# Anatomy of an Honor / And creeping in a Master



## Jennifer Henion (Jan 1, 2012)

Senior or Master AKC HT:

The Honor: Dog in sit position, Handler stands facing side of dog and stares like an eagle, neck bowed down at dog. Birds go off, dog creeps while sitting and eventually stands up while working dog takes off. At point when judge releases honor team, the dog is 3 feet in front of handler. 

In a Senior test: Is this a zero on the score card, grounds to disqualify, or just a pass in a pass/fail element of the test? 

What about a Master?

How is creeping at the line (by working dog) viewed in a Master? Acceptable with points deducted. Depends on the creep?

I do know that a controlled break is not allowed in Master.


----------



## Kevinismybrother (Aug 3, 2009)

Given the scenario

As a judge, I would not disqualify the dog/handler, but may ding them on trainability.

as a handler, my little fella would get a lesson later that week on honoring.;-)


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

The handler of the HONOR dog (HTs only) may speak quietly to the dog throughout the honor, in all stakes, I believe. (Check that out ... it's been a while)

WORKING dog ... in master, creeping will probably cost you some trainability points and will factor into the overall score. May as well let him creep, as speaking will get you dropped. Judge may have you reheel before giving you a number if he is too far out. (my advice would be to reheel him, even if the judge doesn't require it.

JS


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

It depends is the only answer in both cases Jen. 

If the honoring dog crept 3 feet that may cost a couple of points but... if it's the second or third series and he's been doing it all day... missed a few whistles on his blinds or something... generally is showing a poor sit standard, that creep could push him into failville. 

Same with creeping at the line. Judges should try to reward a high powered dog IMHO but there is a point (subjective) where enough's enough and they have to fail the team.

Just remember as a handler you can speak quietly on the honor but not at the running line.


----------



## Jennifer Henion (Jan 1, 2012)

Let's say dog is generally performing very well, but is a serial creeper throughout the test. Confession: my dog creeps occasionally in training while birds are going up. I remain silent and wait one or two seconds and she will re-heel herself, then I send her. She doesn't always creep, but sometimes. 

In training I cannot replicate the gun fire, especially that of the flyer station. Guns set off her excitement button. I think she may creep a bit at the test this weekend on both the line and the honor, but I feel confident she won't break or even creep very far. We have a Master test in 3 weeks and I'd like to know what Master judges think about creeping. Sounds like it may be acceptable if all else goes well?

Thanks for your input!


----------



## Splash_em (Apr 23, 2009)

A 3' creep from the working dog is, depending on the situation, better than the same creep from the honor dog. 

If the working dog is interfered with because of the creep or a plea to re-heel afterwards, we have something to talk about before callbacks.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

> (8) *The Judges shall agree in advance as to the extent
> of movement which shall be considered creeping, short
> of breaking,* and whether working dogs that do “creep”
> should be brought to heel before being sent to retrieve.
> ...


There is nothing that I read here that quantifies the penalty at that time. At that point in time the dog has either crept or it has broke .

Short of -0-ing the dog out for an allowable infraction, over the course of the day the cumilative effect of the various incramental dings will show up in the average of the dogs score.
Where at the *end of the testing *the dog must have an overall average of no less that( 7.00) for the entire test and a separate independent average of not less than (5.00) in each ability catagory related to Marking and a seperate one for Blinds


----------



## rboudet (Jun 29, 2004)

"my dog creeps occasionally in training while birds are going up. I remain silent and wait one or two seconds and she will re-heel herself, then I send her. She doesn't always creep, but sometimes."

Why would you ever allow her to creep in training???


----------



## Troy Tilleraas (Sep 24, 2010)

3' is not far in my book for an honor... How far was your honor away from the working dog? Any extenuating circumstances? Last year in WI we had horse flies that were biting so bad my dog was actually snapping at them and jumped backward...


----------



## Julie R. (Jan 13, 2003)

rboudet said:


> "my dog creeps occasionally in training while birds are going up. I remain silent and wait one or two seconds and she will re-heel herself, then I send her. She doesn't always creep, but sometimes."
> 
> Why would you ever allow her to creep in training???


I wouldn't run any of my dogs in anything if they crept in training. If you can't stop it in training you'll be in a world of trouble at a test.


----------



## GulfCoast (Sep 24, 2007)

As with all things, it depends on the judges. I would merely posit that if a judge says to you "Re-heel your dog" in multiple series, you probably have an "averaging" issue. Especially if they say it to you in all 3 series.


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

III. Minor Dog Faults. Either severe or repeated or
combinations of these “minor” infractions may summate into
a “moderate” or even a “serious” fault. Also, they may be so
slight as not to warrant any penalty at all.
1. Excessive cheating on return – going out of the way by
land from a “fall” to an excessive degree to avoid going into the
water on the return from a water retrieve.
2. Lack of attention.
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.
4. Slow pick-up of a dead bird – (except when fluttering
or badly shot-up); dropping bird; handling game in a sloppy
manner.
5. Unsteadiness on-line, including creeping.
6. Whistle refusal – not stopping at the first whistle that
should have been heard, but stopping at the second or third.
7. Cast Refusal – Occasional failure to hold the line or to
take the handler’s directions for more than a few yards.
8. Popping on a blind retrieve – where there are no
extenuating circumstances such as distance, wind, shallow
(running) water or other conditions which make it difficult to
hear the handler’s whistle.
9. Slight freezing – reluctance to give up a bird.
10. Slight short whining or one bark – while on the line or
on being sent to retrieve.
11. Roughness with game.

This is straight from the book. As you can see, creeping is a MINOR FAULT (caps for emphasis only).

However, if one is a student as to what goes on within this forum, you know that the rules are seldom factored into these discussions.

OP cited a 3' creep. In my book, 1st occurrence= a notation. 2nd occurrence, 1 point deduction from trainability score. 3rd occurrence 2 point deduction from trainability score ON THAT SERIES AND IF THE TRAINABILITY SCORE COMES DOWN TO BARELY PASSING (5.0) THE DOG FAILS. This is due to the regs where they state that multiple minor faults of the same type can escalate to moderate or even serious faults. 3 three foot creeps is, in my mind, gross unsteadiness. Couple that with borderline trainability scores resulting from other issues and you're toast.-Paul


----------



## Lonnie Spann (May 14, 2012)

Jennifer Henion said:


> Senior or Master AKC HT:
> 
> The Honor: Dog in sit position, Handler stands facing side of dog and stares like an eagle, neck bowed down at dog. Birds go off, dog creeps while sitting and eventually stands up while working dog takes off. At point when judge releases honor team, the dog is 3 feet in front of handler.
> 
> ...


Here's the simple fix for this scenario:

As the honor dog moves forward, the handler eases forward with said dog. Thus when the working dog is released the honor dog is right beside his/her handler, right where they should be! Next question.

Lonnie Spann


----------



## Jennifer Henion (Jan 1, 2012)

Lonnie Spann said:


> Here's the simple fix for this scenario:
> 
> As the honor dog moves forward, the handler eases forward with said dog. Thus when the working dog is released the honor dog is right beside his/her handler, right where they should be! Next question.
> 
> Lonnie Spann


LOL! I actually thought of that already...;-)


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

Jennifer Henion said:


> Let's say dog is generally performing very well, but is a serial creeper throughout the test. Confession: my dog creeps occasionally in training while birds are going up. I remain silent and wait one or two seconds and she will re-heel herself, then I send her. She doesn't always creep, but sometimes.
> 
> In training I cannot replicate the gun fire, especially that of the flyer station. Guns set off her excitement button. I think she may creep a bit at the test this weekend on both the line and the honor, but I feel confident she won't break or even creep very far. We have a Master test in 3 weeks and I'd like to know what Master judges think about creeping. Sounds like it may be acceptable if all else goes well?
> 
> Thanks for your input!


It will vary from judge to judge and always be a potential problem if you don't address it in training. 

You might want to try back-chaining some of the sounds and sights of the test to mean sit... 

You'll see here Hope is having a small problem differentiating sit from down right now, which is due to me being sloppy in obedience demos. That will get cleaned up as we go along toward field training this spring. 

Watch how she sits from a stand when I throw the dummy. No command, no body language. The throw is the signal. 

That's the basis for making duck calls, gun shots and birds being thrown all into cues for SIT. 

I don't know exactly how effective it's going to me. She's a really high energy dog, but it demonstrates to me that she knows exactly what she's supposed to do before retrieving so... corrections (I know you don't use any) are very fair.


----------



## Jennifer Henion (Jan 1, 2012)

Darrin, I really love that idea! Can you outline it for me?


----------



## Mary Lynn Metras (Jul 6, 2010)

DarrinGreene said:


> It will vary from judge to judge and always be a potential problem if you don't address it in training.
> 
> You might want to try back-chaining some of the sounds and sights of the test to mean sit...
> 
> ...


Nice Darrin. Thx


----------



## wetdog (May 2, 2010)

A hearty second on what Julie R said! A few statements from the past that seem to fit here, "Creeping is the first step to breaking" and "you own what you condone".


----------



## Billie (Sep 19, 2004)

I cant say anything thats not already been said already. Other than,maybe once your dog runs a test,and gets away with creeping,or breaking- it is very hard to eliminate that behavior!!!! I know this one- trust me.........


----------



## Dave Burton (Mar 22, 2006)

I had one that would not creep at home only at a test. Last pass for her MH title she was about 10 ft in front when the 3rd bird went down. I knew we were done and the judge said reheel. I did and she smacked the triple and we passed. The next weekend I saw someone run a dog that creeped about 7 or 8 ft in the 1st series and was dropped. Like someone else said depends on the judges that day.


----------



## BJGatley (Dec 31, 2011)

In training, I use a riding crop and am more interested in the dog than the mark, especially if the mark is close. A tap before and a tap after. JMO.  I make it a routine and becomes second nature to me and hopefully to the dog to stay sit.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

Jennifer Henion said:


> Darrin, I really love that idea! Can you outline it for me?


Simple, reward based strategy and waiting for the dog to offer the behavior Jen.

I started all the way back with the initial sit training, treats, food bowl, back door, hallway retrieves... I just presented the reward and waited for the behavior to be offered, then mark/reward. 

Long line and a flat collar (plus some patience) is all you need.

I'm sure you now how to back-chain. If not, it's not different than the whistle for sit or here.


----------



## David Lo Buono (Apr 6, 2005)

> Judges should try to reward a high powered dog IMHO


I wish that was the case...but that is a debate for another thread



> Last pass for her MH title she was about 10 ft in front when the 3rd bird went down*. I knew we were done and the judge said reheel*. I did and she smacked the triple and we passed. The *next weekend I saw someone run a dog that creeped about 7 or 8 ft in the 1st series and was dropped*. Like someone else said *depends on the judges that day.*


and therein lies the "inherent" problem...no consistency


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

No inherent problem at all. That's why they call it judging.


----------



## Jennifer Henion (Jan 1, 2012)

Thanks Darrin for the idea! I will get right on it next week.

And thanks to everyone else for sharing their experiences and ideas! It is much appreciated!


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Thomas D said:


> No inherent problem at all. That's why they call it judging.


Really, I find that hard to swallow in light the facts written here http://images.akc.org/pdf/rulebooks/RFTRET.pdfit 

Left click on the binoculars then search the word "uniformity".

john


----------



## Renee P. (Dec 5, 2010)

DarrinGreene said:


> Simple, reward based strategy and waiting for the dog to offer the behavior Jen.
> 
> I started all the way back with the initial sit training, treats, food bowl, back door, hallway retrieves... I just presented the reward and waited for the behavior to be offered, then mark/reward.
> 
> ...


Hi Darrin, 

For those of us who don't know the secret hand shake (i.e. jargon etc.), is this method hugely different than associating a new stimulus to a known command?

For example, a dog knows "sit." Dog loves to retrieve, so getting to retrieve is a reward.

Since dog knows sit, you could start out with "sit-bang-_throw_-release." Dog sits, you fire gun, _throw the bird_, dog gets the retrieve reward.

After some repetitions of "sit-bang-_throw_-release" you transition to "bang"...and iff dog sits, you _throw_, release. If dog doesn't sit the sequence is "bang...sit.._throw_....release" rinse repeat...

Thanks, Darrin, I always appreciate your responses.

(Oopsie I left out the "throw" part of the sequence in my OP, italics portion is the edit.)

(Oopsie #2, also add in a "good" when the dog sits after to the new auditory cue, which I'd drop later after the dog learns that bang=sit.)


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

Almost got it Renee, not quite though. Back-chaining is associating a new stimulus with a known command/behavior/reward sequence, yes. Here's how it goes. This is pretty standard reward based training protocol. 

Definitions -

Reward - anything the dog wants - food, toy (chase or tug), bite, to get out a door, onto the couch, into your lap, anything... if the dog is excited by it, then it's a reward (it creates a hormonal reaction in the dog but that's too much for here).

Marker - a sound (usually but could be a bump on the e-collar) that signifies a reward is about to be delivered (see Ivan Pavlov's theory of classical conditioning).

Behavior - whatever the dog does to earn the reward.

Cue - whatever signal (stimulus) the dog is responding to, be it a hand motion, voice command, whistle or something in the environment like a duck call or gun shot.

After that, everything is done based on the theory that dogs will learn to skip over steps in a predictable chain of events in order to get to the thing they want (reward).

Often we begin by simply watching a puppy and waiting for it to do something we want, then simply "marking" and "rewarding" that behavior. When I have a little one, I try to keep food on me at all times. If he sits, for whatever reason, I give him a "good" marker and a hunk of chicken. This serves to make the association between the sound of my voice (good) and the reward (food). 

Next we start with hand motions. First teaching them that coming to your open hand = food (with a marker, of course). So just present the open palm, say "good" as soon as pup smells the food and let him have it when his nose touches you. Now he'll follow your hand (after 30+ repetitions).

Next comes raising the hand so his head tilts back and his butt goes hits the floor, then "good" and reward.

Final step (if we're only doing one cue) is to give the verbal word "sit", then raise the hand, mark and reward.

It's important that the verbal command PRECEDE the hand motion and not be simultaneous to it. If they are simultaneous, the eyes over ride the ears and it's harder for them to learn the verbal cue. More or less there's nothing to skip... here's what I mean...

If the dog hears "sit", then sees the motion, sits and gets a marker/reward enough times...

Eventually, when he hears "sit" he will move before he sees the hand motion. He's simply skipped the hand motion he knew was coming anyway because he's seen the sequence enough times that he knows what to expect (generally 30-50 repetitions).

Once he knows sit, if you want to add a second, third, fourth cue, you simply go...

"bang" "sit" dog behaves then mark/reward.

Eventually, when he hears "bang" be knows "sit" is coming next and skips it to get to the reward.

Very simple but does require a basic understanding of the theory and how to apply it. Most important thing is that the cues are consistent, the timing is good and that the cues are separate events. Simultaneous cues just create confusion.

You can use this strategy with negative re-enforcement also, if you care to.

Once a dog is collar conditioned (for instance) you can do "bang" "sit" "nick" and then mark/reward. It will work just the same. You're just double rewarding the behavior (turning off the annoyance + adding the retrieve). It's actually MOST effective to do it this way. 

Ever notice that after enough reps your dog auto sits at certain times? This is because the environment has taken over the cues. He knows when he's by the back door you're going to say sit, so he skips over the verbal cue and does the behavior before you even get there. When they start doing this, I start mixing commands on them. I'll make them lay down, spin around or something else, just so they have to do something for ME vs. deciding how to get out the door themselves. This is another whole thread though, relating to NILIF, but I suspect you get the idea.

Hit me up privately if I can help with any misunderstanding. 

I wrote this as an outline to give to clients. Tell me if it's clear.


----------



## Renee P. (Dec 5, 2010)

Darrin, thank you for the reply. It sounds very much like the kind of thing I do sometimes, I will have to study your response harder to see where the difference is. 

I left out the "throw" part of the sequence in my OP, I hope it still made sense (I edited it just now). Also I probably would say "good" after I got the sit while teaching the new auditory cue, which I would drop after I thought my dog had learned that bang=sit.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

The only place you had it wrong was that you had the cue sequence backward Renee. You said "Sit" "bang" when, in reality the new cue should precede the original one, thus leaving you with "bang" "sit".

As for the use of good I use it as part of my communication with the dog any time they are close enough to me to hear it. It's just part of our communication and let's the did the right thing, and that I want them to keep doing it. 

I try really hard to communicate as clearly and consistently as I can with the dog. I'm not as good as I want to be at it, but I am improving.


----------



## Renee P. (Dec 5, 2010)

DarrinGreene said:


> The only place you had it wrong was that you had the cue sequence backward Renee. You said "Sit" "bang" when, in reality the new cue should precede the original one, thus leaving you with "bang" "sit".
> 
> As for the use of good I use it as part of my communication with the dog any time they are close enough to me to hear it. It's just part of our communication and let's the did the right thing, and that I want them to keep doing it.
> 
> I try really hard to communicate as clearly and consistently as I can with the dog. I'm not as good as I want to be at it, but I am improving.


Ahhhh, thanks!


----------



## RookieTrainer (Mar 11, 2011)

Lonnie Spann said:


> Here's the simple fix for this scenario:
> 
> As the honor dog moves forward, the handler eases forward with said dog. Thus when the working dog is released the honor dog is right beside his/her handler, right where they should be! Next question.
> 
> Lonnie Spann


Lonnie, you and my lovely wife need to get together and make a dog training video. I was moaning and groaning one time about how Jimmy was out in front of me when walking to the holding blind at a test. Her response: "You need to walk faster." Problem solved.


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

RookieTrainer said:


> Lonnie, you and my lovely wife need to get together and make a dog training video. I was moaning and groaning one time about how Jimmy was out in front of me when walking to the holding blind at a test. Her response: "You need to walk faster." Problem solved.


I think Lonnie was kidding. ;-) At least, I hope so. 

If your dog creeps out in front of you in training, you need to back up a couple steps, putting him more obviously out of position. Then correct however you do. Makes the infraction and the correction more clear to the dog.

JMO

JS


----------



## steve schreiner (Jun 15, 2009)

I judge a creep on an honor harder than the same thing on a working dog...the reason is the handler can talk to the dog and thus the dog is not complying with the handlers wishes...Steve S


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

No such thing as a creep. If he moved forward he broke. Up you standard

/Paul


----------



## JusticeDog (Jul 3, 2003)

If the dog is creeping in training, it is not ready to run in a hunt test. The wishing and hoping method just doesn't work. The trouble is it that people always want to run their dog and then later on we will find them on this board morning and groaning about how their dog has gotten to the point where they can't fix the problem.

short-term pain, long-term gain regards


----------



## Jennifer Henion (Jan 1, 2012)

Update: we did a decent job on our senior ht today, getting a qualification. We also crept 4 or 5 feet on the water series honor. Despite the creep, we did not interfere with the working dog nor did we break. Not proud of the creep. But overall, she did a good job, so we passed. Tomorrow may be different. 

I will definitely be working on this issue starting Monday. 

And while I think Susan is right for most people, and I understand what you are saying - I'm still a wide eyed newb and in it for the experience and the fun, so I will keep going, keep making mistakes and keep learning. Keep throwing away money... keep making new friends.

Tonight's BBQ and chatting with old and new friends all day - the opportunity to watch other handlers like Jim Dobbs and many others would have made up for any failures.


----------



## LESTER LANGLEY (Jun 12, 2008)

https://averysportingdog.com/trainers-heeling-stick

https://averysportingdog.com/trainers-heeling-stick


----------



## mjh345 (Jun 17, 2006)

Jennifer Henion said:


> And while I think Susan is right for most people, and I understand what you are saying - I'm still a wide eyed newb and in it for the experience and the fun, so I will keep going, keep making mistakes and keep learning. Keep throwing away money... keep making new friends.


Then Why start a thread asking for advice if you wont follow advice given?


----------



## Todd Caswell (Jun 24, 2008)

Jennifer Henion said:


> Update: we did a decent job on our senior ht today, getting a qualification. We also crept 4 or 5 feet on the water series honor. Despite the creep, we did not interfere with the working dog nor did we break. Not proud of the creep. But overall, she did a good job, so we passed. Tomorrow may be different.
> 
> I will definitely be working on this issue starting Monday.
> 
> ...



Sounds like the dog needs a "coming to Jesus moment in the near future" most likely too late now.. Keep running and you'll have a 10 foot creeper befor you know it.. I reccomend the big red one..


----------



## hotel4dogs (Aug 2, 2010)

congrats. on the pass!


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

mjh345 said:


> Then Why start a thread asking for advice if you wont follow advice given?


Actually, if you re-read the OP, she was asking questions about how creeping was judged, which a few of us attempted to answer before everyone else decided to tell her how to train her dog not to creep.

Typical thread morphing......-Paul


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

mjh345 said:


> Then Why start a thread asking for advice if you wont follow advice given?


Jennifer wasn't looking for training advice, I think she was more looking for what kind of leeway she might get for her dog's behavior. Like many, looking for what passes vs training til the dog is finished to a nice standard before running. Everyone has their own agenda, some like to say they got such and such title at such age regardless of bad habits formed and failures accrued. After all, many of us learn the valuable lessons on our first dogs and the mistakes we make with them.


----------



## JusticeDog (Jul 3, 2003)

Jennifer Henion said:


> And while I think Susan is right for most people, and I understand what you are saying - I'm still a wide eyed newb and in it for the experience and the fun, so I will keep going, keep making mistakes and keep learning. Keep throwing away money... keep making new friends.
> .


creeping 4-5 feet in a master will never be allowed. A lot of judges in a Wisconsin wouldn't have passed you in a senior. And, you just gave your dog another chance to get away with being naughty. Making it tougher to get rid of this behavior. All for a $2.00 ribbon. The friends that can be made will be there when the dog is actually ready to run. Or, you can volunteer to Marshall and still watch the excellent handlers, without setting up your dog for future failure. When I was running HTs, my dog was already prepared for master or finished before I set foot in the senior or seasoned ring. Same in agility, and every other performance sport I've entered. To do anything less is letting your teammate down. Later on, newbies forget what they did to their dog and become unhappy with the dog when they can't perform at the upper levels. Blaming the dog when they should blame themselves. And while Jennifer has indicated she doesn't want to take the advice, that's fine...... Maybe there will actually be a smart newbie who values the journey with their dog for the long run. 

Happy training.....


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

JusticeDog said:


> creeping 4-5 feet in a master will never be allowed. THEN THEY ARE NOT JUDGING BY THE RULES. A lot of judges in a Wisconsin wouldn't have passed you in a senior. THEY AREN'T JUDGING BY THE RULES EITHER. And, you just gave your dog another chance to get away with being naughty. Making it tougher to get rid of this behavior. AGREE, BUT I PERSONALLY KNOW OF SEVERAL FC/AFC's THAT CREPT MORE THAN THAT ON EVERY BIRD. THERE ARE VERY FEW DOGS OUT THERE THAT HAVE NOT HAD SOME MOVEMENT AT THE LINE IN A TEST. All for a $2.00 ribbon. The friends that can be made will be there when the dog is actually ready to run. Or, you can volunteer to Marshall and still watch the excellent handlers, without setting up your dog for future failure. When I was running HTs, my dog was already prepared for master or finished before I set foot in the senior or seasoned ring. Same in agility, and every other performance sport I've entered. To do anything less is letting your teammate down. THE DOGS ARE THERE FOR THE BIRDS. THEY DON'T KNOW, OR CARE ABOUT RIBBONS. Later on, newbies forget what they did to their dog and become unhappy with the dog when they can't perform at the upper levels. Blaming the dog when they should blame themselves. NOT NECESSARILY. And while Jennifer has indicated she doesn't want to take the advice, that's fine...... Maybe there will actually be a smart newbie who values the journey with their dog for the long run. UNCALLED FOR AND INSULTING. THINK BEFORE YOU HIT 'ENTER' .
> 
> Caps only for contrast. Not shouting.


----------



## RookieTrainer (Mar 11, 2011)

JS said:


> I think Lonnie was kidding. ;-) At least, I hope so.
> 
> If your dog creeps out in front of you in training, you need to back up a couple steps, putting him more obviously out of position. Then correct however you do. Makes the infraction and the correction more clear to the dog.
> 
> ...


Yes, Lonnie was kidding and so am I. It was pretty funny though. 

And I have unfortunately had to learn ALL the strategies for attempting to deal with a dog that loved birds when he came into the world and then had a greenhorn trainer who unknowingly trained him that all marks are his (let him pick up way too many) and that a "little movement" in the yard is OK because it showed his desire (which of course becomes a break on the honor in the hunt test environment). *face palm in hindsight*

Neither one of us is really enjoying that process right now, and we have quit testing until we get it under some semblance of control. But with the help and advice of a good pro we are making progress. We will see what happens. I'm trying to get myself back into the front seat that I unwittingly gave up.


----------



## JusticeDog (Jul 3, 2003)

paul young said:


> JusticeDog said:
> 
> 
> > creeping 4-5 feet in a master will never be allowed. THEN THEY ARE NOT JUDGING BY THE RULES. A lot of judges in a Wisconsin wouldn't have passed you in a senior. THEY AREN'T JUDGING BY THE RULES EITHER. And, you just gave your dog another chance to get away with being naughty. Making it tougher to get rid of this behavior. AGREE, BUT I PERSONALLY KNOW OF SEVERAL FC/AFC's THAT CREPT MORE THAN THAT ON EVERY BIRD. THERE ARE VERY FEW DOGS OUT THERE THAT HAVE NOT HAD SOME MOVEMENT AT THE LINE IN A TEST. All for a $2.00 ribbon. The friends that can be made will be there when the dog is actually ready to run. Or, you can volunteer to Marshall and still watch the excellent handlers, without setting up your dog for future failure. When I was running HTs, my dog was already prepared for master or finished before I set foot in the senior or seasoned ring. Same in agility, and every other performance sport I've entered. To do anything less is letting your teammate down. THE DOGS ARE THERE FOR THE BIRDS. THEY DON'T KNOW, OR CARE ABOUT RIBBONS. Later on, newbies forget what they did to their dog and become unhappy with the dog when they can't perform at the upper levels. Blaming the dog when they should blame themselves. NOT NECESSARILY. And while Jennifer has indicated she doesn't want to take the advice, that's fine...... Maybe there will actually be a smart newbie who values the journey with their dog for the long run. UNCALLED FOR AND INSULTING. THINK BEFORE YOU HIT 'ENTER' .
> ...


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

I do not consider a creep a break. So Jennifer some judges will re-heel you others won't on a 3 foot movement.

Now to the fun part of the thread LOL

There are many ways to look at this. If Terry would have waited for COSMO to be rock steady before entering him in trials there may have been no COSMO. He was trained by one of the most successful trainers in the country. I will say though,,, he moved way way more with Terry handling than with Gonia,, that's if my memory is still functioning properly.
On the other hand,,, when new people who have movement problems at the line its often because they lack the skill to make it happen with that particular dog. (some dogs steady up really fast and others don't) while a more experienced person would not have any trouble steadying it up.


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

JusticeDog said:


> paul young said:
> 
> 
> > The standard is different in field trials and hunt tests.. NO, THEY ARE NOT. READ THE REGULATIONS FOR BOTH. CREEPING IS A MINOR FAULT. IF JUDGES ARE DROPPING DOGS FOR 1 OCCURENCE OF A MINOR FAULT IN EITHER VENUE, THEY ARE NOT JUDGING BY THE RULES. yes, the dogs are there for the birds, which is why you have to protect your teammate. And yes, they are judging by the rules. A creep if that distance can easily be considered a break. NO, IT CANNOT. BREAKING IS LEAVING THE LINE BEFORE BEING ORDERED TO DO SO WITH THE INTENT TO RETRIEVE. CREEPING IS TENTATIVE MOVEMENT WHERE THE DOG STOPS ITSELF. I have judged field trials where we excused dogs for a 4-5 foot creep, based on the test and terrain. And yes, 9 times out of 10, they do blame the dog. Even judging field trials people will blame the dog, when they should only blame themselves for pointing the dog in the wrong direction. Perhaps you should also follow your own advice.... It's not insulting to warn other newbs to not do as Jennifer did and pull a pass out of her behind.... But to be prepared. There have been too many nice dogs washed up because of this kind of stuff. And my understanding is that Jennifer does have a nice dog, so why on earth would she be willing to risk it? That's just crazy. To not say a word would be would be insulting to our wonderful dogs. you have your opinions, I have mine.
> ...


----------



## JusticeDog (Jul 3, 2003)

paul young said:


> Agree about what opinions are, but disagree with judging dogs outside of the rules.
> 
> Again caps for contrast, not shouting.





Every judge interprets the rules differently. That is why it's called judging. There was a very famous field champion in the middle of the country there was famous because of his creeping. He could creep halfway to a Mark. A field trial mark. And then without turning his head, back all the way up to the start position ready to be sent. Was that a creep or break? My opinion it was a break. Other judges allowed it to happen.



p.s. You can use the quote button rather than the caps to make your posts easier to read.


----------



## 2tall (Oct 11, 2006)

Wow, some good and bad replies to this one Jennifer! I was just like you. I enjoyed the games, the people, the fun so much I couldn't wait to get out there and turn my high baller loose! I got an actual adrenaline rush from running him and figured we could "fix this up in training". Fast forward to the time I discovered what a really talented dog I had that can not run anymore because of those issues. All the things on this thread were tried, heeling sticks, whiffle bats, ecollars, back to the truck, walking backwards, etc. it was my fault for letting it get started for a few Junior runs, but he is also an exceptionally excitable dog. As one wonderful person here said, some dogs just come like that. I don't regret anymore. Once I quit kicking myself, I realized how much I had learned from my dog. I now have a young dog that is benefitting from those lessons, just moving forward VERY slowly. Train your dog Jennifer, but enjoy the ride however you do it!


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

Doesn't the definition of a "break" include something about "with the intent to retrieve" or something like that???

Maybe that's just FTs.

JS


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

2tall said:


> Wow, some good and bad replies to this one Jennifer! I was just like you. I enjoyed the games, the people, the fun so much I couldn't wait to get out there and turn my high baller loose! I got an actual adrenaline rush from running him and figured we could "fix this up in training". Fast forward to the time I discovered what a really talented dog I had that can not run anymore because of those issues. All the things on this thread were tried, heeling sticks, whiffle bats, ecollars, back to the truck, walking backwards, etc. it was my fault for letting it get started for a few Junior runs, but he is also an exceptionally excitable dog. As one wonderful person here said, some dogs just come like that. I don't regret anymore. Once I quit kicking myself, I realized how much I had learned from my dog. I now have a young dog that is benefitting from those lessons, just moving forward VERY slowly. Train your dog Jennifer, but enjoy the ride however you do it!


Everyone wants a "smart dog". It usually takes a few dogs to realize the smarter the dog, the quicker they learn what they can "get away with".  Then it's often too late.

JS


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

JS said:


> Doesn't the definition of a "break" include something about "with the intent to retrieve" or something like that???
> 
> Maybe that's just FTs.
> 
> JS


It's the same in both games, Jack. The portions of the regs dealing with dog faults and their severity are identical. The HT game added handler faults to the list.-Paul


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

How about taking a look at the Rule Book? It always seems to be a course of last resort in these discussions, which I find dis-heartening. 

Here is what the FT Rule Book says about *creeping*:

Page 32, which suggests creeping is not breaking




> If a dog on line *creeps* or jumps forward short of breaking as birds are shot and no effort is made by the handler to stop and restrain him, the Judges should not interpret such as a deliberate intent to retrieve, since nothing was done to stop the dog. On the other hand, if the handler does make an effort to stop the dog, the Judges should assume that the handler believed the dog intended to retrieve and should deal with such infraction accordingly.
> 
> 
> The Judges may require that dogs which have so jumped or *crept forward* be brought back to heel before being sent for their birds. A handler so ordered should bring his dog to a position satisfactory to the Judges and remain with him in such position until his number is called. In tests including honoring, care should be exercised to treat creeping, on the part of either dog, in a manner not grossly unfair to the other.



Page 45, which suggests that at some point, creeping becomes breaking




> The Judges should agree in advance as to the extent of movement which shall be considered *“creeping,’’* short of breaking, and whether working dogs so offending shall be ordered brought to heel before being sent to retrieve.



Page 57, which says that creeping is a minor fault



> Unsteadiness on-line, including *creeping.
> 
> *



But remember, that repeated or severe minor faults can escalate into moderate or serious faults. Page 57 also says:




> Either severe, or repeated, or combinations of these “minor’’ infractions may summate into a “moderate,’’ or even a “serious’’ fault



Here is my take on the Rule Book
1. The amount of acceptable "creeping" must be defined in advance by the judges
2. When a dog creeps beyond the defined point, it becomes a break
3. Even though creeping is a minor fault, repeated creeping or severe creeping (that is close to or beyond the previously determined point of no return) may escalate the minor fault into a major one.

Here is a Dennis Bath story. I don't know if it's true, but it sure sounds like Dennis. 

Dennis is judging. Dog goes out a long way, then comes back. Dennis calls for the next dog. Handler says "my dog didn't break." Dennis retorts "He may have changed his mind, but he broke." 

Again, I don't know if the story is true, but it gets to the essence of the matter - at some point, creeping becomes something more substantial.

When you judge, you need to ask yourself, "Is this the kind of dog that I want to win? That I want to serve as the breeding stock for the future?" 

When I judge, my focus is on performance in the field, but that does not mean that I ignore hideous conduct on the mat. Remember that as a judge you are establishing a standard and that you get what you reward (or callback)


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Just got off the phone with Bath. The story was true.


----------



## thelast2 (Dec 7, 2012)

Ted Shih said:


> When you judge, you need to ask yourself, "Is this the kind of dog that I want to win? That I want to serve as the breeding stock for the future?"


The first question makes sense to me, the answer would be no a dog who continuously creeps shouldn't win. The second question seems a bit confusing to me unless the dog is showing other signs of poor tractability. By itself creeping is a problem with the training the dog received or lack there of. Creeping alone shouldn't be a consideration for breeding right? I don't have enough knowledge of dogs who creep and their offspring to say that it could or couldn't be hereditary. Be curious for those who have experienced this to share. Unless as mentioned there are other issues being displayed by the same dog in which then I would think breeding the dog would not be for the greater good.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

thelast2 said:


> The first question makes sense to me, the answer would be no a dog who continuously creeps shouldn't win. The second question seems a bit confusing to me unless the dog is showing other signs of poor tractability. By itself creeping is a problem with the training the dog received or lack there of. Creeping alone shouldn't be a consideration for breeding right? I don't have enough knowledge of dogs who creep and their offspring to say that it could or couldn't be hereditary. Be curious for those who have experienced this to share. Unless as mentioned there are other issues being displayed by the same dog in which then I would think breeding the dog would not be for the greater good.



I think you misunderstood me. 

I am not saying this dog we are discussing should not win, should not be bred, etc. I haven't seen the dog perform, and I am not going to post a judgment about it on the internet in the absence of personal observation.

Rather, I believe that when you judge - particularly in the All Age Stakes - you need to recognize that people are going to make breeding decisions based on the track record of a dog. So when you give a dog a win or a placement, you are - in some fashion - influencing decisions about what will be bred. 

And the Rule Book tells us on page 47



> “*It is recommended that a Judge should have clearly in mind, and for each test, precisely what type of performance he expects, since such work will merit a high rating in his records.* Then he should observe, and record, in what respects and to what degrees the performances by individual dogs have either exceeded or fallen short of that previously established “par,’’ in each test


This is a detailed subject and one that Terry Rotschafer are going to explore in an upcoming article on Retrievers Online. 

Ted


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

> Every judge interprets the rules differently. That is why it's called judging.


There is so much ambiguity in the rules than one can make a case for or against *most anything*.

Pick a topic then pick a side. Heads I win tails you loose.......;-)

Here is an example of a topic similar to this one being debated with KG in 2003/08. http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?8985-I-need-a-Lawyer!&p=345532#post345532 

john


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

There is no distance amount of creeping, that turns creeping into breaking.

They are two different things.

A dog could creep 200 yards. 
As long as it stops *itself* short of retrieving the bird, it was only excessive creeping.

If the handler stops the dog with a verbal or whistle command, vs the dog stopping itself, that is a controlled break.

This is common sense. It's not that complicated.

I cannot believe that there are so many people (including Judges) that believe that the difference between creeping and breaking has anything to do with a linear distance between two points.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

copterdoc said:


> There is no distance amount of creeping, that turns creeping into breaking.
> 
> They are two different things.



The Rule Book disagrees with you.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Ted Shih said:


> The Rule Book disagrees with you.


 No it doesn't.

If a dog creeps so far that *YOU* can't accept it, you absolutely should drop the dog.
That's something that you need to judge.

But, unless the dog was stopped by a command, or it actually went to the fall and hunted for the bird, it was *NOT *a break.

Call it what it is. Excessive creeping.
And then drop the dog.


----------



## Pam Spears (Feb 25, 2010)

This newbie (hunt test, not field trial) needs a clarification. I have read the rulebook, but without lots of experience either competing or watching, some of these procedural points are hard to grasp. So let's say you're on the line at a master test, and your dog has crept forward 2 feet by the time the last bird goes down, but has stopped and shows no sign of breaking. If you tell your dog heel before the judges say anything, you have, because you said heel, committed a controlled break. If you say nothing and the judge tells you to reheel your dog, you tell the dog heel, and it heels, the judges release you and the dog retrieves, it's either a creep or an excessive creep depending on how far out the dog went. Have I got it right? 

I guess what I'm asking is if it's wrong to tell your dog "heel" if its crept, unless the judges tell you to OR you do it after they release you.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Pam Spears said:


> This newbie (hunt test, not field trial) needs a clarification. I have read the rulebook, but without lots of experience either competing or watching, some of these procedural points are hard to grasp. So let's say you're on the line at a master test, and your dog has crept forward 2 feet by the time the last bird goes down, but has stopped and shows no sign of breaking. If you tell your dog heel before the judges say anything, you have, because you said heel, committed a controlled break. If you say nothing and the judge tells you to reheel your dog, you tell the dog heel, and it heels, the judges release you and the dog retrieves, it's either a creep or an excessive creep depending on how far out the dog went. Have I got it right?
> 
> I guess what I'm asking is if it's wrong to tell your dog "heel" if its crept, unless the judges tell you to OR you do it after they release you.


I think that you pretty much have a grasp on it.

john


----------



## thelast2 (Dec 7, 2012)

Ted Shih said:


> I think you misunderstood me.
> 
> I am not saying this dog we are discussing should not win, should not be bred, etc. I haven't seen the dog perform, and I am not going to post a judgment about it on the internet in the absence of personal observation.
> 
> ...


I had a fair idea of where you were heading. Your elaboration was precisely what I was looking for, for myself and others who read this. Thanks


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Pam Spears said:


> ...If you tell your dog heel before the judges say anything, you have, because you said heel, committed a controlled break......


 You can't commit a controlled break. The dog can break, and you can control it (maybe).

If you speak to the dog between the time that you signal ready, and the Judge says your number, you have committed a Serious Handler Fault, and could be dropped just for that.

Where it gets really confusing is in Senior.
While a Serious Handler Fault should get you dropped, a controlled break probably won't get you dropped. If it only happens once.

You can't control a break, without committing a Serious Handler Fault. So, with some Judges there isn't any such thing as a controlled break.

Welcome to this silly game, that we choose to pay money to subject ourselves to.

If your dog creeps, but doesn't break, you can either 
(1.) Pick the dog up with a "NO HERE" and go home.
(2.) Wait for the Judge to release you, and then send the dog.
(3.) Wait for the Judge to say "re-heel your dog", and once re-heeled and released by the Judge, send your dog.

Or, once you are released by the Judge, you could choose to re-heel your dog. 
They don't always tell you to re-heel.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Pam Spears said:


> I guess what I'm asking is if it's wrong to tell your dog "heel" if its crept, unless the judges tell you to OR you do it after they release you.


 Lot's of people will disagree with me, but unless I'm told by a Judge to re-heel the dog, I am *NOT *going to re-heel before sending.

They threw three marks, one of which is the go-bird.
I'm not going to deliberately make it three memory marks, none of which is the go-bird.

Re-heeling your dog off of the go-bird, is very much like no' ing the dog off a poison bird, to run a blind.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

copterdoc said:


> *You can't commit a controlled break*. The dog can break, and you can control it (maybe).


Are you familiar with the term Pragmatics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

copterdoc said:


> ......Re-heeling your dog off of the go-bird, is very much like no' ing the dog off a poison bird, to run a blind.


BUT........
in our quest to run, and have fun! (see how I can come back to the O.P.)
we do not often get a chance to "train", at an event we drop our $$$'s to enter.
May as well make the best of it. "They" say test the way you train. And while easy
to say not many have the _____'s to do it. 

Thankin' the Judges and heeling off line on your own self regards


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

copterdoc said:


> Lot's of people will disagree with me, but unless I'm told by a Judge to re-heel the dog, I am *NOT *going to re-heel before sending.


That's fine, but you own what you condone.

And when you get that 200 yard creep (that the judge doesn't call a break ) let us know.

JS


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Any dog running in Master is already test wise.
They *ALL* get test wise eventually. For some, it only takes one time.

If your dog is Dr. Jekyll in training, and Mr. Hyde at a test, the fault lies in how you train, vs how you run the dog in a test.

Run the test to pass the test. Train the dog to train the dog.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

copterdoc said:


> There is no distance amount of creeping, that turns creeping into breaking.
> 
> They are two different things.
> 
> ...



The word "break" is not specifically defined in the Rule Book.

However page 37 of the Rule Book says that



> _If a dog on line *creeps or jumps forward short of breakin*g as birds are shot and no effort is made by the handler to stop and restrain him, the Judges should not interpret such as a *deliberate intent to retrieve*, since nothing was done to stop the dog. On the other hand, if the handler does make an effort to stop the dog, the Judges should assume that the handler believed the dog intended to retrieve and should deal with such infraction accordingly._


The Rule Book also says that the judges are to define the acceptable amount of creeping 

See page 45



> _The Judges should agree in advance as to the extent of movement which shall be considered _*“creeping,’’ short of breaking, and whether working dogs so offending shall be ordered brought to heel before being sent to retrieve.*


In other words, once you get past a certain linear distance, it is no longer creeping, but breaking.

At some point, if a dog goes out far enough, I am going to reach the conclusion that it has demonstrated a "deliberate intent to retrieve." 
If you prefer, I'll conclude the dog engaged in excessive creeping.
However the behavior is characterized, it is eliminated.

I am pretty sure that my position is supported by Rule Book and that yours is not.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Ted Shih said:


> The word "break" is not specifically defined in the Rule Book.
> 
> However page 37 of the Rule Book says that
> 
> ...


 First of all Ted, this thread is about Master, which is covered in the Regulations & Guidelines for 
AKC® Hunting Tests 
for Retrievers.

It's not about Field Trials. So, the rule book is different.

And regardless of that, creeping is still creeping. No matter how excessive.

Breaking is breaking. There is no amount of breaking.
Either the dog broke, or it didn't.

It's not a matter of semantics, or pragmatics. 

Your basic understanding of the difference, makes all the difference in how you can judge a number of possible scenarios that can occur in a test.

For instance, a dog breaking on a blind retrieve.

Nobody could possibly conceive of the idea that a dog could be convicted of excessive creeping on a blind. 

However, many (including Judges), will argue that a dog can break on a blind. 
And they'll drop a dog for doing it.


----------



## Renee P. (Dec 5, 2010)

Talk about GDG.

Ted, I love the Dennis Bath story.

It got me thinking.

Most dogs stepping up to the line have the intent to retrieve. That's why they are there! John Fallon is right, you can agonize about every statement in the rule book!

So what is the intent of the rule about breaking vs creeping?

At some point enough is enough, when the dog is creeping. The predefined point that the judges agree upon make the decision of creep vs break objective vs subjective.

I now totally get EdA's "is the sky blue" thread!!!


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

mitty said:


> .....Most dogs stepping up to the line have the intent to retrieve. That's why they are there!.....


 And as long as they didn't send themselves with that intent, they didn't break.


----------



## Renee P. (Dec 5, 2010)

Unless we can read our dogs' minds we have no idea what their intent is LOL.

P.S. Jennifer, congrats on the pass. If I waited till I thought I was totally ready to enter an event, I would have entered exactly zero events!


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

mitty said:


> Unless we can read our dogs' minds we have no idea what their intent is LOL....


 BS.

When a dog breaks, it's intent is obvious. 
If you can't tell the difference between creeping and breaking, you have no business in the Judge's chair.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Any movement on the line that *in the opinion of the judges *indicates a deliberate intent to retrieve without having been told to do so, is by definition a break.
2mm, 2", 2 ', 200yds, it matters not All that is needed is agreement between each other. It's their call. 
Don't slay the messinger
john


----------



## Renee P. (Dec 5, 2010)

copterdoc said:


> BS.
> 
> When a dog breaks, it's intent is obvious.
> If you can't tell the difference between creeping and breaking, you have no business in the Judge's chair.


The problem I see, Copterdoc, is that you have no interest in a discussion. You seem totally convinced of your views, and your agenda seems to be to convince the rest of us to think like you. You seem totally unwilling to rethink anything. Sad.

Meanwhile, I'm still loving the Dennis Bath story.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

john fallon said:


> Any movement on the line that *in the opinion of the judges *indicates a deliberate intent to retrieve without having been told to do so, is by definition a break....


 I can't disagree with that.

Thank God some Judges know when a dog is creeping, vs breaking.

Whether the dog moved an inch, or 20 feet.


----------



## Renee P. (Dec 5, 2010)

john fallon said:


> Any movement on the line that *in the opinion of the judges *indicates a deliberate intent to retrieve without having been told to do so, is by definition a break.
> 2mm, 2", 2 ', 200yds, it matters not All that is needed is agreement between each other. It's their call.
> 
> john


So, as a judge you might drop a dog that moved 2" cuz you decided it had an intent to retrieve, but carry another dog that crept 20 feet? All this in a single stake? A single series?

I see mutiny in the gallery if you do this.

Disclaimer: I have never judged! I have hardly run any stakes!


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

mitty said:


> Talk about GDG.
> 
> Ted, I love the Dennis Bath story.
> 
> ...



The smaller question of "intent" is whether the dog exercises its intent to retrieve with the judge's permission (with the receipt of a number) or independently. 
The bigger question of "intent" in the rule is ultimately whether you think a dog that breaks, creeps, whatever to a certain extent is a dog that should finish, place, or win.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

mitty said:


> The problem I see, Copterdoc, is that you have no interest in a discussion. You seem totally convinced of your views, and your agenda seems to be to convince the rest of us to think like you. You seem totally unwilling to rethink anything.


 Just like a Blue Print, I try to see things from every angle.

This is one of the things that I still see the same way after doing so.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

mitty said:


> So, as a judge you might drop a dog that moved 2" cuz you decided it had an intent to retrieve, but carry another dog that crept 20 feet? All this in a single stake? A single series?
> 
> I see mutiny in the gallery if you do this.
> 
> Disclaimer: I have never judged! I have hardly run any stakes!



There is considerable amount of subjectivity to judging. You might compare it to umpires in baseball. The Rule Book defines what the strike zone should be. Consequently, you would expect that all umpires - particularly in the major leagues - have the same strike zone. However, that is not the case. Some umpires have higher strike zones. Others have lower strike zones. Some have strike zones that vary depending on who the batter is (if the batter is a big name, small strike zone, if the batter is a rookie, big strike zone). Some umpires have strike zones that vary without any particular pattern. In professional baseball, pitchers and hitters learn to accept big strike zones and little ones, what they want is uniformity. Pitchers and hitters hate strike zones that vary without predictability. They simply want to know what to expect.

Field trials are much the same. Each judge interprets the Rules differently. The contestants accept that there will be variation (just as pitcher and batters do), but what they want (just as pitchers and batters do) is consistency.

Over time, if you stay in the game, you learn how different judges interpret the Rules. Because participation is a voluntary sport, you get to choose whether you want to run under a particular judge who interprets the Rules in his/her own particular way. And if you judge, over time, you develop a reputation for your particular strike zone - something to consider once you start judging

Ted


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

mitty said:


> So, as a judge you might drop a dog that moved 2" cuz you decided it had an intent to retrieve, but carry another dog that crept 20 feet? All this in a single stake? A single series?
> 
> I see mutiny in the gallery if you do this.
> 
> Disclaimer: I have never judged! I have hardly run any stakes!


On the front side I *personally *would need several feet to begin to solidify that conclusion and at that point would be making eye contact with my co judge to see if we had a concensus.

john


----------



## Renee P. (Dec 5, 2010)

Seriously? Ted and John, and any of you others that judge, you might drop Dog 1 because it creeped (crept?) 2 inches (or 2 feet) because it broke, but then might carry Dog 2, whose creep was 20 feet?

I do not get the umpire analogy. I do not think that an umpire's strike zone is going to vary much from batter to batter, although I think the strike zone might vary from umpire to umpire. I do understand that judges (and umpires) view things differently than other judges (and umpires). But I don't see an umpire changing his view of the strike zone so drastically from batter to batter within a single game. It's not below the knees for one batter, and above the knees for another.


----------



## Jennifer Henion (Jan 1, 2012)

Thank you Carol, Mitty and Barb and the Pauls and others for your kind comments and input. Glad this turned into an interesting discussion on creeping and breaking.

Just got home. Failed today's test. But not for breaking or creeping. An out of order Flyer at 35 yards wiped out her memory of the other bird and she wouldn't handle for that lost mark. Cool, more stuff to teach and learn and train for!

Last 4 years of hunt tests and marshaling all stakes, I've noticed that about 80 % of participants are "ready" but have at least one issue (Creeping, weak marking etc) 10-15% are not ready for that level and 5-10% are fool proof. 

The 80% who are ready can have horrible day Saturday and a great day Sunday or vice versa. 

Gotta live your life. We had a great weekend and I'm so glad I participated. The dog had a great time, too. I have the added bonus of my husband learning from my mistakes. He is just getting into the sport and has a 4 month old puppy... He's learning lots about what not to do .

Tomorrow, I get out the drawing board for training plans, dust off the clicker and make some magic. Fun times!


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

mitty said:


> Seriously? Ted and John, and any of you others that judge, you might drop Dog 1 because it creeped (crept?) 2 inches (or 2 feet) because it broke, but then might carry Dog 2, whose creep was 20 feet?


A break is a break, and a creep is a creep.

While there can be a measured distance to a creep, there is NO DISTANCE to a break.
A dog can break an inch, or it can break a mile. It still broke.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

​well, if you ever run, you will find out for yourself


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

As a procedural matter a creep can turn into a break, but a break does not have to start out as a creep and you can tell that they are going early on. 
Like I said in an earlier post, "On the front side I* personally *would need several feet to begin to solidify that conlusion"................

john


----------



## JusticeDog (Jul 3, 2003)

mitty said:


> Unless we can read our dogs' minds we have no idea what their intent is LOL.
> 
> P.S. Jennifer, congrats on the pass. If I waited till I thought I was totally ready to enter an event, I would have entered exactly zero events!


There is a difference between being "totally ready" and having a dog commit a "sin" that will only continue to get worse and cause a lack of success in higher stakes. Besides Jennifer, I have a friend who has a world class agility dog. She is awesome and has pulled him out of trouble on numerous occasions. Mach 5. He gets another dog puppy of another breed and is trying to run that dog too early. That dog cannot get through its contacts to save its behind because he is running too early, is not committing to the Contacts, and therefore cannot get through an event. He has done beautifully in jumpers where there are no contacts. What a shame and a crime for that young dog. The comment has already been made by the owner, "well he is not princess". No, but he could be if you ever bothered to train him like he did princess. What a shame for that young dog but he is being thought less because he is not as good as princess. When it actually is the owner's fault.

there is no problem testing the waters to see how your dog is doing, but when you know you have a repeated faults, and you continue to run it anyway, and you know that it will lead to a lack of success at higher levels, then who's fault is that?

What a shame for the dog. And if you really want to showcase what a great trainer you are, Why in the heck would you do that? it makes absolutely no sense.


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

Jennifer Henion said:


> Tomorrow, I get out the drawing board for training plans, dust off the clicker and make some magic. Fun times!


if nothin' else, ya have a great attitude 
have fun with your dawg.
So, the live bird was tossed and shot as the first bird?
then ol' fang wanted more live birds, and not go out to the dead bird station?
the old training trick is drop a crate of live birds at each of your gunning stations.
have your bird boys give um a little kick to get um quacking when you sit up on the mat.
gets um thinking there are live birds at every station and if they want to play fetch watch the mark.


----------



## Jennifer Henion (Jan 1, 2012)

Ken Bora said:


> if nothin' else, ya have a great attitude
> have fun with your dawg.
> So, the live bird was tossed and shot as the first bird?
> then ol' fang wanted more live birds, and not go out to the dead bird station?
> ...


Great idea, Ken! That is one that will work on several levels! Thanks


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

You are right, Jennifer, the fun of the journey is what is most important.  Everyone has their own goals and need not justify them to anyone else. I think what folks are trying to say is that the journey is even more fun if you go into it well prepared.

I do remember when you first began posting here, your goals were quite lofty. Welcome to the real world and good luck. I mean that sincerely. But to me, it raises a red flag when someone comes on RTF on the Thursday before the trial, asking the "what-can-I-get-away-with" question.

Remember, this is not a race. ;-)

JS


----------



## labsforme (Oct 31, 2003)

Jennifer, copying from Lester's suggestion: https://averysportingdog.com/trainers-heeling-stick A clicker that has worked well for many in the same situation 
Just another form of positive reinforcement. I am positive if you use the reinforcement it will help. 
Did your husband get a lab?

Jeff


----------



## Jennifer Henion (Jan 1, 2012)

labsforme said:


> Jennifer, copying from Lester's suggestion: https://averysportingdog.com/trainers-heeling-stick A clicker that has worked well for many in the same situation
> Just another form of positive reinforcement. I am positive if you use the reinforcement it will help.
> Did your husband get a lab?
> 
> Jeff


You're in so much trouble!


----------



## Jennifer Henion (Jan 1, 2012)

JS said:


> You are right, Jennifer, the fun of the journey is what is most important.  Everyone has their own goals and need not justify them to anyone else. I think what folks are trying to say is that the journey is even more fun if you go into it well prepared.
> 
> I do remember when you first began posting here, your goals were quite lofty. Welcome to the real world and good luck. I mean that sincerely. But to me, it raises a red flag when someone comes on RTF on the Thursday before the trial, asking the "what-can-I-get-away-with" question.
> 
> ...


Starting to get it, JS. Thanks!


----------



## mjh345 (Jun 17, 2006)

JS said:


> You are right, Jennifer, the fun of the journey is what is most important.  Everyone has their own goals and need not justify them to anyone else. I think what folks are trying to say is that the journey is even more fun if you go into it well prepared.
> 
> I do remember when you first began posting here, your goals were quite lofty. Welcome to the real world and good luck. I mean that sincerely. But to me, it raises a red flag when someone comes on RTF on the Thursday before the trial, asking the "what-can-I-get-away-with" question.
> 
> ...


Great post Jack!! Sums up my thoughts succinctly.
Congrats on the pass Jennifer and keep enjoying the journey!!


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

copterdoc said:


> BS.
> 
> When a dog breaks, it's intent is obvious.
> If you can't tell the difference between creeping and breaking, you have no business in the Judge's chair.


Just curious: how would you judge the dog that breaks--clearly left with the intention of retrieving, in your mind--but the handler does nothing and the dog thinks better of it pretty quickly and gathers itself and stops short of the line beyond which you would have dropped a creeping dog?


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

DoubleHaul said:


> Just curious: how would you judge the dog that breaks--clearly left with the intention of retrieving, in your mind--but the handler does nothing and the dog thinks better of it pretty quickly and gathers itself and stops short of the line beyond which you would have dropped a creeping dog?


 I don't know. I've never seen that happen.

I have seen dogs initially go after being sent, and then recall themselves. 
I'd call that a no-go, and blame it on uncertainty and/or confusion.

A dog that breaks, typically isn't suffering from uncertainty.


----------



## Criquetpas (Sep 14, 2004)

As a judge I have allowed my share of creeping, with and without the consent of my co-judge. It's kinda like a no bird, if you and your co-judge of a agreement of how far a dog should be allowed to creep then good. Having said that at a moments fluid notice have called a no bird and told the handler to reheel their dog also, without the consent of my co-judge. It happens in a moments notice. not time for a headshake, nod or a discussion. I have owned some notorious creepers unfortunately and tend to be a little more lax in judging the creeping dog, if the dog doesn't have any other minor or moderate faults, have called those dogs back. Many are powerful test/trial wise dogs who are uncanny markers. Having said all that it is very dishearting to pound a first series maybe with only a 25% completion rate only to be dropped after a flawless blind work with a "would you want to honor for that dog" statement. If you are going to drop the dog then drop it after the first series, don't carry the dog, it is an injustice to the handler and the dog. 
Many all-age dogs don't spin around taking their eyes off the bird, but, rather creep straight out, come straight back before the judges say reheel your dog. No attempt by the handler to stop the dog. Is it a creep or a break? I know the rules, but, don't consider a creep a break unless the handler attempts to stop the dog. There has been more then one National or National Amateur FT champion who were creepers. Isn't it about the marking too. I know of at least one 2 times NAFC that was told if it were a weekend trial he would have gone home after his 6 series blind. Just saying.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Earl 

It is a difficult call

I prefer to make my decisions based on what happens in the field. 

However, at some point, I think you have to say - enough, already. 

Enough creeping, enough whining, enough barking ....

Ted


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Chronic creepers often exhibit other unattractive behavior on line and can also be penalized for those behaviors.


----------



## Eric Johnson (Dec 23, 2004)

I have been told that NFC River Oaks Corky could creep with the best ... nay, may have been the best. Ed Seale once told me that Corky crept all the way down a 20 foot embankment (which arguably gave him a poorer, not better, view) and when the birds were down, turned and ran back up the hill to heel.

Any comments on the legend generally.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Eric Johnson said:


> I have been told that NFC River Oaks Corky could creep with the best ... nay, may have been the best. Ed Seale once told me that Corky crept all the way down a 20 foot embankment (which arguably gave him a poorer, not better, view) and when the birds were down, turned and ran back up the hill to heel.
> 
> Any comments on the legend generally.


Corky was before my time but I have never heard of him as a creeper however his son NAFC River Oaks Rascal was a noted creeper, maybe your source has them confused.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

> However, *at some point*, I think you have to say - enough, already.


When? It is not when they are still there at the end, with work outside the creeping et al, that is riding high among the few to have finished both your land and water tests is it ?

john


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

john fallon said:


> When? It is not when they are still there at the end, with work outside the creeping et al, that is riding high among the few to have finished both your land and water tests is it ?
> 
> john


The rules do not specify when obnoxious behavior on line is penalized only that it can be penalized and repetitive episodes elevate the behaviors in terms of severity of penalty. Since it is unlikely that said behaviors are repeated on blinds it is likely that any decision about severity of penalty shall be at the end when those infractions are compared to the infractions of others.


----------



## CRNAret (Oct 3, 2012)

Eric Johnson said:


> I have been told that NFC River Oaks Corky could creep with the best ... nay, may have been the best. Ed Seale once told me that Corky crept all the way down a 20 foot embankment (which arguably gave him a poorer, not better, view) and when the birds were down, turned and ran back up the hill to heel.
> 
> Any comments on the legend generally.


 There was an article about Corky in the RFTN a few years ago which mentioned that his problem on the line was whining. Apparently it got him tossed multiple times and ultimately resulted in him being sold to Mike Flannery.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

EdA said:


> The rules do not specify when obnoxious behavior on line is penalized only that it can be penalized and repetitive episodes elevate the behaviors in terms of severity of penalty. Since it is unlikely that said behaviors are repeated on blinds it is likely that any decision about severity of penalty shall be at the end when those *infractions are compared *to the infractions of others.


True. But where does this comparison fit into the equation, since the rules do prioritise the order of importance as being ... Natural above trained, and Marking at the top of the Natural list?

john


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

john fallon said:


> True. But where does this comparison fit into the equation, since the rules do prioritise the order of importance as being ... Natural above trained, and Marking at the top of the Natural list?
> 
> john


That's why it is called judging, while we might not agree we are required to come to a consensus.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

john fallon said:


> True. But where does this comparison fit into the equation, since the rules do prioritise the order of importance as being ... Natural above trained, and Marking at the top of the Natural list?
> 
> john



The oft cited "Marking is of paramount importance" does not exist in a vacuum. The Rule Book describes "Serious, Moderate, and Minor Faults" and discusses how those faults should be addressed. The Rule Book does not instruct us to look the other way when those faults manifest themselves.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> The oft cited "Marking is of paramount importance" does not exist in a vacuum. The Rule Book describes "Serious, Moderate, and Minor Faults" and discusses how those faults should be addressed. The Rule Book does not instruct us to look the other way when those faults manifest themselves.



If one waits till the minor fault has compounded itself to a higher one by repetition, often we are at the placement analisys... at that point you are not suggesting that we are to ignor this prioritisation in favor of a comparison of trained ability shortcomings ?


----------



## Breck (Jul 1, 2003)

Judging has gotten very lax. Nobody cares what a dog does on line anymore. Ha ever watch Lefty run. 
Dogs should sit tractably at heel in the position designated by the judges. This little tidbit is part of the rules. 
A dog does not belong 6 to 10 feet out in front of the handler by the time the last bird goes down. Often with a creeper, when judges have stones to ask handler to reheel, you hear a handler barking heel heel heel a dozen times until dogs' tail finally, barely, touches the mat, judges give number and everybody thinks it's OK. Meanwhile the honor dog has to sit there and listen to this crap. Was not honor dog's day interfered with during this circus? I'd like it if judges would simply tell the handler to pick up their dog at that point or at a minimum the creepers who don't heel on the first command should be dismissed. The sport after all is meant for the Non-Slip Retriever no?


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

john fallon said:


> If one waits till the minor fault has compounded itself to a higher one by repitition, often we are at the placement annalisys... at that point you are not suggesting that we are to ignor this prioritisation in favor of a comparison of trained ability shortcomings ?



Read the Rule Book, John. 

It tells you that repetition of minor faults or moderate faults can cause those faults to rise to the level of a serious fault - which requires elimination. 

So, yes, I would follow the Rule Book and drop a dog at the end for line manner issues.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> Read the Rule Book, John.
> 
> It tells you that repetition of minor faults or moderate faults can cause those faults to rise to the level of a serious fault - which requires elimination.
> 
> So, yes, I would follow the Rule Book and drop a dog at the end for line manner issues.



In this, as with many things, portions of the rule book are in conflict with each other . The prudent judge upon seeing this should be able to follow the intended prioritisation .
Count the number of times you are told in these rules what is of PRIMARY, PARAMOUNT and in some cases ALL important compaired to other citations... and the implacation should be abundantly clear... 

I think the only reason they stop saying it is they ran out of ink

john


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

john fallon said:


> In this, as with many things, portions of the rule book are in conflict with each other . The prudent judge upon seeing this should be able to follow the intended prioritisation .
> Count the number of times you are told in these rules what is of PRIMARY, PARAMOUNT and in some cases ALL important compaired to other citations... and the implacation should be abundantly clear...
> 
> I think the only reason they stop saying it is they ran out of ink
> ...



Under your analysis, a dog that eats the bird in the fourth, refuses to deliver the bird in the fourth, gets into a dog fight in the fourth series should win if it has the best marks. Under your analysis, a dog with great marks that refuses to get into the water, still is carried. These results, of course, are ridiculous.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> Under your analysis, a dog that eats the bird in the fourth, refuses to deliver the bird in the fourth, gets into a dog fight in the fourth series should win if it has the best marks. Under your analysis, a dog with great marks that refuses to get into the water, still is carried. These results, of course, are ridiculous.


Before you continue to hyperbolise about what happens under my analysis. Why don't you tell us what the Primary, Paramount, and All, citations in the rules mean by your analysis......

john


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

john fallon said:


> Before you continue to hyperbolise about what happens under my analysis. Why don't you tell us what the Primary, Paramount, and All, citations in the rules mean by your analysis......
> 
> john



John, I will leave you to play with others. I am finished.


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

john fallon said:


> Before you continue to hyperbolise about what happens under my analysis. Why don't you tell us what the Primary, Paramount, and All, citations in the rules mean by your analysis......
> 
> john


John

Did you not read this part of the Field trial rules:


> (1) Accurate marking, or memory of “falls’’ is of paramount importance. However, this does not imply that dogs which excel in marking shall not be severely penalized, or even eliminated, for deficiencies in, or a lack of the other required “abilities.’’


Perhaps you also are missing this directive that is also repeated in the Field Trial rules.


> The Judges must judge the dogs for (a) their natural abilities, including their memory, intelligence, attention, nose, courage, perseverance and style, and (b) their abilities acquired through training, including steadiness, control, response to direction and delivery.’’


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

john fallon said:


> In this, as with many things, portions of the rule book are in conflict with each other . The prudent judge upon seeing this should be able to follow the intended prioritisation .
> Count the number of times you are told in these rules what is of PRIMARY, PARAMOUNT and in some cases ALL important compaired to other citations... and the implacation should be abundantly clear...
> 
> I think the only reason they stop saying it is they ran out of ink
> ...



If marking is paramount, primary and in some cases all important, to the point of excluding trainability faults when evaluating the field's work, why bother to include blind retrieves in the the testing process? 

I think you're in left field without a glove, glasses or visor on this one John.


----------



## mjh345 (Jun 17, 2006)

Doug Main said:


> John
> 
> Did you not read this part of the Field trial rules:
> 
> ...


Game, set, match!!

But will it stifle Fallon?


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

paul young said:


> If marking is paramount, primary and in some cases all important, to the point of excluding trainability faults when evaluating the field's work, *why bother to include blind retrieves in the the testing process? *
> I think you're in left field without a glove, glasses or visor on this one John.



I along with many others, initally judge blinds pass / fail. If you pass the blind you move on... The only time the work of your blind will improve your position in the ranking is at callbacks and in the final analysis when two dogs that have similar work on their marks are being compaired "one against the other".

A dog with *lesser *work on its marks will/*should never *outplace a dog with* better *marks, on the strength of its blinds. Similarly, short of it committing an eliminating trainability fault or enough minor faults to mandate elimination by their clumalative effect, the best Marking dog should sould be the one to beat

john


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Doug Main said:


> John
> 
> Did you not read this part of the Field trial rules:
> 
> ...


----------



## Deadbird (Feb 11, 2010)

Breck said:


> Judging has gotten very lax. Nobody cares what a dog does on line anymore. Ha ever watch Lefty run.
> Dogs should sit tractably at heel in the position designated by the judges. This little tidbit is part of the rules.
> A dog does not belong 6 to 10 feet out in front of the handler by the time the last bird goes down. Often with a creeper, when judges have stones to ask handler to reheel, you hear a handler barking heel heel heel a dozen times until dogs' tail finally, barely, touches the mat, judges give number and everybody thinks it's OK. Meanwhile the honor dog has to sit there and listen to this crap. Was not honor dog's day interfered with during this circus? I'd like it if judges would simply tell the handler to pick up their dog at that point or at a minimum the creepers who don't heel on the first command should be dismissed. The sport after all is meant for the Non-Slip Retriever no?


Thank you! Well said


----------



## Deadbird (Feb 11, 2010)

Mabey all the problems with entries in master would change if basics were kept to a high standard at a test too. Most would not pass senior.


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

john fallon said:


> I along with many others, initally judge blinds pass / fail. If you pass the blind you move on...
> 
> john


That works if one is unable or unwilling to judge blinds. An utter failure requires no judging skills whatever. 

I will never be comfortable doing that. I feel it is an insult to the dogs and handlers who are turning in superior work on the blinds. 

I'm done with this thread. - Paul


----------



## Tom Lehr (Sep 11, 2008)

Breck said:


> Judging has gotten very lax. Nobody cares what a dog does on line anymore. Ha ever watch Lefty run.
> Dogs should sit tractably at heel in the position designated by the judges. This little tidbit is part of the rules.
> A dog does not belong 6 to 10 feet out in front of the handler by the time the last bird goes down. Often with a creeper, when judges have stones to ask handler to reheel, you hear a handler barking heel heel heel a dozen times until dogs' tail finally, barely, touches the mat, judges give number and everybody thinks it's OK. Meanwhile the honor dog has to sit there and listen to this crap. Was not honor dog's day interfered with during this circus? I'd like it if judges would simply tell the handler to pick up their dog at that point or at a minimum the creepers who don't heel on the first command should be dismissed. The sport after all is meant for the Non-Slip Retriever no?


 When judging Hunting Dogs, it is a whole lot safer for all if the dog stays at heel. The old saying that a dog should not creep beyond the gun barrel applies.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

paul young said:


> That works if one is unable or unwilling to judge blinds. An utter failure requires no judging skills whatever.
> 
> I will never be comfortable doing that. I feel it is an insult to the dogs and handlers who are turning in superior work on the blinds.
> 
> I'm done with this thread. - Paul



Well Paul, you lasted longer than I did. No sense beating your head against the wall. There is a reason some people are not invited to judge.


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

Deadbird said:


> Mabey all the problems with entries in master would change if basics were kept to a high standard at a test too. Most would not pass senior.


If you think that you must not have seen many MH tests.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

paul young said:


> That works if one is unable or unwilling to judge blinds. An utter failure requires no judging skills whatever.
> 
> I will never be comfortable doing that. I feel it is an insult to the dogs and handlers who are turning in superior work on the blinds.
> 
> I'm done with this thread. - Paul




In the final analysis, if a dog handler team has superior work on the blinds and comperable marks to another dog handler team with lesser blinds, the dog handler team with the superior blinds will/should prevail. 
But under no circumstances that I have heard of or have encountered yet would I be comfortable placing a dog with the lesser marks and a superior blind, above the one with the superior marks and a passing blind.......


john


----------



## Deadbird (Feb 11, 2010)

```

```



DoubleHaul said:


> If you think that you must not have seen many MH tests.


No never seen a master test with a dog at line with pass poor line manners. Especially when I'm at honor. I know opinions don't matter. Its pass or fail. I worry about my dog no one else's. Im not a judge. Just was brought up to fix line manners if u need to before u run a test.


----------



## Deadbird (Feb 11, 2010)

No need to bother worrying about small stuff like line manners. People will keep getting passed. My thinking is the problem to some and that's fine.


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

Deadbird said:


> ```
> 
> ```
> No never seen a master test with a dog at line with pass poor line manners. Especially when I'm at honor. I know opinions don't matter. Its pass or fail. I worry about my dog no one else's. Im not a judge. Just was brought up to fix line manners if u need to before u run a test.


That was my point. Most folks do not have issues with poor line manners at MH or FTs. In fact, if you dropped dogs for a creep, you wouldn't lose all that many. Certainly the vast majority of MH dogs would easily be able to pass a SH test, no matter how strict you were on line manners.


----------



## Breck (Jul 1, 2003)

This video will blow you mind. Polmaise from Scotland posted it on another thread. 
Dogs Sit on Honor for a 6 minute long barrage of gun fire while like a hundred pheasant fliers are shot.
Pretty cool. Kinda makes our sit honor requirements look like nothing.
.
PS hit the like button on youtube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VanUIPniNhc


----------



## Deadbird (Feb 11, 2010)

DoubleHaul said:


> That was my point. Most folks do not have issues with poor line manners at MH or FTs. In fact, if you dropped dogs for a creep, you wouldn't lose all that many. Certainly the vast majority of MH dogs would easily be able to pass a SH test, no matter how strict you were on line manners.


I was being sarcastic. Im done. Life is good


----------



## Deadbird (Feb 11, 2010)

Breck said:


> Judging has gotten very lax. Nobody cares what a dog does on line anymore. Ha ever watch Lefty run.
> Dogs should sit tractably at heel in the position designated by the judges. This little tidbit is part of the rules.
> A dog does not belong 6 to 10 feet out in front of the handler by the time the last bird goes down. Often with a creeper, when judges have stones to ask handler to reheel, you hear a handler barking heel heel heel a dozen times until dogs' tail finally, barely, touches the mat, judges give number and everybody thinks it's OK. Meanwhile the honor dog has to sit there and listen to this crap. Was not honor dog's day interfered with during this circus? I'd like it if judges would simply tell the handler to pick up their dog at that point or at a minimum the creepers who don't heel on the first command should be dismissed. The sport after all is meant for the Non-Slip Retriever no?


Again great post Breck!


----------



## Mary Lynn Metras (Jul 6, 2010)

Deadbird said:


> ```
> 
> ```
> No never seen a master test with a dog at line with pass poor line manners. Especially when I'm at honor. I know opinions don't matter. Its pass or fail. I worry about my dog no one else's. Im not a judge. *Just was brought up to fix line manners if u need to before u run a test.*


Sounds like a plan!!


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

john fallon said:


> In the final analysis, if a dog handler team has superior work on the blinds and comperable marks to another dog handler team with lesser blinds, the dog handler team with the superior blinds will/should prevail.
> But under no circumstances that I have heard of or have encountered yet would I be comfortable placing a dog with the lesser marks and a superior blind, above the one with the superior marks and a passing blind.......
> 
> 
> john


John I hate these hypothetical judging scenarios, but given that if you had a competitive all-age dog which you handled in different parts of the country and if you judged in the other three time zones perhaps you would have a more flexible view than you have with your current situation, micromanaging the rule book on the internet is very far removed from reality.


----------



## Todd Caswell (Jun 24, 2008)

Breck said:


> Judging has gotten very lax. Nobody cares what a dog does on line anymore. Ha ever watch Lefty run.
> Dogs should sit tractably at heel in the position designated by the judges. This little tidbit is part of the rules.
> A dog does not belong 6 to 10 feet out in front of the handler by the time the last bird goes down. Often with a creeper, when judges have stones to ask handler to reheel, you hear a handler barking heel heel heel a dozen times until dogs' tail finally, barely, touches the mat, judges give number and everybody thinks it's OK. Meanwhile the honor dog has to sit there and listen to this crap. Was not honor dog's day interfered with during this circus? I'd like it if judges would simply tell the handler to pick up their dog at that point or at a minimum the creepers who don't heel on the first command should be dismissed. The sport after all is meant for the Non-Slip Retriever no?


I agree, not only is it interfering with the honor dog but it's intimidation as well and alot of them still don't listen.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

EdA said:


> John I hate these hypothetical judging scenarios, but given that if you had a competitive all-age dog which you handled in different parts of the country and if you judged in the other three time zones perhaps you would have a more flexible view than you have with your current situation, micromanaging the rule book on the internet is very far removed from reality.


This is the second time in as many days that *you* have told *me *that things are different in* your *corner of the world.
Could be....I don't know it to be the case. But I have heard that the best thing to ever come out of there was a North bound train.

I have judged with 8 point and National judges and winners from this and other time zones and at the end of the weekend we always seemed to reach an accord on the placements in short order.
But since you have chosen to snidely interject your thought on the validity my writings here, perhaps you will take the time to reply and to show those reading this why you are correct in the places where our rationals on the intent of the rules are at odds . 

john


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

"Never wrestle with a pig, you both will get dirty and the pig likes it". George Bernard Shaw


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

EdA said:


> "Never wrestle with a pig, you both will get dirty and the pig likes it". George Bernard Shaw


Ed 

I thought you were a faster learner. Paul Young and I quit arguing with Fallon several pages ago.

Ted


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> Ed
> 
> I thought you were a faster learner. Paul Young and *I quit arguing with Fallon several pages ago.*Ted



Yes you did, without clarifying your position I might add....

http://www.retrievertraining.net/fo...-in-a-Master&p=1200340&viewfull=1#post1200340

Ed on the other hand, in his usual atonomus fashion, even when asked never articulated a position ..........

john


----------



## Bubba (Jan 3, 2003)

Jeez John- everyone already surrendered- stop whacking that expired equine.

Brings to mind a favorite quote:

"He is not only dull himself; he is the cause of dullness in others." - Samuel Johnson

Last survivor regards

Bubba


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

You win, Mr. Fallon. It is clear to me now.

The way to properly interpret the rule book is to extract the part of a paragraph, phrase, or sentence that supports the position YOU feel is correct, and disregard the rest. Qualifying phrases have no bearing on the rest of the context.

"eye-flick" = movement with intent to retrieve, regards. 

JS


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

JS said:


> You win, Mr. Fallon. It is clear to me now.
> 
> The way to properly interpret the rule book is to extract the part of a paragraph, phrase, or sentence that supports the position YOU feel is correct, and disregard the rest. Qualifying phrases have no bearing on the rest of the context.
> 
> ...



JS

I am surprised it took you so long to reach this revelation.

Ted


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

JS said:


> You win, Mr. Fallon. It is clear to me now.
> 
> The way to properly interpret the rule book is to extract the part of a paragraph, phrase, or sentence that supports the position YOU feel is correct, and disregard the rest. Qualifying phrases have no bearing on the rest of the context.
> 
> ...


What is an eye flick ? Can one see one from behind the dog?

john


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

john fallon said:


> What is an eye flick ? Can one see one from behind the dog?
> 
> john


What??? :shock: You don't remember this thread:

http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?105366-Judges-Question-Derby/page3

You argued for two days that this was a controlled break. The only way you could possibly have come to that conclusion, according to the rule book, would be to interpret the eye-flick to be "creeping or forward movement".

Of course, you ignored that part of the language and maintained that as long as the handler said "sit", the judge is to assume he thought his dog was breaking.

I'm not going back there ... you can review it yourself, from the top.

JS

And no, one wouldn't see it from behind the dog, but that didn't seem to matter much in your assessment of that scenario either.

FYI:



> The BOOK *instruct the judges to treat a handlers talking to the dog between the time he signals for the birds and the time he is given his number as the handler believing that the dog was going to break....and to treat said talking as a controlled break.
> 
> In stakes that do not allow controlled breaks the dog is eliminated; in stakes that do allow for controlled breaks this talking should be judged accordingly.
> 
> ...


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

> > Originally Posted by JS
> > John, you can't use a chosen PART of a paragraph to draw a conclusion. The paragraph begins with, "If a dog on line creeps or jumps forward short of breaking ...". This dog did neither so your quoted admonition does not apply.
> >
> > JS
> ...


This along with the quote you refrenced above is what I told you then .... it still holds true today

john

BTW until you posted it here today I had never seen, heard or used the term eye "flick"
It was not in the OP, in the hypothetical, and I did not say it, so again they're your words ...so what is an eye "flick"?


----------



## Troy Tilleraas (Sep 24, 2010)

Breck said:


> Judging has gotten very lax. Nobody cares what a dog does on line anymore. Ha ever watch Lefty run.
> Dogs should sit tractably at heel in the position designated by the judges. This little tidbit is part of the rules.
> A dog does not belong 6 to 10 feet out in front of the handler by the time the last bird goes down. Often with a creeper, when judges have stones to ask handler to reheel, you hear a handler barking heel heel heel a dozen times until dogs' tail finally, barely, touches the mat, judges give number and everybody thinks it's OK. Meanwhile the honor dog has to sit there and listen to this crap. Was not honor dog's day interfered with during this circus? I'd like it if judges would simply tell the handler to pick up their dog at that point or at a minimum the creepers who don't heel on the first command should be dismissed. The sport after all is meant for the Non-Slip Retriever no?


I like the way you think, but the rule book tells us we have to do what before the honor dog is excused? Section 6 ...involving the retrieve of a marked fall(s) by remaining on the line off-lead while the working dog retrieves, unless otherwise directed or until dismissed by the judges. If that honor dog does not see a dog leave the line, that is another grumbling from the gallery... Its more fair to release the working dog, excuse the honor dog after working dog has left the line and then tell the working handler he/she is done...


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

john fallon said:


> BTW *until you posted it here today I had never seen, heard or used the term eye "flick"*
> It was not in the OP, in the hypothetical, and I did not say it, so again they're your words ...so what is an eye "flick"?


Well, this is the problem ... you don't read as well as you type. 

I'm preoccupied now but I will get back to you. Meanwhile, go back and LOOK at the thread we're talking about ... Ted's thread about the hypothetical Derby. Post #1. The description of the goings-on at the line. What did the dog do? What did the handler see? What did the handler do?

You skipped right over the crux of the argument. And it makes it a whole different story.

JS


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

JS said:


> Well, this is the problem ... you don't read as well as you type.
> 
> I'm preoccupied now but I will get back to you. Meanwhile, go back and LOOK at the thread we're talking about ... Ted's thread about the hypothetical Derby. Post #1. The description of the goings-on at the line. What did the dog do? What did the handler see? What did the handler do?
> 
> ...



Years ago on this very forum I took a similar position to yours while debating KG and Co. on the matter 

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...Ha2IBw&usg=AFQjCNGy--NiMDlQ13U2eKw4SjcDK9ojRQ

Based on their arguments and others on other threads , I have since had an ephany;-)

Long story short If you talk to your dog, the judges are to consider it to mean you thought that it was in the process of breaking and was brought under control by the sit.
In stakes such as the Derby and the Q it is a controled break. In the AA you are toast.......

john



john


----------

