# Unbelievable Decision



## DuckManiac (May 10, 2004)

I now remember why I haven’t run a Hunt Test in the last 5 or 6 years. As a Marshal for a Master Hunt Test yesterday I witnessed the most incredible situation I have ever seen.

The scenario was on the walk up a right hand bird was thrown. The handler would call the dog off this bird and run a blind. Then when the dog returned another two marks were thrown. The dog would then pick up all three marks and run another blind.

The handler and dog in question ran a decent blind and a winger malfunctioned causing him to get a no-bird. After moving back the designated number of dogs the handler was properly instructed that he had to complete the test just as he had done previously but he would not be judged again on the previously completed test. Judging would begin from the point of the no-bird. 

On the re-run while running the repeat blind the handler allowed the dog to get off line by 90+ yards on a blind that was only 100 yards to begin with. The handler was really late on whistles and could never gain control of the dog allowing the dog to pick up the poison bird mark.

After running all the dogs I had broke down the test when I was instructed that we needed to re-run this dog again. “WHAT, you have to be kidding?” was my response. After much debate the judges overruled me and re-ran the dog which did a good job. 

Unfortunately this decision was made by a highly respected Hunt Test judge who is extremely involved with the Master National Retriever Club. The handler in question happens to be extremely involved with the club holding an upcoming Master National event. 

Below there’s a copy of the rules and regulations that applies. I had two arguments presented to me. First, the handler on his re-run did attempt to pick up the blind in the original order but failing to do so should be allowed to try again. The other argument was this highly respected judge is very knowledgeable with the Hunt Test Rules and Regulations and must be correct.

Section 12. If there is an occurrence which makes
for a relatively unfair test of a dog’s abilities, the Judges
shall exercise their discretion in determining how to
score the abilities of the dog in that series. In doing so,
the Judges may decide that it is necessary or unnecessary
to re-run the dog.
The re-run of a mark or blind which was not previously
completed shall be scored by taking into consideration
the abilities exhibited by the dog prior to the
point of unfairness in the initial run, and after the point
of unfairness in the re-run.
If, during the re-run of a mark or blind not previously
completed, a dog commits an infraction that would have
resulted in it’s automatic elimination in the initial run, the
dog cannot receive a qualifying score.
The handler of the working dog must attempt to pick the
birds up in the same order in the re-run as was completed
in the initial running of the tests.


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

You can send them to seminars, you can make them take the test. 

You cannot make them judge according to the book.


----------



## Larkin (Feb 4, 2005)

Howard N said:


> You can send them to seminars, you can make them take the test.
> 
> You cannot make them judge according to the book.


Isn't that the sad truth. It's not just Hunt Test either, but every sector of every dog-related activity. The best you can do is make a note of the judge and not attend where they are judging, and encourage others to boycott as well.


----------



## DuckManiac (May 10, 2004)

A Committee member suggested that next year’s Hunt Test we buy enough ribbons for every dog and just leave them in a box at the headquarters so everyone can get one when they check in…if they like they could still run a dog.

I think this suggestion has my vote it sure would make it easier on the club…and every one would leave happy!


----------



## Goldenboy (Jun 16, 2004)

DuckManiac said:


> After running all the dogs I had broke down the test when I was instructed that we needed to re-run this dog again. “WHAT, you have to be kidding?” was my response. After much debate the judges overruled me and re-ran the dog which did a good job.


Tony, 

I don't believe that a stake marshall can make a ruling and, therefore, he can't be "overruled". Any perceived infractions should be brought to the attention of the Hunt Test committee, as I'm sure you know.


----------



## JWC (Feb 25, 2008)

I don't do hunt tests but I am interested in how this situation should have been handled. The Rule 12 that is used to demonstrate that the judges made a improper decision only refers to marks or blinds that have not already been completed. If the dog was not under judgment, what rule states that the dog should be dropped.

I am asking for my own curosity as I do not have a hunt test rule book.

Thanks


----------



## DuckManiac (May 10, 2004)

I used the term overruled for lack of a better term. I brought it to the attention of the judges that the rule book states “The handler of the working dog must attempt to pick the birds up in the same order in the re-run as was completed in the initial running of the tests.”

Normally this applies to marks. Strictly for an example, if the handler originally picks up a triple left bird first and right bird second then gets interfered and the judges rule a re-run is appropriate. The handler must attempt to pick up the birds in this same order on the re-run. If the handler sends the dog for the left bird first but lets say the dog winds the middle bird and changes direction and picks up the middle bird first he should not be disqualified for simply picking up the birds in a different order…the handler attempted to pick up the birds in the same order but the dog decided otherwise and now they still have to pick up the other 2 birds which they will not be scored (read between the lines handle if you must). The dog should only be scored on the middle bird which hadn’t been picked up on the original run.

In this situation it was a blind. The handler had already been judged on the blind and could have used 1000 whistles and 30 minutes to pick up the blind and still would have received the score of his first attempt. When the handler gave up on the blind and hit a come in whistle to pick up the poison bird they failed the test. Remember this is a Master Test, a dog should be able to run a blind and not be 90 years off line, but even so if the handler could have gottenthe dog to correct back on line and pick up the blind first the judges should have used the original blinds score and finished the test.

Come on this is a no brainer!!! It is because of judging like this that a MH title doesn’t mean much at all. If you run enough tests you will get enough give me tests to title a dog.


----------



## DuckManiac (May 10, 2004)

You can find all of the AKC Rule Books online at www.AKC.org


----------



## Golddogs (Feb 3, 2004)

DuckManiac said:


> I used the term overruled for lack of a better term. I brought it to the attention of the judges that the rule book states “The handler of the working dog must attempt to pick the birds up in the same order in the re-run as was completed in the initial running of the tests.”
> 
> Normally this applies to marks. Strictly for an example, if the handler originally picks up a triple left bird first and right bird second then gets interfered and the judges rule a re-run is appropriate. The handler must attempt to pick up the birds in this same order on the re-run. If the handler sends the dog for the left bird first but lets say the dog winds the middle bird and changes direction and picks up the middle bird first he should not be disqualified for simply picking up the birds in a different order…the handler attempted to pick up the birds in the same order but the dog decided otherwise and now they still have to pick up the other 2 birds which they will not be scored (read between the lines handle if you must). The dog should only be scored on the middle bird which hadn’t been picked up on the original run.
> 
> ...



You are absolutly correct and that dog should have been zero'd out.


----------



## Dale (Dec 21, 2003)

Ok, I have to ask 1 did you see the dog run the first time from the judges vantage point and 2 did you see the dog re-run from the judges vantage point? Was there something that may have occurred between judges and handler that you were not aware of?


----------



## DuckManiac (May 10, 2004)

I was just behind the judges for both runs. It was black and white the handler did deserve to get a re-run the first time. However, they failed miserably in completing the re-run. 

In a different scenario if the blind had been under the arc of the poison bird where the line was tight to the bird and the dog completed it the first time I could understand the judges discussing the situation. This poison bird was 90 yards off line…no excuse this isn’t MH work. How many attempts does a dog get? This dog now knows exactly where one of the key marks is. 

I loved it when I was approached during the second re-run by a handler that had also failed the blind and I was asked “What does a person have to do to get a re-run? Obviously there must be a procedure that works and since you’re on the Committee you must know.” By the way I wasn’t on the Committee and I had to let her know that I was as flabbergasted as she was.


----------



## afdahl (Jul 5, 2004)

It's been awhile since I read the book, but aren't infractions resulting in automatic elimination spelled out in a short list--hard mouth and things like that? 

Simply failing the blind, including the poison bird concept, would fall under things not to judge the second time around. IMHO.

Amy Dahl


----------



## Brad B (Apr 29, 2004)

Dale said:


> Ok, I have to ask 1 did you see the dog run the first time from the judges vantage point and 2 did you see the dog re-run from the judges vantage point? Was there something that may have occurred between judges and handler that you were not aware of?


What vantage point does it take to see a dog pick-up a poison bird? It's a pretty black and white issue to me. 

And shame on the HT committee and other participants for not stepping up and doing the right thing.


----------



## Losthwy (May 3, 2004)

90 yds off line and picks up the poison bird .....and passes? IF that is what happen, I to would be befuddled.


----------



## MikeBoley (Dec 26, 2003)

Being a member of the Hunt test committe in question, I was fablergasted that we even had to deal with this. The judge in question is well respected and therfore the less experienced members of the committee bowed down to him. I objected almost to the point of being in violation of rules of conduct myself. Ther has been a call placed to Jerry Mann by the judge in question. He has assured me he will share the clarification that Mr. Mann provides. Rest assured bus driver I will not let this rest until an explanation from Mr. Mann is presented to me. I will share this here as I feel this needs clarification. I can assure this was one judges decision not a result of deliberation between the two. Just another example of issues that need to be addressed in developing better judges.


----------



## Brad B (Apr 29, 2004)

MikeBoley said:


> Being a member of the Hunt test committe in question, I was fablergasted that we even had to deal with this. The judge in question is well respected and therfore the less experienced members of the committee bowed down to him. I objected almost to the point of being in violation of rules of conduct myself. Ther has been a call placed to Jerry Mann by the judge in question. He has assured me he will share the clarification that Mr. Mann provides. Rest assured bus driver I will not let this rest until an explanation from Mr. Mann is presented to me. I will share this here as I feel this needs clarification. I can assure this was one judges decision not a result of deliberation between the two. Just another example of issues that need to be addressed in developing better judges.


So Mike, why didn't you as an indvidual file a complaint when you were made aware of the breach of the rules? As a committee member I would have expected you to not only be aware of the rules, but to have had the moral fortitude to address such lapses in judgment regardless of what repurcussions would befall you. It appears that you too fell prey to the pressures of the "well respected" judge.

It is my opinion that such occurances, unfortunatley, are representative of our society as a whole. Whereas, no one wants to get involved if it doesn't affect them until after the fact. It is incumbant upon us all as participants at any level, to uphold the standards bestowed upon us by our governing body in orderto maintain the prestige of the levels of performance that we all revere. Failing to do so only serves to degrade the perception of those that have preceeded us, and to belittle those that will succeed.


----------



## MikeBoley (Dec 26, 2003)

Brad,
A complaint was file with me, not by me. I conviened the hunt test committee and was out voted. (3-1) It was clear to me that a rule had been ignored. 

I look forward to see if Mr Mann will address the issue or not. I protested so much that the judge in question called Jerry Mann while I was present.


----------



## Chris S. (Dec 15, 2004)

Just to clarify, the handler that received the reruns did not ask for a rerun. The judge told him he could have a rerun. Being a smart handler he followed up on the judge’s comment, like he should have.


----------



## Brad B (Apr 29, 2004)

Chris S. said:


> Just to clarify, the handler that received the reruns did not ask for a rerun. The judge told him he could have a rerun. Being a smart handler he followed up on the judge’s comment, like he should have.


How is it being a smart handler by taking advantage of someone's poor decision? If I knew my dog had been eliminated, I would not have re-run knowing that I should be out. I don't want a pass given to me under any circumstances. It should be earned fair and square, else it means nothing.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

Being nobody no one and no where with no vested ineterest...

the folllwoing quote from the rule woudl seem to indicate that while you may not like what was done, it is no one's decision but the judge...

the Judges
shall exercise their discretion in determining how to
score the abilities of the dog in that series. In doing so,
the Judges may decide that it is necessary or unnecessary
to re-run the dog.


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

> Section 12. If there is an occurrence which makes
> for a relatively unfair test of a dog’s abilities, the Judges
> shall exercise their discretion in determining how to
> score the abilities of the dog in that series. In doing so,
> ...


With as much as I know about it,,,, and not being there. I'd say that the dog eliminated itself without much need of a _judge_ doing much _judging_.

Too bad no one else had the fortitude to file a complaint. If I understand you correctly Mike,,,, someone filed a complaint on the judgement call of the judges and your hunt test committee rejected it or decided to do nothing about it.

I'll have to look but I don't think that that's how something like this is handled. 

Checking my rule book regards,

Angie


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

Chris S. said:


> Just to clarify, the handler that received the reruns did not ask for a rerun. The judge told him he could have a rerun. Being a smart handler he followed up on the judge’s comment, like he should have.


I don't think this is about the handler Chris? 

Angie


----------



## DuckManiac (May 10, 2004)

Darrin,

That is the jest of this whole thread…poor judging!


----------



## DuckManiac (May 10, 2004)

For clarification, Mike had a previous engagement the afternoon when this occurred and was not on the grounds. I was the stake marshal and I filed a complaint with the committee. The complaint I filed had nothing to do with the handler or the dog in question…it was filed due to the total lack of judgment by the judge(s). This was such a blatant failure I still am in awe when I think about it.


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

Would it have been appropriate to run the dog last and set up a different blind for the dog to run? This way its fair to the dog. It would be hard to get alot of dogs to go back to a blind it just ran. Especially at a test where you can't communicate to the dog that he must go back to the same blind.
Pete


----------



## Dave Burton (Mar 22, 2006)

Come on this is a no brainer!!! It is because of judging like this that a MH title doesn’t mean much at all. If you run enough tests you will get enough give me tests to title a dog.
__________________
I take exception to this statement. I don't have MH titled dog but when/if I do I'll be darned pround of him and so should anyone that has one. The last several tests I have been to have a pass rating about 15 or 20 %.(just a rough guess). Around my area the tests are not easy. I've seen alot of dogs that passed the last MN go out in first series. Just because some judge screwed up and passed a dog that failed doesn't mean all MH titles mean nothing.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Pete said:


> Would it have been appropriate to run the dog last and set up a different blind for the dog to run? This way its fair to the dog. It would be hard to get alot of dogs to go back to a blind it just ran. Especially at a test where you can't communicate to the dog that he must go back to the same blind.
> Pete


Pete this is master. The dog should go where commanded. Casting is communicating to the dog. 

/Paul


----------



## Chris S. (Dec 15, 2004)

Well, my dog was a little wild eyed when she ran the blind but when she picked up winger mal-function bird from the previous handler, you bet I asked for a re-run! 

Unfortunately the handler with the no pop key bird and the ill-timed double did not get a rerun or called back after the first series.  Only 3-4 dogs out of 61 did the entire setup cleanly.


----------



## jeff t. (Jul 24, 2003)

> Section 12. If there is an occurrence which makes
> for a relatively unfair test of a dog’s abilities, the Judges
> shall exercise their discretion in determining how to
> score the abilities of the dog in that series. In doing so,
> ...


My interpretation based on the above rule is that the dog had already completed the blind, and the "infraction" occurred while the dog was repeating the blind...and does not count against the dog in this case.

What am I missing?


----------



## MikeBoley (Dec 26, 2003)

Jeff,
This is what the judge in question is basing his poor decision on. Let me ask you is the dog free to commit any infractions while running the blind he already completed?


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

DuckManiac said:


> In this situation it was a blind. The handler had already been judged on the blind and could have used 1000 whistles and 30 minutes to pick up the blind and still would have received the score of his first attempt. *When the handler gave up on the blind and hit a come in whistle to pick up the poison bird they failed the test.* Remember this is a Master Test, a dog should be able to run a blind and not be 90 years off line, but even so if the handler could have gotten the dog to correct back on line and pick up the blind first the judges should have used the original blinds score and finished the test.


The middle of the paragraph quoted above tells the story. Wow.....what a _mess_.....

One thing I've had to reaquaint myself with lately is the feeling of disappointment that one feels when someone that you expect so much out of does something that makes you feel like you've been punched in the gut. It's unfortunate and goes a long way towards making you wonder WHY, if even the folks that you expect to be the BEDROCK of the game can make calls like this, you should even BOTHER staying with the sport. It's more and more expensive, requires maximum time and effort to be competitive (trials AND tests), and requires varying degrees of emotional involvement to the point that if you can't count on the people who are supposed to be among THE BEST at keeping the game fun to play, you have to wonder who CAN you count on?

Anybody ever hear what Jerry Mann had to say?

kg


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

A dog is not judged or scored on what has already been judged as part of his re-run. _But he can't fail it either_. The poison bird blind was part of the whole test and was a set-up for the marks. You can't fail any part of the test even on a re-run. On the re-run the dog failed the poison bird blind that had already been judged.

What if the dog shredded the bird he just retrieved on the blind, at the line? The dog already had run the blind hence he's not judged???  Surely you wouldn't carry or pass a dog that shredded a bird on the line no matter what part of the test he passed or didn't pass.

Angie


----------



## BBnumber1 (Apr 5, 2006)

Ok, let me preface this with the fact that I have never judged or run a Maste Hunt Test.

I am interested what makes this black and white to the people here.

In reading the scenario, and quoted rule, I can see how the work of the dog in question could be seen as less than master level work. It also seems that the handler did not control his dog well on the second attempt at the blind. On the other hand, I can also see how it could be argued that the rule being quoted does not necessarily apply. There may be other rules that may apply.

The facts as presented:



DuckManiac said:


> The handler and dog in question *ran a decent blind* and a winger malfunctioned *causing him to get a no-bird.* After moving back the designated number of dogs the handler was properly instructed that he had to complete the test just as he had done previously but* he would not be judged again on the previously completed test. Judging would begin from the point of the no-bird. *
> 
> On the re-run *while running the repeat blind* the handler allowed the dog to get off line by 90+ yards on a blind that was only 100 yards to begin with. The handler was really late on whistles and could never gain control of the dog *allowing the dog to pick up the poison bird mark*.
> 
> ...


So, for discussions sake, if the blind a previously Completed, then the above rule does not apply to the running of the blind. 

The next question would then be "Is the poison bird" part of running the blind?". This could be argued both ways. 1. It is a seperate mark, picking it up prior to being sent for it should be penalized OR 2. The poison bird at that point is a Factor of the blind, and picking it up is a failure, but on a previously completed, and judged test, and therefore not an automatic disqualification.


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

jeff t. said:


> My interpretation based on the above rule is that the dog had already completed the blind, and the "infraction" occurred while the dog was repeating the blind...and does not count against the dog in this case.
> 
> What am I missing?


The dog (and handler) FAILED TO COMPLETE THE BLIND. The dog did NOT get the bird for the blind that was planted; it got the delayed mark (it serves the same purpose as a poison bird on this blind to a degree, but is NOT a poison bird). Therefore, it SHOULD BE ELIMINATED.

kg


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

The re-run concept is simple.

Look at it as if it were a marking test. Does fine on the go-bird then something happens on the 2nd bird and justifies the dog be given a re-run. As long as the handler does not make an effort to pick up the birds in a different order than he did the first time, he should only be judged on the 2nd and 3rd birds.

That being said, ON THE RE-RUN the dog can handle on the go-bird without penatly, the go-bird is already in the books... but it still must retrieve the go-bird. If the dog stops on the way back with the go-bird and eats the whole damn thing, he's done. 

He is not being judged for his marking ability (or in the case of the blind re-run, his handling ability), but the dog should still be eliminated for retrieving a bird it was instructed NOT to retrieve.

SM


----------



## jeff t. (Jul 24, 2003)

K G said:


> The dog (and handler) FAILED TO COMPLETE THE BLIND.
> kg


 
I'm confused here...didn't the dog complete the blind on its first attempt?


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

In reading the initial description and all the resulting back-and-forth from witnesses, it is MY understanding that the dog did picked up the bird that was thrown as a delayed mark, NOT the bird planted for the blind, on the rerun.

As an aside this is yet another EXCELLENT reason NOT to put too many MOVING PARTS in the first series: a walk-up, a delayed single, a blind before the single, two more marks to complete the triple, then ANOTHER BLIND.......

kg


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

Shayne Mehringer said:


> If the dog stops on the way back with the go-bird and eats the whole damn thing, he's done.
> 
> SM


That made me laugh. I hope he doesn't have to eat the whole damn thing before he's done...


----------



## jeff t. (Jul 24, 2003)

From the initial post 



> The handler and dog in question ran a decent blind and a winger malfunctioned causing him to get a no-bird.


I read that as saying the dog had completed the blind...and, that the handler "attempted" to do it again.

I agree it is a mess!

Jeff


----------



## BBnumber1 (Apr 5, 2006)

Shayne Mehringer said:


> ...
> the dog should still be eliminated for retrieving a bird it was instructed NOT to retrieve.
> 
> SM


Ok, so he failed the test, not for failing the blind but for retrieveing a bird he should not have?


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

jeff t. said:


> From the initial post
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If I read it correctly, this is what CAUSED the need for the rerun.

kg


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

BBnumber1 said:


> Ok, so he failed the test, not for failing the blind but for retrieveing a bird he should not have?


That is CORRECT, per the ORIGINAL INSTRUCTIONS for the test. The dog would have been eliminated the first time it ran if it had done this. The judges themselves set this parameter.

Sometimes, too much "creativity in testing" is a BAD thing regards,

kg


----------



## BBnumber1 (Apr 5, 2006)

K G said:


> a walk-up, a delayed single, a blind before the single, two more marks to complete the triple, then ANOTHER BLIND.......
> 
> kg


Add an honor, and you have just about fulfilled all the requirements, haven't you?


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

Once a complaint is correctly filed with the hunt test committee,,,, what is the proper procedure for sorting a mess like this out??

Angie


----------



## Golddogs (Feb 3, 2004)

Angie B said:


> Once a complaint is correctly filed with the hunt test committee,,,, what is the proper procedure for sorting a mess like this out??
> 
> Angie


I am sure KG will correct this if I am off, but if something occurs dealing with the reg's and guidelines, a complaint is brought to the Event chair. It viewed for merit and if so, the event committee is convened to deal with it.

If it is found that the judges have erred, the Event chair will instruct the judges to change or rather comply with the reg's and guidlines.

The only time an event comittee can intervene in a judges decision is if it is found to be contrary to what is published in the Reg's and guidelines.


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

MikeBoley said:


> Brad,
> A complaint was file with me, not by me. I conviened the hunt test committee and was out voted. (3-1) It was clear to me that a rule had been ignored.
> 
> I look forward to see if Mr Mann will address the issue or not. I protested so much that the judge in question called Jerry Mann while I was present.





Angie B said:


> Once a complaint is correctly filed with the hunt test committee,,,, what is the proper procedure for sorting a mess like this out??
> 
> Angie


make sure that you include all the complaint reports into the secretaries report. While being an AKC hunt secretary only one time I seem to recall a special page just for this. Detail everything and keep copies for yourself. As for what the committee should do. Don't they stop the test and gather the committee and whip out the rule books and make a decision on the spot and then run with it??? Only two times have I been on a committee that was gathered like this. But gather we did. A report of that gathering also needs to be in the secretaries package. Now if on the spot the committee also got it wrong, I think, You can submit a written complaint about that, and also include it into the secretaries package. Hopefully you are not complaining about the secretary when you do this. But I do believe that is how it should work. And if this is the Monday after the test it should probably happen today. 
Ken Bora


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

Usually a judge with a reputation like the one described herein has some performance history showing good judgement and reasonable decisions.

Maybe there was something on the re-run of the blind, outside the control of the working dog/handler team, that caused interference in their ability to focus on the poison-bird blind the second time around. Maybe the judges discussed it after they left the line and said:

"You know, that was our fault. I don't feel comfortable with the position we put that handler in, and would feel better if we just gave them a re-run. If that dog's handling has gotten that loose, we'll see it there, and it won't cost us anything."

It's tough to tell from the description, but it feels to me like something wasn't quite right on the re-run. Maybe there was interference?

My belief is that any judge who says "that was our fault" should be willing to give the handler a re-run. I can see a scenario like this where to the gallery, it may not make sense, but to the judges, it helps them sleep better that night.

Chris


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

The way the AKC HT regs/guidelines are written, the event committee, along with the judges, are responsible for the execution and completion of the event per those regs/guidelines. In this case, the committee could have (should have) overruled the judges on their rerun of the rerun. By their own (the judge's) definition of how the test was to be done, the dog failed. Had the dog picked up the first bird of the triple thrown in conjunction with the blind which served as a poison bird for the blind ONLY with it's first run, it would have been disqualified. It did so on the rerun; therefore, it is disqualifed since avoiding that bird thrown as a single was a part of the test as they wanted it run.

Ken also makes an EXCELLENT point about the paperwork and documentation of this situation. Any time a WRITTEN complaint is lodged about ANYTHING to do with the event, it MUST be included in the HT secretary's report. The minutes of the committee hearing MUST be included as well. This will give more detail about the committee's efforts in coming to a conclusion and providing relief to the complaint. If ANYTHING comes up "after the fact" and this background info is NOT included in the secretary's report, woe unto the secretary AND the club itself. When the HT regs/guidelines talk about the committee having the power of the AKC at events, THIS is sort of thing that it's referring to.

And just my opinion here, but if Jerry Mann was brought into the discussion, I'm guessing that the "benefit of the doubt" theory is straight out the window......again, JMHO.....

*Lots* of balls dropped on this one regards,

kg


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

I feel the rerun of that blind has made the test extremely unfair to the dog and handler. The dog most likely is staying away from that spot and without a correction administered in some way to make the dog return to the same spot the dog is in direct conflict with the handler making it unfair to the team. So hacking its way to the blind or even forcing a dog to go back in will be of great detriment to the unrun marks.
I realize it is a master dog Paul and I realize we teach our dogs not to go back to the same area when testing.
Whatever the verdict the participant gets the short end of the stick and thats the way it goes sometimes. Its nobodies fault. 
Weather he gets a rerun or not he still is out and chalk it up to the allighnment of the stars
I think the judge has good dog smarts and was trying to be as fair as he could in the situation. I have no idea who it is but I can understand his concern and his position he took as far as the problems which can occure in this scenerio.

Sometimes people go far out of the way to make things fair but in reality what happened ..happened and thats the way it goes. And nothing short of another test will do.

My uneducated judging opinion. I don't remember them covering this in the seminar I took a few months ago.:razz::razz:

Pete


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

BBnumber1 said:


> Ok, so he failed the test, not for failing the blind but for retrieveing a bird he should not have?


Or if he did great on the blind - on the re-run - but then stopped and ate the bird on the way back. The dog is eliminated, even though what he was doing was already technically in the books. The bottom line is the dog was under judgement at the time, regardless if his work on the blind was being judged. Eating the bird, picking up a bird it was not supposed to, or humping the judge's leg (dog not the handler).... A dog in contention doing those things should not be in contention any longer.

SM


----------



## MikeBoley (Dec 26, 2003)

Chris Atkinson said:


> Usually a judge with a reputation like the one described herein has some performance history showing good judgement and reasonable decisions.
> 
> Maybe there was something on the re-run of the blind, outside the control of the working dog/handler team, that caused interference in their ability to focus on the poison-bird blind the second time around. Maybe the judges discussed it after they left the line and said:
> 
> ...


No Chris the judge in question discussed with me and other members of the HT Commitee after the presentation of ribbons, that the sole reason for the re-run was because the dog had picked up the blind in the first run before the unfairness(winger malfunction/no bird) so "anything the dog does during the re-run of the blind is not under judgement".


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

MikeBoley said:


> No Chris the judge in question discussed with me and other members of the HT Commitee after the presentation of ribbons, that the sole reason for the re-run was because the dog had picked up the blind in the first run before the unfairness(winger malfunction/no bird) so "anything the dog does during the re-run of the blind is not under judgement".


Ok, so he can't score the blind. But he has to fail the marks because he couldn't pickup all 3 of them and in an odd way has setup himself to return to the area of an old fall. Basically the dog/handler have put themselves in a position where they cannot finish he test and have eliminated themselves. The whole thing is a cluster, the judge should know better. Clearly being involved with the Master National means nothing as too a person’s abilities but I find it interesting that the original poster made mention of the fact that the judge and the handler in this case are both involved pretty heavily in MN business. I’m curious what the implication of mentioning that was? My impression was there was some favoritism going on. Maybe I missed it but did the dog go on to qualify? That would sure add to the situation considering the new requirements for running a dog in the MN. Might be some misconduct involved there, and at the very least some real questioning of a person integrity.

/Paul


----------



## John Gassner (Sep 11, 2003)

The judge is wrong. Shayne is right (did I just say that?).

Keith hit it on the head that too many moving parts to this, or any test can lead to big problems and increased odds of unfairness for those involved.

Reruns are set up to generally because of something that occured prior that was deemed unfair. Reruns attempt to correct this unfairness or at least lessen the degree. They usually don't succeed, at least to the point of there being no unfairness.

One option available for AKC hunting tests (not field trials) would be for a similar (not exact) test to be set up if time and grounds were available for this or any other dog that had a rerun. This would eliminate the dog's not wanting to go back where it has already been, etc.


John


----------



## bigpappa (May 5, 2008)

So for the sake of argument...let's say the judges should not have given the dog a re-run. I would have to defend the judges for a number of reasons: 1) Simply for the fact that there has been this much debate tells me that there is gray area in regard to this rule. 2) The judges had limited time to make this decision and it sounds like they believed they made the correct decison with rule book in hand. 3) From the judges perspective, should they let a dog run that shouldn't or not let a dog run that should...which is the greater evil? And, for all you whiney-babies...ask yourself this...what if it was your dog? Was any other dog at this test adversely affected by this decision? Answer: NO! So even if the AKC believes the dogs should not have run: No dogs were harmed, the judges did their best and remained impartial and, a newer addition to a rule has been clarified for future tests. For all you Monday morning armchair, beer swilling, big gutted, ******* quarterbacks out there remember this: "No perfect decisions are made in real time". Big Pappa.


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

bigpappa said:


> So for the sake of argument...let's say the judges should not have given the dog a re-run. I would have to defend the judges for a number of reasons: 1) Simply for the fact that there has been this much debate tells me that there is gray area in regard to this rule. 2) The judges had limited time to make this decision and it sounds like they believed they made the correct decison with rule book in hand. 3) From the judges perspective, should they let a dog run that shouldn't or not let a dog run that should...which is the greater evil? And, for all you whiney-babies...ask yourself this...what if it was your dog? Was any other dog at this test adversely affected by this decision? Answer: NO! So even if the AKC believes the dogs should not have run: No dogs were harmed, the judges did their best and remained impartial and, a newer addition to a rule has been clarified for future tests. For all you Monday morning armchair, beer swilling, big gutted, ******* quarterbacks out there remember this: "No perfect decisions are made in real time". Big Pappa.


One re-run yes,,, with that re-run he eliminated himself. End of story. It didn't need to be any harder then that. No judging necessary when a dog eliminates himself.

If it was my dog I would have picked up. My dog obviously did not complete the re-run correctly. Heaven forbid I would ever need a pass in any hunt test that bad. 

But that's me.

Angie


----------



## John Gassner (Sep 11, 2003)

bigpappa said:


> So for the sake of argument...let's say the judges should not have given the dog a re-run. I would have to defend the judges for a number of reasons: 1) Simply for the fact that there has been this much debate tells me that there is gray area in regard to this rule. 2) The judges had limited time to make this decision and it sounds like they believed they made the correct decison with rule book in hand. 3) From the judges perspective, should they let a dog run that shouldn't or not let a dog run that should...which is the greater evil? And, for all you whiney-babies...ask yourself this...what if it was your dog? Was any other dog at this test adversely affected by this decision? Answer: NO! So even if the AKC believes the dogs should not have run: No dogs were harmed, the judges did their best and remained impartial and, a newer addition to a rule has been clarified for future tests. For all you Monday morning armchair, beer swilling, big gutted, ******* quarterbacks out there remember this: "No perfect decisions are made in real time". Big Pappa.


Sounds like this is hitting a little close to home. I don't think anyone is trying to "hang the judge(s)". Question was whether or not the right decisions were made. Per the AKC most think they were not. 

Nobody is saying that the judges or HT committee tried to do anything that was not on the up and up.

Yes, you want to error on the side of the lesser evil. Unfortunately, when a dog FAILS a test, there are no options. Fair or not, the dog is O U T!!!


John


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

bigpappa said:


> So for the sake of argument...let's say the judges should not have given the dog a re-run. I would have to defend the judges for a number of reasons: 1) Simply for the fact that there has been this much debate tells me that there is gray area in regard to this rule. 2) The judges had limited time to make this decision and it sounds like they believed they made the correct decison with rule book in hand. 3) From the judges perspective, should they let a dog run that shouldn't or not let a dog run that should...which is the greater evil? And, for all you whiney-babies...ask yourself this...what if it was your dog? Was any other dog at this test adversely affected by this decision? Answer: NO! So even if the AKC believes the dogs should not have run: No dogs were harmed, the judges did their best and remained impartial and, a newer addition to a rule has been clarified for future tests. For all you Monday morning armchair, beer swilling, big gutted, ******* quarterbacks out there remember this: "No perfect decisions are made in real time". Big Pappa.


 Great first post. Clearly hiding behind “bigpappa” brings credibility to a well thought out response. Course the last sentence does a lot of damage to that earned credibility. For some unknown reason I’m drawn to reply to your clearly well debated points.


1.This much debate? People have stated the rules, and for the most part 90+% of the replies have been in agreement this was a bad call on the part of the judge. Apparently even the co-judge didn’t agree but like the HT committee caved into a stronger personality with longer history. Bad form all the way around. 
2.I don’t see where they didn’t have time to make a decision. After the first re-run they had clear until the rest of the test to think about what happened, then had time to sit and talk about it together afterword, then had time while they waited for the test to be re-setup. If you can’t make a decision in all that time, quit judging.
3.You should error in the favor of the dog. They let the dog re-run and he failed. In fact I am having a hard time coming up with any situation where a dog would pickup the poison bird and pass. A judge should always provide the benefit to the dog when mechanics of a test cause the failure, but uphold the standard when a dog/handler is the cause of the failure. 

And here’s the whiney baby answers….
1.If it was my dog and he gave me that many refusals on the re-run of the blind he would have been pulled from the field. A master dog should go where sent, follow direction from the handler. If he can’t do that, he’s not a master dog and needs more training. None of the dogs I’ve ran in the last 15 would have been allowed to pick up that poison bird. I respect my own personal standard, and AKC’s
2.Yes other dogs were adversely affected by this decision because they didn’t get 2 or 3 tries to get it right. If the judges are going to allow a dog mulligans then they should do it for every dog. The sport was hurt as well, due to the fact that a highly respected judge involved with the supposedly premier event in the country failed to live up to the standard of a master dog, and fulfill his commitment when he signed his judges form. 

I frankly don’t see that any rules have been clarified for future tests but new judges should read this and learn from it. Just the opinion of a Monday morning armchair, beer swilling, big gutted, ******* quarterbacks who also happens to be a 8 point master judge.

/Paul


----------



## DuckManiac (May 10, 2004)

Big Pappa,

A poor decision such as this affects everyone in the sport. A Master Title is suppose to mean that this dog is a quality hunting retriever that is capable of meeting or exceeding the AKC definition of such. If in the future a dog is to be breed a Master Title will make a dog’s puppies more valuable and sought after. It is only right that any one seeking to buy one of the puppy's be aware that a dog has actually earned the title.

With the new rules in effect to qualify for the Master National a decision like this could effect if this dog qualifies or not. Why should this dog get special treatment when other dogs that picked up the mark didn’t? 

Being this is your first post either you may be new to the sport and/or posting on this forum or you are incognito and trying to stir the pot. In any matter I believe this is a topic of great concern. The reason I stopped running Hunt Tests many years ago was I felt the judging was in turmoil. Inexperience and “good ole boy” attitudes are having a detrimental effect on Hunt Tests.


----------



## bigpappa (May 5, 2008)

In response to "not trying to 'hang the judges'", have you not read the first couple of pages of this thread? There is no dispute that the decision made was not the correct interpretation of the rule and the dog should not have been given a re-run. That being said, I don't see what the issue is or why this thread has continued for 6 pages now unless the initiater of this thread doesn't like this particular handler??? Not trying to be a conspiracy theorist but, as someone who was not there and is only reading the previous posts, that is what is seems like to me. I don't see the point in raising such a ruckus when no one was adversely affected by the decision if not for the previously stated reason. Questioning someone's integrity in regard the Master Nationals...really? Give me a break!! 
It's agreed that the dog should NOT have run...Period. If anyone is seriously questioning any of the individuals involved, then contact them directly. A public forum is not the place to air personal grievances. A forum is for constructive discussion not a place to challenge one's integrity. Let's leave the personal feelings between the Marshal and the handler out of this.


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

So far, there are only two pages and 60 POSTS for this thread. If you want to see how "interested" people are in the topic BP, check the views. If no one's "interested," no one will view. Clearly, that isn't the case here.

As for what we should and shouldn't think, someone who's on their second post and chooses to remain anonymous doesn't get a vote on either direction. If you don't "get the point" as to WHY this topic is particularly important to Master judging (forget the invidividuals....the CALL is the important thing), then you probably shouldn't post on the topic.

Just sayin' regards,

kg


----------



## bigpappa (May 5, 2008)

Not new to the sport, just to responding to threads on the forum. Mostly I just read but felt compelled to respond. A WAY bigger deal is being made about this than need be. One test, one dog, one decision (albeit the wrong one) equals NOT affecting the entire sport. Let me pose this question concerning these judges...Is this decision an isolated mistake in a history of good decision making or a pattern of poor decisions? If the first part of this question is true then this has been blown way out of proportion. BP


----------



## MikeBoley (Dec 26, 2003)

ok bigpappa come out of the closet!


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

I'm with Mike. No more replies 'til you show some I.D.
kg


----------



## MikeBoley (Dec 26, 2003)

bigpappa said:


> Not new to the sport, just to responding to threads on the forum. Mostly I just read but felt compelled to respond. A WAY bigger deal is being made about this than need be. One test, one dog, one decision (albeit the wrong one) equals NOT affecting the entire sport. Let me pose this question concerning these judges...Is this decision an isolated mistake in a history of good decision making or a pattern of poor decisions? If the first part of this question is true then this has been blown way out of proportion. BP


Or is this the first time that a poor decision has been questioned in public? Because of the percived power this indivdual has it is highly likely that numerous poor calls have been made and not questioned.


----------



## bigpappa (May 5, 2008)

kg, 
What does Chris A. think about your new rule -- That statements are only valid if the poster has xxx number of posts?


----------



## bigpappa (May 5, 2008)

You fellas have a great day! 
Newbie poster spoon in the pot regards, 

Big Pappa out!!


----------



## John Gassner (Sep 11, 2003)

BP, the info given might make a difference in what happened. I personally would like to know as many facts before I form an opinion. Even then it is just that, my opinion.

If someone is a member of the RAC or a National judge do you think it makes no difference?

I would like to think that the judge(s) would have made the same decision no matter who's dog was running. This is not always the case. 

Hopefully, those that made the call have reflected on their decisions and now see the error.


John


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

bigpappa said:


> kg,
> What does Chris A. think about your new rule -- That statements are only valid if the poster has xxx number of posts?


I can, as can anyone else, make whatever rules I like for myself on who I choose to post to and who I won't. _You_ choose whether or not you want to be _credible_, not me. This had not so much to do with your number of posts as your choosing to want to dictate what gets discussed/what is important or not without having any credibility. You can say you've been in the sport since its inception, or you could be one of the people involved in this issue....no one knows.




bigpappa said:


> You fellas have a great day!
> Newbie poster spoon in the pot regards,
> 
> Big Pappa out!!


That pretty much tells us all we need to know. ;-)

kg


----------



## DuckManiac (May 10, 2004)

BP

It’s not the number of posts its hiding behind an anonymous handle. I’m not hiding behind my user name and never would. 

It’s really difficult to give any credibility to some one that can make statements and not be held accountable for them. If you know me then you know any thing I say on this forum I would also say to some ones face. If I believe some one is wrong I will confront them on the issues at hand. 

If in your opinion this decision doesn’t affect the sport then I can respect that and we can agree to disagree.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

bigpappa said:


> In response to "not trying to 'hang the judges'", have you not read the first couple of pages of this thread? There is no dispute that the decision made was not the correct interpretation of the rule and the dog should not have been given a re-run. That being said, I don't see what the issue is or why this thread has continued for 6 pages now unless the initiater of this thread doesn't like this particular handler??? Not trying to be a conspiracy theorist but, as someone who was not there and is only reading the previous posts, that is what is seems like to me. I don't see the point in raising such a ruckus when no one was adversely affected by the decision if not for the previously stated reason. Questioning someone's integrity in regard the Master Nationals...really? Give me a break!!
> It's agreed that the dog should NOT have run...Period. If anyone is seriously questioning any of the individuals involved, then contact them directly. A public forum is not the place to air personal grievances. A forum is for constructive discussion not a place to challenge one's integrity. Let's leave the personal feelings between the Marshal and the handler out of this.


For the record, I do not personally know any of the subjects of this thread. Yet that actually only lends to the impression of impropriety. My current understanding is that the dog went on to pass/qualify? I guess I have a problem with a dog getting 3 chances to pass a test and/or being allowed to fail a poison bird situation. Just having a hard time with that aspect and the perceptions created by the conduct of some involved and judges decisions that stretch the standard.

/paul


----------



## Russ (Jan 3, 2003)

It seems to me the dog either passed the second test or did not. If he passed, then move on to the next series. If he failed he is out. Is there some contention that the second test was unfair? Was the third test any less unfair. I do understand the rationale for the second rerun. If he failed that one, would they have done a 4th run?


----------



## JamesTannery (Jul 29, 2006)

IMHO, the judges take time out of their lives to be there. I believe the only reason they do this is for love of the game or the animals. I believe whatever call this judge made, he was there along with a second judge, was the proper conclusion. 

This was the most challenging 3 series of Master testing that I have ever been involved in, and I had a great time. It was an exciting weekend.
________
Ford Vega picture


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

JamesTannery said:


> IMHO, the judges take time out of their lives to be there. I believe the only reason they do this is for love of the game or the animals. I believe whatever call this judge made, he was there along with a second judge, was the proper conclusion.
> 
> This was the most challenging 3 series of Master testing that I have ever been involved in, and I had a great time. It was an exciting weekend.


I don't think any judge shows up on Friday with the intent for this to occur. Yet these things do, and we might as well learn from it. I'm sure they did. 

/Paul


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

James, I know one of the judges in question. I do not know the other.

The one I do know is a man of unquestionable integrity....he has dedicated a TON of his time to the sport of retriever hunting tests, both in judging and in competing. I have the utmost of respect for his commitment in trying to do the right thing, both by the dogs and by the handlers. I would trust this man with my life.

That said, I am 100% certain that he made the wrong call on this one. I would tell him that personally; in fact, I have his cell number (may be an old one)....I may just call him later and have a chat about this, not to chastize him, but to discuss his thought process since I have stated my own position on the issue here. Judges are not infallible; we make mistakes. We should learn from them and move on....but to say that we shouldn't be questioned because we have taken time out of our lives to be there or because we love animals and the game is to be put on an undeserved pedestle. The qualities you mentioned are prerequisites of judges; folks that don't have them shouldn't judge.

The judge you mentioned has all of those qualities and more....and he'll be the first one to tell you that he is NOT perfect....but I will PERSONALLY vouch for his honesty and credibility EVERY DAY OF THE WEEK.

Keith Griffith


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

K G said:


> James, I know one of the judges in question. I do not know the other.
> 
> The one I do know is a man of unquestionable integrity....he has dedicated a TON of his time to the sport of retriever hunting tests, both in judging and in competing. I have the utmost of respect for his commitment in trying to do the right thing, both by the dogs and by the handlers. I would trust this man with my life.
> 
> ...


"Here, Here"!! My sentiments exactly. Well said.

Angie


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

K G said:


> James, I know one of the judges in question. I do not know the other.
> 
> The one I do know is a man of unquestionable integrity....he has dedicated a TON of his time to the sport of retriever hunting tests, both in judging and in competing. I have the utmost of respect for his commitment in trying to do the right thing, both by the dogs and by the handlers. I would trust this man with my life.
> 
> ...



Well, that about sums it up. 

/paul


----------



## Russ (Jan 3, 2003)

I do not know who the judges are and it makes no difference to me. This instance would not dissuade me in the least from running under them. I do think it is fruitful discussion about some important issues. 

If anyone has not made errors in judgement with the clipboard in hand, I would wager they have not judged that often.


----------



## DougM (May 5, 2008)

My goodness me, what an interesting read this thread is.

I guess before I get started I should say a few words about myself, since I _am_ a rank newbie to these forums and y'all seem to be a little hesitant to allocate much in the way of credibility to folks you don't know. My name is Doug McGuire, I live in Katy, Texas, and I've been playing the hunt test game for, what? I guess it's about 18 years now. I know Tony and Eric and maybe a few of the other folks who've posted on this thread, and I guess I know a fairly large proportion of the retriever folks who run their dogs in Texas and western Louisiana.

I've been judging at the Junior level since about 1995, at the Senior level since 2005, and am in the process of deciding if I want to move up to Master. It's my own belief that you shouldn't judge a level at which you've never run dogs, and I titled my first Master dog in the fall....but I really don't know if I want to take that step.

Why is that? Well, there really are a lot of reasons, but one of the big ones is that Master judges in particular always seem to have to deal with people second-guessing and criticizing decisions that they make. Now it seems that that aspect of judging extends to dealing with criticizing and second-guessing by people who weren't anywhere near a test where something happened and who are basing their criticisms solely on second-hand accounts.

To be clear on this point, I was about 350 miles away when the incident being discussed here took place because I was judging in Louisiana. However, I do know both of the judges being excoriated here; I have run my own dogs under both of them, I have sat with them in the gallery and watched them run their own dogs, I have trained dogs with them, I have worked with them at tests, and so on. I trust their judgment and their abilities as judges.

I learned very early in my judging career that you can't judge something you can't see. On a simplistic level, that guides how you lay out tests because you have to be able to see a dog working in order to evaluate that dog's work. I think you'd all agree on that point.

I am not prepared to reach any kind of decision as to what happened in the incident being discussed in this thread because _I was not there to see what happened_. I _do_ know that I have encountered situations at the line which were not at all obvious to people who were quite close by but which were, when discussed with my co-judge, deemed sufficient to warrant a re-run or a disqualification or, in many cases, the application of a little judgment. You know, that thing judges judges are expected to do, all the time, with robotic precision, and with never an error.

Well, right there on page 35 of the _Regulations and Guidelines for AKC Hunting Tests for Retrievers_ it says:

_"Many situations will occur that cannot be specifically
addressed in the Regulations or Guidelines. In these
instances, Judges must draw on their experience to
arrive at fair decisions."_ LINK

Those of you who are so quick to make up your minds as to what happened might want to have a careful think about that, especially if you've never been in a situation where _you_ were the one confronted with an unusual - and perhaps ambiguous - set of circumstances and were forced to come to a decision, in real-time, with all the pressures of a large event like a 60-dog Master test pressing down on you.

In any case, I'd like to thank you all for giving me some new insights to ponder as I decide if I want to step up to judging Master. This thread has certainly been....educational.


----------



## DougM (May 5, 2008)

K G said:


> The judge you mentioned has all of those qualities and more....and he'll be the first one to tell you that he is NOT perfect....but I will PERSONALLY vouch for his honesty and credibility EVERY DAY OF THE WEEK.
> 
> Keith Griffith


So will I, Keith, without a doubt.

--Doug


----------



## Wiley Coyote (Feb 7, 2005)

I had dinner with both judges of this test, along with another judge whom I was judging with, the very night of which this all occurred and we discussed this at length during dinner. Not all of us at the table agreed on whether a second rerun should have been granted. However in listening to the reasoning that both of these judges gave for doing so, I know with no uncertainty that it was their intention to follow the rules AKC put before them.
What is truly sad is that this post from the beginning started out as more of an attack against a judge and not about rules or the decision that was made. Calling into question the motivation of why it was made or to insinuate such a thing has no place on this forum.

Kevin Ivy


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Welcome to RTF, Doug....and thanks for giving back to the sport.

The question (in several minds, mine included) was NOT one of integrity, but one of interpretation. The key, as I stated earlier, was for the dog NOT to pick up the poison bird/first mark thrown but to do the blind. This was EXPLICITLY explained prior to the start of the testing. Any dog picking up the poison bird would be excused. The poison bird/first mark was an INTEGRAL part of the "control" aspect of the test, as well as a test of memory/marking. Again, this bird was NOT to be retrieved AT ALL until the other birds went down, when the dog was back on line after having retrieved the blind. When the dog picked up the poison bird/first mark thrown, the dog FAILED the rerun.

I got a PM from someone who was there at the test, who not only saw the situation but heard much of the discussion. I trust this person's description enough to continue to state my case _against_ a rerun of the rerun. The judges did the RIGHT thing by rerunning the dog the first time; their mistake was in giving the dog yet another rerun due to the dog picking up a bird that was not allowed to be picked up until AFTER the remaining two marks were down.

kg


----------



## Brad B (Apr 29, 2004)

K G said:


> James, I know one of the judges in question. I do not know the other.
> 
> The one I do know is a man of unquestionable integrity....he has dedicated a TON of his time to the sport of retriever hunting tests, both in judging and in competing. I have the utmost of respect for his commitment in trying to do the right thing, both by the dogs and by the handlers. I would trust this man with my life.
> 
> ...


Nice post Keith and I agree. 

Both judges are very nice people and care a great deal about the game. We all make mistakes and I don't think this thread was meant to be a judge bashing thread. I look at it as being a discussion about a mistake that any of us could have found themselves in and how we should keep it in mind and learn from it.

I assure you, that this will not keep me from running under either of the judges involved since I greatly enjoy thier company no matter if my dog fails or not.


----------



## Bubba (Jan 3, 2003)

K G said:


> James, I know one of the judges in question. I do not know the other.
> 
> The one I do know is a man of unquestionable integrity....he has dedicated a TON of his time to the sport of retriever hunting tests, both in judging and in competing. I have the utmost of respect for his commitment in trying to do the right thing, both by the dogs and by the handlers. I would trust this man with my life.
> 
> ...


What he said- 

Good people make bad decisions sometimes regards

Bubba


----------



## Vicky Trainor (May 19, 2003)

In case someone misses the other thread started about this discussion: http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?t=25626




MikeBoley said:


> I have talked with Jerry Mann and he informed me that the dog in question should have failed at the point he picked up the poison bird. At this point there is no way to go back and correct the call. The judges and the Hunt test committee with the exception of myself dropped the ball.
> 
> The judges in question did email the HT Sec and apologize for making the wrong call.
> 
> Hopefully we have all learned something from this. I for one have learned that just because someone hs been around and is well respected, dont take their word for the definative end without researching it further.


----------



## Mark Littlejohn (Jun 16, 2006)

DuckManiac said:


> I now remember why I haven’t run a Hunt Test in the last 5 or 6 years.


Why?


Hey, Welcome Douggie! Great first post. But try to keep the writing at a 6th-grade level. "excoriated"? Way too sophitsitc... spohusta... psophistac... big a word for this crowd.

Mark Lj


----------



## MikeBoley (Dec 26, 2003)

I certainly hope that all readers of this thread see this for what it is. It from my point is not about judge bashing. Both judges did what they interpreted as right. The majority of the HT committe made a call they felt was right. The very vocal minority want to follow up and see if it was right. Well it wasn't. A mistake was made by a very experienced judge. I can assure you from my first hand perspective this was just a mistake by that judge. His experience swayed his co judge and other members of the committee. I know that in NO WAY was this an impropriety other than an honest mistake in interpretation of rules. 

All concerned need to read page 22, Sec 12 of the HT rules. It may be that a wording change needs to be sent to the RHAC.


----------



## DougM (May 5, 2008)

Wiley Coyote said:


> What is truly sad is that this post from the beginning started out as more of an attack against a judge and not about rules or the decision that was made. Calling into question the motivation of why it was made or to insinuate such a thing has no place on this forum.
> 
> Kevin Ivy


That was what I found most disappointing about the whole thing myself, Kevin. Any discussion concerning the rules we run under _will_ be beneficial so long as wording and interpretation are the focus. When integrity and movitation come under attack, the value of the discussion pretty much evaporates, IMO.


----------



## Wingmasters (Aug 15, 2003)

When you start questioning and associating this with the Master National. Which qualifying for the 09 event does not start until August???????????

This was not started as a fact finding mission. Sorry Mike. I disagree.

It smells and looks like more than just getting the anwser.

Personal axe to grind. 

Fortunately most of us that know the situation and the intregrity of the judges

Rick Greer


----------



## MikeBoley (Dec 26, 2003)

Wingmasters said:


> When you start questioning and associating this with the Master National. Which qualifying for the 09 event does not start until August???????????
> 
> This was not started as a fact finding mission. Sorry Mike. I disagree.
> 
> ...


Mine was a fact finding mission. After the committee had ruled and awards were presented was when I discussed with Bill if we could get clarification from Jerry on as if the correct ruling had been made. You and Bob can think what you may I was looking out for the sport. I still intend to run hunt test and think that ALL performance dog games have merit. This include HRC HT which I also participate in. You and yours can grind all the axes you want, I sleep well at night.


----------



## A_Fever (Feb 24, 2007)

It seems a malfunctioning winger started this whole mess. I think you should start there.


----------



## MikeBoley (Dec 26, 2003)

A_Fever said:


> It seems a malfunctioning winger started this whole mess. I think you should start there.


 
That is genius!!!!!!!!

Only no birds the entire series were at the winger station due to winger malfunction. BB were fantastinc.


----------



## DuckManiac (May 10, 2004)

I take offense to the allegations that I only brought this up because of personal differences. I did not bring this up because of who was involved or because I wanted to bash any one. This was an extremely bad call and I was astounded when I learned the dog was going to get a 2nd re-run.

Yes it did come to mind if this was a different handler would they have received the same treatment? If this was a different judge would the Committee have ruled differently? I don’t know the answers to these questions, I only know this was a bad call and needed to be addressed. 

Again any one on this forum that knows me knows I will stand up for what I believe is right and if I hurt your feelings I’m sorry. This isn’t personal and if you make it personal it’s on you. If you have a problem with my point of view please debate me on the issues at hand.


----------



## Aussie (Jan 4, 2003)

We all pick up dog poop, sometimes we accidently stand in it.


----------



## Wingmasters (Aug 15, 2003)

Tony why did you make it a point to bring up that the judge is with the Master National and the participant was a member of the club hosting the Master National.
What relevance did that have? 

Rick Greer


----------



## MRGD (Apr 9, 2007)

Aussie said:


> We all pick up dog poop, sometimes we accidently stand in it.


 
I'll be using this quote in the future, with your permission, Aussie. 

Congrats on the win by the way.

tt


----------



## DuckManiac (May 10, 2004)

Rick,

Read my previous post I don’t know if this would have made a difference, I do know this was an extremely poor judgment call and I don’t know how any one that saw the dog work at hand could have done any thing but drop the dog….I was dumb founded!

You should know as well as any one I will stand up for what I believe is right. This wasn’t right! I had nothing to gain by making this post and/or filing a committee report other then bringing an injustice to light. Again if I have offended any one I am sorry, but this is a situation that needed to be addressed.


----------



## SteelGirl_1187 (Sep 28, 2005)

As one of the judges involved in this call, I thought about avoiding this discussion altogether and I may regret posting here.

However, I'd like to sincerely thank those of you that know me and my co-judge and were willing to vouch for our integrity in this public arena. Thank you also James for the compliments on the test.

I know both my co-judge and I learned from this weekend, and I know we both made the best, most impartial decision we could at the time. I think I can speak for both of us when I say we love this sport and we can willingly admit to mistakes and the ever-present desire to continue learning from every event. . . whether we're on the line or behind the judging sheets. 

Thank you again to those of you approaching this from a learning perspective and from the stand point of constructive discussion. Of course, if anyone would like to talk about this more, please know that I'd enjoy sharing; straight from the source so to speak.

I hope the weekend was as enjoyable for our handlers as it was for us.

Imperfect human judging regards,
Lauren Hays


----------



## Boondux (Feb 10, 2006)

Well stated, Lauren!


----------



## kip (Apr 13, 2004)

i thought this kind of stuff only happend in field trials.lol


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Bubba said:


> What he said-
> 
> Good people make bad decisions sometimes regards
> 
> Bubba


Don't get me started "Mr. Master dogs should sit...." 


/Paul


----------



## Brad B (Apr 29, 2004)

SteelGirl_1187 said:


> As one of the judges involved in this call, I thought about avoiding this discussion altogether and I may regret posting here.
> 
> However, I'd like to sincerely thank those of you that know me and my co-judge and were willing to vouch for our integrity in this public arena. Thank you also James for the compliments on the test.
> 
> ...


A nice and well stated comment.


----------



## tabasco (Oct 26, 2005)

I will probably be sorry for replying to this but here it goes. 

First of all I was not at the test (I was judging in Louisiana that weekend), I do judges HT, I know both of the judges, my name is Mike Briggs and if you want to talk to me about what I am posting feel free to PM me and I will give you my cell number or you can comment in the thread. 

Second, I think there has been a lot of good discussion on the clarity in the HT rules about re-runs in this thread. I really feel that the wording in this section of the AKC HT rules needs to be cleaned up. If it is taken literally I don’t think it makes sense. As has already been stated here, it only addresses if the dog commits an infraction that would have resulted in its automatic elimination on the blind or mark not previously completed that it cannot receive a qualifying score. My opinion, and it sounds like the consensus of this forum, is that if the dog commits any single infraction that would have resulted in automatic elimination on any part of the rerun that would result in its elimination. Knowing the judge that has taken the bulk of the heat on this issue, I really believe he was trying to follow the letter of the law. This is what AKC tells you in the seminar and for those of you that know this judge you would probably agree that following rules to the letter, regardless of his personal opinion, is something he does very well. 

I think the controversial point here is that the original issue was not stated as a question about the interpretation of the rule but as a statement about the “unbelievable decision”. The original statement had several comments that appeared to be an attack at the judges and not really addressed at the issue and any confusion caused by the way the rules were stated. There was no proposal on how to prevent these issues in the future or any other type of preventative action that would improve the sport. This was then followed up by direct attacks on the judge’s and their ability. (I am too stupid to insert the qutoes here but if you look at page one you can see them)

As I said there was some good discussion about the rules in the thread but it was overpowered IMHO with comments about the people. As many of you, I know both of these judges and do not have any question about their integrity or ability as a judge. I would gladly run under either or both of them anytime.

Whether intentional or not it is a shame that people who are committed to the continuation and betterment of the sport get this much harassment from folks in a public forum. Our judging pool is small enough already so I ask you as a judge and participant if you have a problem with a person and the way they judge talk to them and try to see the whole picture. If they don’t understand the rules then maybe a constructive conversation will help. If the rule is unclear then maybe we work together to get it clarified. If all else fails don’t ask them to judge for your club again. I see several people that have expressed strong feelings about this issue on this thread that said they respect the judge and their ability and would even run under them. However, I know several capable judges that won’t judge anymore because they don’t want to put up with this. 

Just Sayin’
Mike Briggs


----------



## J Connolly (Aug 16, 2007)

Well it seems that after reading all this mess I think I have figured it all out. Maybe I can list them 1) Judges don't know what they are doing 2) clubs don't know what they are doing and are forced to run more dogs than they can handle 3) the Master National is a crock 4) and no one is having any fun at hunt test. 

The problem is all about money. Clubs are required to take more dogs than their club and the judges can handle to satisfy the greed for money caused by the AKC, judges set up test that they or their dogs can't run, for what reason I don't understand other than pressure from the AKC, and owners have to pay pros to train and handle their dogs to get titled, and the pros need us to keep training them after they are titled so we have a Master National.

I have been there since the beginning and to quote my late friend "You pay your money and take your chances". I guess that's not so easy to say when your training expenses are six grand a year.


Mike Connolly DVM


----------



## Bubba (Jan 3, 2003)

J Connolly said:


> Well it seems that after reading all this mess I think I have figured it all out. Maybe I can list them 1) Judges don't know what they are doing 2) clubs don't know what they are doing and are forced to run more dogs than they can handle 3) the Master National is a crock 4) and no one is having any fun at hunt test.
> 
> The problem is all about money. Clubs are required to take more dogs than their club and the judges can handle to satisfy the greed for money caused by the AKC, judges set up test that they or their dogs can't run, for what reason I don't understand other than pressure from the AKC, and owners have to pay pros to train and handle their dogs to get titled, and the pros need us to keep training them after they are titled so we have a Master National.
> 
> ...


Let me be the first to suggest that you sieze the opportunity to find another way to entertain you and yours. Don't sound like this one suits you.

Watch the door knob regards

Bubba


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

J Connolly said:


> Well it seems that after reading all this mess I think I have figured it all out. Maybe I can list them 1) Judges don't know what they are doing 2) clubs don't know what they are doing and are forced to run more dogs than they can handle 3) the Master National is a crock 4) and no one is having any fun at hunt test.
> 
> The problem is all about money. Clubs are required to take more dogs than their club and the judges can handle to satisfy the greed for money caused by the AKC, judges set up test that they or their dogs can't run, for what reason I don't understand other than pressure from the AKC, and owners have to pay pros to train and handle their dogs to get titled, and the pros need us to keep training them after they are titled so we have a Master National.
> 
> ...



Been there since the beginning too, Mike....you're surely entitled to your take on the situation, but the scenario that started this thread doesn't resemble _your_ description of the current "state of AKC HTs" in any way, shape, or form.

IMHO, of course....;-)

kg


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

J Connolly said:


> Well it seems that after reading all this mess I think I have figured it all out. Maybe I can list them 1) Judges don't know what they are doing 2) clubs don't know what they are doing and are forced to run more dogs than they can handle 3) the Master National is a crock 4) and no one is having any fun at hunt test.
> 
> The problem is all about money. Clubs are required to take more dogs than their club and the judges can handle to satisfy the greed for money caused by the AKC, judges set up test that they or their dogs can't run, for what reason I don't understand other than pressure from the AKC, and owners have to pay pros to train and handle their dogs to get titled, and the pros need us to keep training them after they are titled so we have a Master National.
> 
> ...


Great sarcasm Mike. I love it. Its as good as the time I heard "goldens love water....: ) 

/paul


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

So I'll share publically some of what I said in PM to various parties. There is much to learn IMHO from "real life" judging situations. The difficulty in doing that is two "real life" judges are going to flamed, roasted, BBQ'd in order for that to happen. That is a sad reality that used to be confined to just the gallery at the test, but in today’s world ends up on forums. It really boils down to those particular judges, are they humble enough to view the discussion as a learning experience for all. Some have mentioned that some people don't judge anymore for fear of that public peer review. All judges should remember that when you accept an assignment you are agreeing to stand in front of a very large group of people and make decisions. What you do will be watched very closely. I don't know either of these judges, but it took about 3 minutes to find out who was judging. It was in my opinion an extremely humble and character revealing gesture for Lauren to post on the thread. This thread has great potential for learning, it is/was a very interesting situation that provides all of us an opportunity to learn from. Here are a couple of things that I personally took away.

1.I thought about this during training most of the day. What would I have done? Why? Is it in line with the general consensus? Did my decision match AKC’s? I think for the most part it did. 
2.My training group discussed this situation after training during our weekly dinner together. Not only did the two old crusty judges get to debate back and forth on it, the 3 new folks who desire to judge got to learn and understand judging from this situation.
3.A reminder that when judging what we do and the decisions we make are being viewed by a great deal of people. The appearance of impropriety can be taken away by some and I need to keep that mind. Not everyone will know me, and so my actions and behavior while judging needs to reflect the principles of the AKC. That is part of the judging assignment I agreed to perform. 

/Paul


----------



## thethunderboot (Apr 21, 2005)

K G said:


> As for what we should and shouldn't think, someone who's on their second post and chooses to remain anonymous doesn't get a vote on either direction. If you don't "get the point" as to WHY this topic is particularly important to Master judging (forget the invidividuals....the CALL is the important thing), then you probably shouldn't post on the topic.
> 
> Just sayin' regards,
> 
> kg


I LOVE IT WHEN PEOPLE BASH PEOPLE FOR NOT USING THEIR FULL OR REAL NAME WHEN THEY THEMSELVES CONSISTENTLY POST ON THIS FORUM WITHOUT THEIR FULL NAME!!!! It's like meeting a Vegetarian that wears leather...makes me chuckle everytime!

The only thing I think I may like more than that is when people get bashed or are written off because they don't have enough posts. 

This forum is awesome!!

What can I say...Im easily amused!


----------



## thethunderboot (Apr 21, 2005)

oh yeah...and my real name is thunderboot so please don't write off my above hilarious comments


----------



## tabasco (Oct 26, 2005)

Bubba said:


> Let me be the first to suggest that you sieze the opportunity to find another way to entertain you and yours. Don't sound like this one suits you.
> 
> Watch the door knob regards
> 
> Bubba


Now that's funny! I amoslt feel out of my chair when I read this one. Glad to see there is a little humor left in this group.


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

T-boot, if you can't figure out who I am, you ain't tryin' REAL hard. I've even used my full name on this thread.

Paying attention pays off regards,

kg


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

K G said:


> T-boot, if you can't figure out who I am, you ain't tryin' REAL hard. I've even used my full name on this thread.
> 
> Paying attention pays off regards,
> 
> kg


Ok, Mr. Whichcote, care to share with us what you personally learned and took away from this situation?

/Paul


----------

