mostly been posting from a field trial perspective, but for the record I did put multiple hunt test titles including Master Hunter on my first two dogs, before I switched over to field trials, I also attended two HT judging seminars, so I feel I do understand hunt test and hunt test judging. That said I don't have the AKC HT judging manuals memorized and I can't remember the exact wording, can you quote the section of the rules that states the part of your post that I bolded.

As to your third question, I to would think we are talking a very short distance here, again I can't remember to quote any rule book distance, but for the sake of this whole discussion we are talking about a handler that recognizes and reacts quickly, bring the dog back to his side after maybe 5-15 feet. I can't imagine a handler standing there flat footed while his or her dog runs out 30-40 yards.

John


----------



## Daniel J Simoens (Jul 7, 2011)

I love these threads


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

I often hear confusion about resends on marks and blinds in AKC HT. There can be a no go on a mark, there can be a resend, if you will, on a mark, there is even a distance of 15' suggested in the rules for such. There cannot be a no go, and therefore, no resend or recast on a blind. 

Section 7. In marked retrieves, if a dog, after having been sent to retrieve, (1) returns to its handler before finding the bird, with or without having been called in, except in those cases of confusion of the dog as to whether it was really ordered to retrieve; (2) stops its hunt; or (3) fails to pick the bird up, actually leaving it after finding it, it shall be sufficient cause, unless there exist in the opinion of the Judges valid mitigating circumstances, to grade the dog “0” in Marking or Perseverance.
A recast occurs when a dog makes a start toward a marked fall, but stops within a short distance of the line
25
(the distance is usually limited to 15 feet, and should be agreed upon between the Judges) and returns or is recalled to the handler. The dog is then sent to retrieve again. This is most often attributed to confusion on the part of the dog as to whether it was sent to retrieve the first time. It is not considered a recast when a dog goes to the area of the fall, fails to find the bird and returns (or is recalled) to the handler. This shall be evaluated as a lack of perseverance and a score of “0” will be required.
NOTE* There is no allowance for confusion on blind retrieves.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Eric Johnson said:


> First of all, can we narrow this to a discussion of hunt test or field trial rules and judging? The original question applied to a hunt test. Now several folks are talking about the "mat" which I've never seen in a hunt test situation. I have a sense that issue being discussed is dealt with differently in field trials and hunt tests.
> 
> Secondly, in a hunt test, a dog that leaves the handler's side on a blind (sent or otherwise) can't be called back and "re-sent". If by "re-sent" people mean recast, "A recast occurs when a dog makes a start toward a marked fall,..." This appears several times within the rule book and in each case, the reference is to a mark which excludes a blind. This is "black letter law" in a hunt test. The dog is out.
> 
> Finally, in an attempt to focus the discussion, I asked what the approximate dividing line is between a dog being marked down and a dog being marked out for leaving unsent from the handler's side. In short, about how far is too far? The AKC hunt test regulations would seem to imply there is very little room for personal interpretation but maybe I misunderstand.


Show me in the rules where a dog can't be called back if he was never directed to go? I can't resend a dog if I never sent him?

Common sense ain't so common anymore.

And I have the rep for setting too hard a tests. Geez, at least your dog goes out working not sitting.

/paul


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

Under Minor Faults, I'd think what the OP describes would fall more under poor line manners than a break or resend. I don't think it's any worse than a dog that's in front of its handler on the way to the line, cumulative bad manners, yes, the trainability score continues to go down with every infraction, but one act of it, not grounds for elimination on its own. 

3. Poor line-manners – heeling poorly; not immediately taking and staying in the position designated; dropping a bird at delivery; jumping after a bird; *not remaining quietly on line after delivery.*


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

HiRollerlabs said:


> Dog comes back with the last marked retrieve and sits at the line. A land blind is next. When the handler turns to handoff the last marked bird ot the judge, the dog takes off on its own into the field. The dog is recalled by the handler, lined up and sent on "back" and completes the land blind.
> 
> Was this a resend on a blind? The handler only said "back" once.



A number of people have said that this is a HT scenario. There is nothing in the original post to distinguish between HT and FT.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

I'm not saying that it's "right", or that I agree with it.

I'm just saying that if a dog "goes" on a blind, and is recalled for an attempted re-send, odds are with *MOST* HT Judges, you are not going to pass that Master test.

It *IS* often judged as a controlled break.

This is how the rulebook describes a controlled break:


> 2. A controlled break is generally when a dog leaves to retrieve before being sent, but is quickly brought under control by verbal command or whistle and returns to the handler. A controlled break in Master calls for a “0” score (Ch. 5, Sec. 5 [6]).


And this is what the rulebook says about re-sending a dog in Master tests:


> (7) Dogs may be sent to retrieve only once except in the case of confusion (see Chapter 4, Section 7). A dog that displays unwillingness must be scored relatively lower on Marking and Perseverance than in the Senior Hunting Test.


If you have a different interpretation, it has to be backed up with something in the book.
The reason that the dog was recalled, makes all the difference. 
If it was making a retrieve attempt, you gotta let it keep going, or you are at the mercy of a sharp pencil.


----------



## Sue Kiefer (Mar 4, 2006)

I'm with you Kim on the judging and naming part.
it's strictly lazy or the big ass power trip.
"Copterdoc; I hate sharp pencils.
Can't we just judge my dog on his marking and his trainiabilty NOT all the other bull.
Sue


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

HiRollerlabs said:


> The dog only went a few feet, was called back immediately by the handler with voice (not whistle), lined up easily and was allowed to run the blind. This was in a Master Hunter stake. The dog had very good work up to that point and after. The judges passed the dog and she was awarded a ribbon.
> 
> Thank you...it was fun to read everyone's thoughts!!



Makes sense to me. I don't do AKC HT, but if I did, I'd like to believe I'd see this little bobble as "confusion"...(and yes, I know that the AKC HT rulebook does not allow for "confusion" on blinds) Many times, good judging requires good judgement. (aka common sense)

Chris


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

copterdoc said:


> I'm not saying that it's "right", or that I agree with it.
> 
> I'm just saying that if a dog "goes" on a blind, and is recalled for an attempted re-send, odds are with *MOST* HT Judges, you are not going to pass that Master test.


I think you are again reading intent into the post when there is no evidence that the dog intended to make a retrieve. There isn't much that it didn't but if it was just bouncing around while the handler is smoking and joking, I would have a hard time inferring any intent to make a retrieve--especially when it has already picked up all the birds it knows are out there. I certainly don't think most judges around here would take your position.



Rainmaker said:


> 3. Poor line-manners – heeling poorly; not immediately taking and staying in the position designated; dropping a bird at delivery; jumping after a bird; *not remaining quietly on line after delivery.*


Exactly. I would probably score it the same as if a handler yanked the bird out of the dogs mouth and the dog jumped at it. By that I mean I would note it and keep my eye for it happening again and if it did not, there would be no appreciable affect on the dogs score.

If my co-judge wanted to give the dog a zero in anything for this, we would have problems.


----------



## shawninthesticks (Jun 13, 2010)

Chapter 4 -section 4 " After delivering a bird to it's handler. a dog shall stand or sit close to it's handler until given further orders." 

Should the dog be scored lower?
or
Should the dog receive a 0?

So the dog gets a lower score in trainability but does he receive/maintain a higher score for preseverance or style for showing the a strong desire to retrieve?


What series was it?

Was there other previous infractions in trainability that the judge noted that where included in the decision to drop the dog?

Lot of unkown's in the story.

I dont have an opinion ,due to not enough experience in the game ,but these are questions that has crossed my mind while following this thread.

I threw in the chpt,4 sct 4 so I could post since that is a rule and copterdoc said we had to reference the rule book to respond.

Edit- I guess I do have an opinion,little silly to drop the dog if it is as cut and dry as reported.


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

Chris Atkinson said:


> ...... Many times, good judging requires good judgement. (aka common sense)
> 
> Chris











.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

> The dog only went a few feet, was called back immediately by the handler with voice (not whistle), lined up easily and was allowed to run the blind.


It was not a resend if the dog wasn't sent. A couple of steps, the handler brought the dog under control. No big deal. Call it confusion, but it probably was nothing. Now if the dog was not able to be brought under control quickly, if the dog interferred with another dog, if the dog went and grabbed a bird off the rack and started playing keep away you have an OOC dog. Really Copterdoc, besides I thought you left.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

copterdoc said:


> I'm not saying that it's "right", or that I agree with it.
> 
> I'm just saying that if a dog "goes" on a blind, and is recalled for an attempted re-send, odds are with *MOST* HT Judges, you are not going to pass that Master test.
> 
> ...


Ok this is my last post on this topic, I can see I'm not going to convince you otherwise, but I believe nine out of ten, or even ten out of ten judges would not call the described situation a controlled break.

John


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

> Ok this is my last post on this topic, I can see I'm not going to convince you otherwise, but I believe nine out of ten, or even ten out of ten judges would not call the described situation a controlled break.


Its probably more like 999 out of a thousand(.

p


----------



## krakadawn (Jan 8, 2006)

John Robinson said:


> Ok this is my last post on this topic, I can see I'm not going to convince you otherwise, but I believe nine out of ten, or even ten out of ten judges would not call the described situation a controlled break.
> 
> John


X2 How could someone bring 'controlled break' into this discussion??
From a FT perspective it would be just a minor note in the grand scheme of things........Dog jumps out...probably just rehealed and then sent since he's already made one retireve I'm more concerned with what happens in the field although keeping notes for reference always happens.
The OP asked for Judges to respond.....think we've had a few who have never judged respond also(at least I hope). For me ....AA Stakes since the late 70"s.
Some pencils too sharp!
Regards


----------



## Eric Johnson (Dec 23, 2004)

John-

Well...to begin our discussion, there's Chapter 4, Section 4 of the Hunt Test regulations.

"Section 4. After delivering a bird to its handler, a dog shall stand or sit close to its handler until given further orders."

I will (or do) grant lattitude in moving or setting up for the blind after running marks. The dog is amped up and many handlers look where they need to send the dog before they really have him sitting next to them. The original post however, indicated that the "the dog takes off on its own into the field." I took this to mean more than just a few feet.

As for your bolded statement, Chapter 4, Section 7 comes into play.

"A recast occurs when a dog makes a start toward a marked fall, but stops within a short distance of the line (the distance is usually limited to 15 feet, and should be agreed upon between the Judges) and returns or is recalled to the handler. The dog is then sent to retrieve again. This is most often attributed to confusion on the part of the dog as to whether it was sent to retrieve the first time. It is not considered a recast when a dog goes to the area of the 
fall, fails to find the bird and returns (or is recalled) to the handler. This shall be evaluated as a lack of perseverance and a score of “0” will be required.
NOTE* There is no allowance for confusion on blind retrieves."

Two issues with that. First, it involves a dog and marks. Second, it specifically excludes a blind.

This same wording appears in a couple other places in the regulations. Most notable is Part 5, "Guide for Dealing with Some Interpretational Issues". In the introduction to this section we find a statement that, "The following general definitions are intended to be helpful guidelines for Judges in making their determinations." Then definition 6 is, "6. Recast. A recast occurs when a dog makes a start toward a marked fall, but stops within a short distance of the line (the distance—usually limited to 15 feet—shall be agreed upon between the Judges) and returns or is recalled to the handler." 

From this, most judges would say that once the dog leaves on a blind, you can stop him and cast him but you shall not recall him nor allow him to return without the bird.

Does that answer your question?

Paul-

I'm not saying anything like that at all. 

I'm saying that my reading of the original poster's words of "...the dog takes off on its own into the field." as more than a few steps and that Chap 4, Sec. 4 ought to come into play.<shrug> If a dog leaves uncommanded, I've got to deal with it. Maybe the distance and intent is really nothing and then I'll say nothing. However, if it goes, uncommanded, more than a few steps into the field I'm going to have to assess whether it's gone too far. It's not a issue of whether the dog is recalled. It's an issue of distance.


----------



## RF2 (May 6, 2008)

Common sense tells me that this is a subjective situation where you probably had to be there to truly understand/evaluate the circumstances. I believe the judges that were there. No interweb second guessing here.


----------



## Rnd (Jan 21, 2012)

Some of you guys are trying to pick the fly sh!!t out of the pepper!

Get over yourself and enjoy the dogs that we have.

If you screw down the pressure to the point that the dogs are scared to think for themselves we would be back to the "Escalon Schuffle" .

It is easy to get a dog to do exactly what you tell it to do.

But that dog is not always fun to watch/...

To get that dog to do it with style is another story......


----------



## Good Dogs (Nov 1, 2005)

Since the thread has been hijacked I'll just add my $0.02 worth.
NEVER turn your back on your dog.


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

paul young said:


> I'm going to attempt to inject some common sense into this discussion for those in favor of dropping the dog for this situation;
> 
> First I'd like to remind you, as judges at a hunt test, our job is to evaluate the dog's worth as a hunting companion.
> 
> ...




I would hunt with that dog all day long... Might not want to hunt with the judge that dropped him though.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

huntinman said:


> I would hunt with that dog all day long... Might not want to hunt with the judge that dropped him though.


Actually the OP said in a later post the dog was was carried with no comment, and the dog got a ribbon at the end of the day. I don't know if the few on here stating that the dog should have been dropped are judges or not.

John


----------



## Kelly Greenwood (Dec 18, 2008)

I now know how to resend my dog on a blind. Start lining up dog and send on a "back" that is loud enough for dog to hear but quiet enough so that judges can't hear. If dog takes good initial line then let him go, if dog is not taking a good first 5 feet just say "Here!" reheel and try again. Since the initial line is most important this does help. really helps for dogs that may lie to you or just never take a good line.


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

Kelly Greenwood said:


> .... really helps for dogs that may lie to you or just never take a good line.



dogs can lie?
or
your not looking at the dog that good?


----------



## Kelly Greenwood (Dec 18, 2008)

I have seen a few dogs that are lined up and looking then take a 45 of the line, only a few most go basically in the right direction, but that instant 45 is always fun to watch the handlers reaction.  especially in senior/seasoned level. It also usually seems to be the really fast dogs that do it to the really slow handlers or the handlers without the wistle in their mouth haha.  and of course it would never happen to me because I am an expert and perfect in dog handling and if you believe that i have a nice bridge that you might be interested in buying.....


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

was is Randy Bohn that posted one time about how to see what way a dog was looking?


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

Kelly Greenwood said:


> I now know how to resend my dog on a blind. Start lining up dog and send on a "back" that is loud enough for dog to hear but quiet enough so that judges can't hear. If dog takes good initial line then let him go, if dog is not taking a good first 5 feet just say "Here!" reheel and try again. Since the initial line is most important this does help. really helps for dogs that may lie to you or just never take a good line.


Let us know how that goes for you......


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

I can't believe I'm sticking up for Kelly here as I take his above post a red herring to the re-send discussion, but I know what he means by dog's lying. I also agree with Ken that in most cases you can see where a dog is going to run by carefully looking at the line of the spine as well as where the dog is looking. My Gus used to lie to me on marks, he would want one bird while I wanted him to get another. He would fight me then appear to give in by giving the look I wanteded, including moving his whole body and spine over, only to launch off line toward the bird he wanted all along. I consider this lying to me.

Has nothing to do with the OP's case however.
John


----------



## Kelly Greenwood (Dec 18, 2008)

HiRollerlabs said:


> The dog only went a few feet, was called back immediately by the handler with voice (not whistle), lined up easily and was allowed to run the blind. This was in a Master Hunter stake. The dog had very good work up to that point and after. The judges passed the dog and she was awarded a ribbon.


Well isn't that what happened Paul? And they passed. only the handler would know if he said "back" in a quiet voice. dog left line and was called back and the handler sent or resent the dog. and this dog passed.


----------



## labraiser (Feb 5, 2004)

The dog would still be playing under me, but knocked down in trainability. It's a freaking hunting dog, for gods sake!


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

I have seen a dog with prefect line manners, in all marks, and his first blind, failed for lining up on his last blind, and having a false start, or going ~ 1 yard without being sent, quickly re-heeled and then sent by the handler. He was failed for Breaking on the blind, in a Finished test. I'm still not really sure how you can break on a blind, seems bass-awkwared to me, there's no bird, your lining the dog up to go somewhere, for some reason but there's no pull out in the field to cause them to break, there's nowhere to break to. I considered it enough difference in rule interpretation that I shall not be running under said judge again, which is really the only thing one can do when you run up against such judging quirks.

Now something I learned last weekend, for a false-start on a _mark_, most of the time it's better to cast (back) and don't re-heel, the re-heel is almost always seen as a no go, unless the judges take pity and call it confusion. Which most of the time it is, You say the name wrong, the dog doesn't believe he's been sent etc. etc. they false-start, when they've gone hard on every other mark. Still You can save yourself with a cast, where-as a re-heel will most likely fail yah


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Hunt'EmUp said:


> ....Now something I learned last weekend, for a false-start on a _mark_, most of the time it's better to cast (back) and don't re-heel, the re-heel is almost always seen as a no go, unless the judges take pity and call it confusion. Which most of the time it is, You say the name wrong, the dog doesn't believe he's been sent etc. etc. they false-start, when they've gone hard on every other mark. Still You can save yourself with a cast, where-as a re-heel will most likely fail yah


 I agree, and I see it exactly the same way on a blind.

I get the feeling that what I have said in this thread is making me out to be the bad guy. The thing is, that I have not once said that I think that the dog *should be* dropped. I just said that odds are that the dog *will be *dropped.

I said that the smart handler move, is to let the dog go, and play it off like you meant for the dog to go. I have played it the other way, and I know other handlers that have done the same thing. I now know, that in my case at least, it was a case of handler error, and I learned my lesson. 

Three out of the four witness accounts in this thread alone, have the dog being hit for a controlled break.
If you've ever had it go the other way for *you*, tell your story.

If it happens to you, it's up to you how you play it. 

I know exactly how I'm going to, because I've done it both ways. Which ever way you swing it, recalling a dog that has left the line on a blind, probably isn't going to get you a pass.

Resend, recast, controlled break, whatever you want to call it. 

None of that matters.

There is a reason, that this is true:


Thomas D said:


> I have seen this happen to several well known HT pros. They gave a quick whistle and handled to the blind. Guess they didn't want to take any chances.


Because, it's the safest way to play it. It's a smart handler move.

I hate that dogs get dropped for how the handler reacts to the dog making an honest mistake, but they *DO!!!!*
It's not my fault. It's just the way it plays out, and I do *NOT* blame the Judges for having to make that call. They are doing their job.


----------



## shawn shannon (Jan 22, 2007)

My only thought is there a chance someone in close proximity of the dog might have said the word "back" in casual conversation? Possibly the judges or bird techs?


----------

