# Field Trial Judging



## Kajun Kamakazi (May 17, 2011)

Can some of the many FT Judges on here explain to me how marks are judged. I'm familiar with how Hunt Test marks are judged, but I'm just starting to run in Q's and am curious in the differences. Are they judged with a numerical scoring like HT's? Thanks.


----------



## rboudet (Jun 29, 2004)

No. You are judged against the field. If you mean how the judges come to a conclusion on what wins. Simply put, its the one with the least amount of lead on the paper.


----------



## Kajun Kamakazi (May 17, 2011)

rboudet said:


> No. You are judged against the field. If you mean how the judges come to a conclusion on what wins. Simply put, its the one with the least amount of lead on the paper.


Makes sense, thanks.


----------



## Breck (Jul 1, 2003)

Download and study this PDF file for an education.
John Cavanaugh Judges Information. Version 5.0
.
http://www.weebegoldens.com/JudgesManual/Judging Manual Version 5.0.pdf

.

edit...
And another manual from John's partner in crime Mitch.
AKC Field Trials One Judge's Perspective
.
http://www.findretrievers.com/news/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/JUDGING-HANDBOOK2.pdf
.


----------



## Kajun Kamakazi (May 17, 2011)

Thanks Breck. I'll check them out. I've read the rulebook but it doesn't show much as far as the judging details of marking.


----------



## Breck (Jul 1, 2003)

Kajun Kamakazi said:


> Thanks Breck. I'll check them out. I've read the rulebook but it doesn't show much as far as the judging details of marking.


Study the 2 docs I posted for a few days. Then come back with questions.


----------



## moscowitz (Nov 17, 2004)

Breck two icons. I'm glad you posted. I'm downloading right now. I do judge but I only allow myself to judge the qual and derby. These two books will be invaluable. I wish Cavanaugh would give a seminar like in the old days. Even though he has been out of the game for awhile everything he says will not be outdated. I didn't know Mitch was his partner in crime. I had a great time at the chessie specialty with Mitch and Linda.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Kajun Kamakazi said:


> Thanks Breck. I'll check them out. I've read the rulebook but it doesn't show much as far as the judging details of marking.


Recognizing and evaluating both ends of the spectrum is easy, exceptional vs virtual failure. Since we are judging comparative performances the taking and keeping of accurate notes is imperative. Some judges use numerical scores, some use letter scores, and some like me just rely on notes and diagrams. Consistency is the key to judging so I find using scores difficult, to be consistent through 50 to 100 performances is hard. In the final analysis you must compare dog to dog at which point scoring systems give way to subjective evaluation.


----------



## Tim West (May 27, 2003)

Their is no standard to judge marks. There are as many systems and opinions on this as there are judges.

If I were you I would begin keeping a book and noting the tests that a particular judge sets up. There will be a pattern to most. When you get this judge again, it may provide some information on what to train on. It may also give you information on which judges you want to run from!


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

I draw pretty detailed diagrams with notes in my judging book. I notice some folks are able to be more streamlined but I don't trust my memory very well. 

I do use a tally sheet, where I lump each dog in each series into a one of 5 group from "Excellent" to basically failing. I tried using a number from 1-10 for each early on but found that what looks like a 6 for the first dog may turn out to be a 9 as things get going--too much precision lead to inconsistency, so I go with my 'buckets'. This is just a short hand though. At the end of the series, it saves me time since I know which dogs are sure call backs and which are not and which I need to take a deeper look at and perhaps discuss with my co-judge. It is pretty wholistic based on my gut, but seems to work pretty well and every minute you can save on callbacks is helpful.

On the last series, I try to take advantage of the time during the swim back to start looking at my diagrams and come up with, hopefully, a rough order of placements for the dogs that are left. Some times things are fairly obvious and I can review it all again and pretty quickly come up with my placements. Some times it is closer and more review needs to be done. So far, I have been lucky and never had any major disagreements with my co-judge. We may not have the same order and have to talk about them and discuss the whys of one dog vs another--this is when I find that detailed drawings are very helpful, for me. Like I said, though, some excellent judges seem to do very well with a lot less drawing.


----------



## Migillicutty (Jan 11, 2014)

I am curious as to why there is not a standard set forth. Is there no judges committee to look at and determine "best practice"? Do judges have to get re-qualified on a regular basis? There is subjectivity within any event when human judging is involved, but it seems a level playing field is best established when there is at least an effort to establish a recognized and agreed upon standard, along with some accountability as to placements. 

In reining horses (which I am very familiar), each judge must submit a score card for each class judged, that is available to be viewed by all. Also from an accountability standpoint all classes must be videoed and any complaints can be filed with the judges committee along with a $100 filing fee(this happens less than one would imagine because of all the checks and balances in place). On top of that judges must go to a judges school at least once every two (2) years and re-test for their judges card. 

I have seen on this site, FT judges vehemently disagreeing about the application of the rules. That seems troubling. I realize that a judges personal perspective and opinion will inevitably be injected into subjective critiques of performance, but it seems that at the very least the application of rules should be agreed upon by some governing body and adhered to uniformly.


----------



## Criquetpas (Sep 14, 2004)

Have had more then a few pros tell me as a judge I have a page on you. Lots open to interpretation in field trial judging, especially at the all-age level.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Migillicutty said:


> I am curious as to why there is not a standard set forth. Is there no judges committee to look at and determine "best practice"? Do judges have to get re-qualified on a regular basis? There is subjectivity within any event when human judging is involved, but it seems a level playing field is best established when there is at least an effort to establish a recognized and agreed upon standard, along with some accountability as to placements.
> 
> In reining horses (which I am very familiar), each judge must submit a score card for each class judged, that is available to be viewed by all. Also from an accountability standpoint all classes must be videoed and any complaints can be filed with the judges committee along with a $100 filing fee(this happens less than one would imagine because of all the checks and balances in place). On top of that judges must go to a judges school at least once every two (2) years and re-test for their judges card.
> 
> I have seen on this site, FT judges vehemently disagreeing about the application of the rules. That seems troubling. I realize that a judges personal perspective and opinion will inevitably be injected into subjective critiques of performance, but it seems that at the very least the application of rules should be agreed upon by some governing body and adhered to uniformly.


The comparison of judging video recorded equine arena events with prize money to judging retriever field trials is so preposterous that it scarcely rates a cursory reply, so my cursory reply is that there is no comparison.


----------



## swliszka (Apr 17, 2011)

EdA - Sooooo correct!


----------



## Todd Caswell (Jun 24, 2008)

I was told by a couple of very qualified experienced co judges to burn my sheets when I get home


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Todd Caswell said:


> I was told by a couple of very qualified experienced co judges to burn my sheets when I get home


I generally save the ones for the finishers for a month or so in the event that there is a clerical error. The score sheets are just a way to recall what we have seen and would bear no particular significance to someone just looking at them not having viewed the performances of the dogs.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Todd Caswell said:


> I was told by a couple of very qualified experienced co judges to burn my sheets when I get home


Some time ago when we had a pretty good amateur training group, I kept all my sheets. I would take the finishers from the last series, tape over the numbers and put the sheets out there for everybody to judge placements. Being an architect I tend to draw very detailed drawings. I did this fun practice over pizza three or four times over a two year period. You would be surprised in that almost every place, the group called it exactly as we judges did in the actual trial. There was the occasional discussion about weighing super blinds and good marks versus so-so blinds and excellent marks, things that get discussed here, but with actual sheets, it's a lot more definitive.

John


----------



## Migillicutty (Jan 11, 2014)

EdA said:


> The comparison of judging video recorded equine arena events with prize money to judging retriever field trials is so preposterous that it scarcely rates a cursory reply, so my cursory reply is that there is no comparison


I wasn't comparing the two from the standpoint of how they are judged. If you mean that judging them based on the same criterion is preposterous I would agree. If you believe removing the subjectivity in judging is preposterous, I would again agree. 

However, I would argue that adherence to a set standard of the application of the rules and accountability in any event, be it equine or dog related, is a worthwhile goal. I was merely using the NRHA as an illustration of a governing body, of a human judged animal event, as an illustration of how that particular body has instituted some controls whose intent, and purpose is to create as level a playing field as possible. Perhaps the AKC has similar controls in place. Thus my questions. 

Are you saying that because there is no prize money that it is not important?


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Migillicutty said:


> I wasn't comparing the two from the standpoint of how they are judged. If you mean that judging them based on the same criterion is preposterous I would agree. If you believe removing the subjectivity in judging is preposterous, I would again agree.
> 
> However, I would argue that adherence to a set standard of the application of the rules and accountability in any event, be it equine or dog related, is a worthwhile goal. I was merely using the NRHA as an illustration of a governing body, of a human judged animal event, as an illustration of how that particular body has instituted some controls whose intent, and purpose is to create as level a playing field as possible. Perhaps the AKC has similar controls in place. Thus my questions.
> 
> Are you saying that because there is no prize money that it is not important?


I am saying that I have been doing this since 1971 and you do not have a clue.


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

Ed, many of our judges have screwed things up since well before 1971. 

Our way of doing things may not be perfect just because we've alway done it this way... (Although I like the way the system works for the most part)


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

John Robinson said:


> Being an architect I tend to draw very detailed drawings.


I keep detailed drawings. Yours are detailed and good at the same time if you are an architect--and probably on a 1/16" scale . If I showed you my drawings, you would probably have no clue what you were looking at ("That is a tree?") but at least I know how I render things even if it doesn't look much like what it is supposed to.


----------



## Migillicutty (Jan 11, 2014)

EdA said:


> I am saying that I have been doing this since 1971 and you do not have a clue.


I have to admit I am a little taken a back by the condescension and defensiveness. Not sure what warranted that. I may not have a clue. I wasn't implying that changes needed to be made. I was asking a question out of genuine curiosity based on observations from reading dialogue on this board. Hopefully someone else can answer the question.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

I find it odd that you have so much interest in judging yet you have never run a field trial nor do you have a prospect at this point. I think it should be obvious that field trial events do not lend themselves to accurate video recording. To support what you think (based on an equine arena event) might improve judging would require huge sums of money and manpower which is not available. Every field trial in the country (8-10 every weekend) would require a video crew with multiple cameras recording 7-10 hours daily and that for just one stake. Then a qualified person would spend hours reviewing those videos. Retriever field trials are generally a sport of gentlemanly men and women and we have done fairly well with the current system for almost 75 years. Are there bad judges, certainly, are there dishonest judges, occasionally but the general population tends to identify and weed those out given time.


----------



## swliszka (Apr 17, 2011)

EdA--Yesssss.


----------



## Migillicutty (Jan 11, 2014)

EdA said:


> I find it odd that you have so much interest in judging yet you have never run a field trial nor do you have a prospect at this point. I think it should be obvious that field trial events do not lend themselves to accurate video recording. To support what you think (based on an equine arena event) might improve judging would require huge sums of money and manpower which is not available. Every field trial in the country (8-10 every weekend) would require a video crew with multiple cameras recording 7-10 hours daily and that for just one stake. Then a qualified person would spend hours reviewing those videos. Retriever field trials are generally a sport of gentlemanly men and women and we have done fairly well with the current system for almost 75 years. Are there bad judges, certainly, are there dishonest judges, occasionally but the general population tends to identify and weed those out given time.


Ed thanks for the response. 

To clarify a few a things, I do in fact have a prospect and do in fact plan on trying to run some FTs in the near future. I have purchased a fine dog that has a derby win and a RJ and several Jams in the Q(has run all age and is not a wash out). So my interest is not fleeting. I have an affliction of trying to learn as much as possible about any endeavor I involve myself in. 

For further clarity, I certainly was not suggesting that FTs need to be videoed. I am not sure why you are hanging up on the videoing portion of my original post. I also think your lack of knowledge of equine events and their judging protocols caused for some miscommunication in to what I was speaking to. No one reviews the videos from an equine event. They are just used as back up in some instances should a complaint be filed. I realize that this wouldn't work for FTs, again it was just an example of some controls put in place, not a suggestion of something that should be done. 

My main point was that it seems that there is not a general consensus on the application of certain rules/standards from what I have seen here and gathered from those I have spoken with actively involved in the sport. My curiosity begged the question as to why that was, and were there any controls in place to create such a consensus. I readily admit to my lack of knowledge and that this observation could be misguided. That is why I asked.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Migillicutty said:


> Ed thanks for the response.
> 
> My main point was that it seems that there is not a general consensus on the application of certain rules/standards from what I have seen here and gathered from those I have spoken with actively involved in the sport. My curiosity begged the question as to why that was, and were there any controls in place to create such a consensus. I readily admit to my lack of knowledge and that this observation could be misguided. That is why I asked.


Migillicutty, 
You need to realize this forum is not the real world. We take obscure points and present hypothetical scenarios that wouldn't happen in a thousand years, then argue them to death. I would bet that if you took two polar opposite posters and placed them in chairs as co-judges for a weekend field trial, there would be general consensus. Most of the things that get argued over ad infinitum would be readily agreed on if we were actually standing (sitting) there in person.


----------



## mjh345 (Jun 17, 2006)

This sport is great, but could greatly use an infusion of young enthusiastic individuals with newer ideas. 
Macgillicutty and his type need to be encouraged and welcomed, not ridiculed and scorned


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

mjh345 said:


> This sport is great, but could greatly use an infusion of young enthusiastic individuals with newer ideas.
> Macgillicutty and his type need to be encouraged and welcomed, not ridiculed and scorned


Is there a full moon? Total eclipse of the sun?

Healy and I have something on which we agree wholeheartedly...


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

at the end of the day all I want is:

1. a fair test, where my dog's safety will never be in question

2. the test will not favor one style of training over another

3. my dog will be judged fairly against the work of others on that test

4. the test will not be devised to trick or fool the dog, and my dog will be given every opportunity to show that they are able to challenge the test and excel


----------



## 2tall (Oct 11, 2006)

mjh345 said:


> This sport is great, but could greatly use an infusion of young enthusiastic individuals with newer ideas.
> Macgillicutty and his type need to be encouraged and welcomed, not ridiculed and scorned





huntinman said:


> Is there a full moon? Total eclipse of the sun?
> 
> Healy and I have something on which we agree wholeheartedly...


In fact, I think a glacier must have covered Hades. I agree with BOTH of you and doubt that I have ever agreed with either of you! As one of the relatively new people, I definitely see a need for some open discussion and consideration of new ideas to keep this game alive. A couple of my mentors have been around as long or longer than any of us RTF'rs, and they also see a need for some big changes in the old ways. My comment is certainly not based on any sour grapes. I have appreciated the tests designed and the judgements rendered by all the judges I have run under.


----------



## canuckkiller (Apr 16, 2009)

Continuing Bon's comment -

#5. And, properly meet the AKC Standard Procedure & Supplement for determing the Relative Merits of Natural Abilities & Trainable Qualities.

Bill Connor


----------



## CamoDog (Dec 9, 2010)

canuckkiller said:


> Continuing Bon's comment -
> 
> #5. And, properly meet the AKC Standard Procedure & Supplement for determing the Relative Merits of Natural Abilities & Trainable Qualities.
> 
> Bill Connor


x2 !!!!!!!


----------



## CamoDog (Dec 9, 2010)

mjh345 said:


> This sport is great, but could greatly use an infusion of young enthusiastic individuals with newer ideas.
> Macgillicutty and his type need to be encouraged and welcomed, not ridiculed and scorned


Couldnt agree more.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

When McGuillicuty shows up at the field trial and busts his butt the way I have for 40 years I will be the first to pat him on the back and ask him to come train with me. No one ever did that for me, I just forged along and made my own way. This is hard and the lifers do not need to have their backsides smooched, if you want to play step up, if you are timid or sensitive find another venue. If McGillicuty has been involved with high level horse sports he is neither timid or sensitive and if he wants to play he will look me up and not be put off.


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

Migillicutty said:


> I am curious as to why there is not a standard set forth. Is there no judges committee to look at and determine "best practice"? Do judges have to get re-qualified on a regular basis? There is subjectivity within any event when human judging is involved, but it seems a level playing field is best established when there is at least an effort to establish a recognized and agreed upon standard, along with some accountability as to placements.
> 
> I have seen on this site, FT judges vehemently disagreeing about the application of the rules. That seems troubling. I realize that a judges personal perspective and opinion will inevitably be injected into subjective critiques of performance, but it seems that at the very least the application of rules should be agreed upon by some governing body and adhered to uniformly.


Unlike horse events, the course is different every weekend & when individual judging teams look at that course 
it is up to them how the course is utilized. All within "Field Trial Rules & Standard Procedures for Retrievers including
Standing Recommendations of the Retriever Advisory Committee & the Supplement to the Standard Procedure". It has
been further clarified by the statement "Experience with dogs in the field" shown in one of the more ancient FT News. 

As for FT judges vehemently disagreeing on this site, you have more successful FT folks posting on this thread than 
will normally post in a months time on any subject on these forums. There are not a lot that even participate though 
some may lurk. 

There are ways of ensuring better judging but the rank & file seem happy (or won't say so) so it is the way it is .


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Marvin S said:


> Unlike horse events, the course is different every weekend & when individual judging teams look at that course
> it is up to them how the course is utilized. All within "Field Trial Rules & Standard Procedures for Retrievers including
> Standing Recommendations of the Retriever Advisory Committee & the Supplement to the Standard Procedure". It has
> been further clarified by the statement "Experience with dogs in the field" shown in one of the more ancient FT News.
> ...


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

Sometimes a little "dog sense" goes a long way... In addition to all the creative drawing and note taking. 

It helps to understand dogs a little. Some judges do, some don't.


----------



## Criquetpas (Sep 14, 2004)

huntinman said:


> Sometimes a little "dog sense" goes a long way... In addition to all the creative drawing and note taking.
> 
> It helps to understand dogs a little. Some judges do, some don't.


I have judged with some very artistic folks with obvious serious drafting experience who didn't have a clue about dog sense.


----------



## Greg Heier (Jan 3, 2009)

In certain contests, the best example of which is track and field, there will be very little controversy as to determining winners in that event... who has the fastest time, longest throw, longest jump etc? In any competition where humans judge and the results are not determined by fastest time or precise measurement like field trials or gymnastics or boxing or whatever, there will be disagreement on the judges' decisions no matter how clearly we attempt to define the criteria by which the competition is being judged. Such is life. Big picture..... despite much consternation over week to week callbacks or placements in field trials.....certain dogs emerge over time as "special' animals as they seem to make it to the last series more than they don't and are in contention for a placement significantly more than the rest of the field with whom they regularly compete. This suggests to me that judging is more alike than it is different despite all the differences in opinion that might arise on any particular issue or set up. Given this reality, I don't see the current system as broken and I don't see a solution that will somehow magically eliminate the controversies that inevitably arise in every sport where judges judge as opposed to time or measure.

Greg Heier


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

Migillicutty, AKC and NRHA are apples and oranges. Start adding big money purses, like the reiners have, to field trials and the rules would change fast (never gonna happen).

NRHA evolved out of a need to provide accountability because there was starting to be substantial prize money involved and the judges were all over the place. One would score a 74 and the next would give a 68 for the same run. I've been around the horse business long enough (long before NRHA) to remember the days when reining judges didn't have scribes, scorecards and videos....and before there was really even a point system and judges would arbitrarily give out a score based on overall impression rather than a specific set of additions and deductions.

Judging a field trial can't be done in anything close to the same fashion because of the variables involved, not just from weekend to weekend on different grounds with different tests, but because so much is situational and in the moment. 

The best way to learn is to not compare it to what you're already familiar with. Go, watch, help out, participate and keep a very open mind to figuring out the nuances. You'll learn as time goes by to recognize an outstanding performance when you see it, and figure out what made it so good. If people know you're honestly wanting to learn, you'll get lots of answers to your questions. But if you approach it in a "why don't they do it this way?" frame of mind, you'll likely get ignored. I have asked some really silly questions from time to time and gotten excellent and educational answers, from some of the "big guns" who were happy to educate. I didn't debate those answers, I digested them.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

All judges are kings. Unless of course they own goldens, then an argument could be made they are kings or queens.

/Paul


----------



## Criquetpas (Sep 14, 2004)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> All judges are kings. Unless of course they own goldens, then an argument could be made they are kings or queens.
> 
> /Paul


True while you are setting up, during the hunt test or trial, at the moment you turn in your results you become yesterday's garbage! until the next fiasco for your future throne.


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

Greg Heier said:


> In certain contests, the best example of which is track and field, there will be very little controversy as to determining winners in that event... who has the fastest time, longest throw, longest jump etc? In any competition where humans judge and the results are not determined by fastest time or precise measurement like field trials or gymnastics or boxing or whatever, there will be disagreement on the judges' decisions no matter how clearly we attempt to define the criteria by which the competition is being judged. Such is life. Big picture..... despite much consternation over week to week callbacks or placements in field trials.....certain dogs emerge over time as "special' animals as they seem to make it to the last series more than they don't and are in contention for a placement significantly more than the rest of the field with whom they regularly compete. This suggests to me that judging is more alike than it is different despite all the differences in opinion that might arise on any particular issue or set up. Given this reality, I don't see the current system as broken and I don't see a solution that will somehow magically eliminate the controversies that inevitably arise in every sport where judges judge as opposed to time or measure.
> 
> Greg Heier


For a judge that does not know what's happening they are called "Safe Dogs" - a dog that regardless of their performance 
can be placed higher than deserved without damaging the judges reputation. Rarely will you see the dog that deserved 
the ribbon get same in a trial where things go wrong if it does not come with reputation. That's an opinion voiced to me 
by someone whose experience in this sport probably runs into the 5 figures in dogs entered & viewed. 

Those special dogs you describe do exist, on some days they can be fairly common!!!!!!


----------



## 8mmag (Jan 1, 2010)

Marvin S said:


> For a judge that does not know what's happening they are called "Safe Dogs" - a dog that regardless of their performance
> can be placed higher than deserved without damaging the judges reputation. _*Rarely will you see the dog that deserved
> the ribbon get same in a trial where things go wrong if it does not come with reputation.*_ That's an opinion voiced to me
> by someone whose experience in this sport probably runs into the 5 figures in dogs entered & viewed.
> ...


Marv, can you explain your comment above better for me please. My simple mind doesn't understand what this sentence means. 
Thank you.


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

8mmag said:


> Marv, can you explain your comment above better for me please. My simple mind doesn't understand what this sentence means.
> Thank you.


It would have been better if you had left the entire statement in the quote with a hilite on the statement - 
BHG - Rarely do you see a good judge with solid credentials have issues with their testing that is their fault -
but it happens quite often with the less qualified - the rule of thumb under a weak set of judges is hope your dog 
doesn't do something out of the ordinary unless it is outstanding & then hope the judges are capable of recognizing 
same - but recognize weak judges will call back or place a dog that is getting a lot of publicity &/or a handler that 
is well known over someone without those attributes as it takes the pressure off the judges & furthers their quest for 
more assignments .

This is not an opinion I have sole possession of .


----------



## 8mmag (Jan 1, 2010)

Marv, I edited my original post per your suggestion. Thanks for the clarification, I thought you might have meant something like that. I'm a noob so I can neither agree nor disagree with your statement, but I can see a bit of logic to it. Not good logic for the lesser-known little guy so not fair logic, but I can understand it happening nevertheless.

How would you suggest a noob go about understanding which judges might be so inclined and those who are not? I have heard it said often on this forum that not all 8 point judges are good judges & vice-versa, so counting assignments alone can't be the answer. I know long-timers have books on judges, not so for newcomers...and it seems the veterans seem to 'protect' other veterans by keeping mum on these judges.

And do you think FT committees know who these judges are and select them anyway?


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

8mmag said:


> Marv, I edited my original post per your suggestion. Thanks for the clarification, I thought you might have meant something like that. I'm a noob so I can neither agree nor disagree with your statement, but I can see a bit of logic to it. Not good logic for the lesser-known little guy so not fair logic, but I can understand it happening nevertheless.
> 
> How would you suggest a noob go about understanding which judges might be so inclined and those who are not? I have heard it said often on this forum that not all 8 point judges are good judges & vice-versa, so counting assignments alone can't be the answer. I know long-timers have books on judges, not so for newcomers...and it seems the veterans seem to 'protect' other veterans by keeping mum on these judges.
> 
> And do you think FT committees know who these judges are and select them anyway?


Let's look at the situation from a different perspective, even if there are some questionable judges (not saying there are, and not saying there aren't) What are your choices ? Do you have the alternative circuit available or the resources to go and play at a different trial, miles away from those in your backyard...probably not..very few in the game have that kind of financial freedom to "pick their spots"

History has shown that the game has been somewhat self moderated and the inept judge will sooner rather than later find fewer and fewer assignments...FTC get a lot of feedback from contestants, they also run the trial themselves..You generally know when you have run under a good set of judges because even the contestants that may have been dropped will tell you so...

When you run under a good judge let them know it,no matter where or if you placed...a thank you after the trial and even a Thank You card after the trial goes a LONG way...conversely if you run into a less than adequate judge, just dont enter that stake next time if they judge again, FTC pay attention and they know when entries are down that "maybe" the judges they invited didnt quite attract the field they had hoped for....


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

8mmag said:


> How would you suggest a noob go about understanding which judges might be so inclined and those who are not? I have heard it said often on this forum that not all 8 point judges are good judges & vice-versa, so counting assignments alone can't be the answer. I know long-timers have books on judges, not so for newcomers...and it seems the veterans seem to 'protect' other veterans by keeping mum on these judges.
> 
> And do you think FT committees know who these judges are and select them anyway?


There are 2 keys - 1) Are they successful handlers in the stake they are judging? & 2) Do they train their own dogs for the most part? While not fool proof 
your best judges will fall in those categories! The Monday morning finishers & the 3 dog finishers are people to avoid.

Not all FT clubs are created equal - some really do a good job of selecting their judges & others are very haphazard in their selection. 



BonMallari said:


> Let's look at the situation from a different perspective, even if there are some questionable judges (not saying there are, and not saying there aren't) What are your choices ? Do you have the alternative circuit available or the resources to go and play at a different trial, miles away from those in your backyard...probably not..very few in the game have that kind of financial freedom to "pick their spots"
> 
> History has shown that the game has been somewhat self moderated and the inept judge will sooner rather than later find fewer and fewer assignments...FTC get a lot of feedback from contestants, they also run the trial themselves..You generally know when you have run under a good set of judges because even the contestants that may have been dropped will tell you so...
> 
> When you run under a good judge let them know it,no matter where or if you placed...a thank you after the trial and even a Thank You card after the trial goes a LONG way...conversely if you run into a less than adequate judge, just dont enter that stake next time if they judge again, FTC pay attention and they know when entries are down that "maybe" the judges they invited didnt quite attract the field they had hoped for....


At one time I might have agreed with that statement - one only need to run the dog history of recent National judges 
to see that theory refuted.


----------



## John Lash (Sep 19, 2006)

I guess if the "best judges" don't judge, but sit back and bemoan how bad the FT judging is, we are condemned to making do with less than adequate judges.


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

John Lash said:


> I guess if the "best judges" don't judge, but sit back and bemoan how bad the FT judging is, we are condemned to making do with less than adequate judges.


John, I don't know whether you are trying to be clever or what? But I have made the point of asking 
people who are eminently qualified why they don't judge more & the most common answer is that 
they have not been asked. Why would that be? 

This is your opportunity to contribute .


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

Marvin S said:


> John, I don't know whether you are trying to be clever or what? But I have made the point of asking
> people who are eminently qualified why they don't judge more & the most common answer is that
> they have not been asked. Why would that be?
> 
> This is your opportunity to contribute .


John judges Field Trials. He's already contributing.


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

Chris Atkinson said:


> John judges Field Trials. He's already contributing.


Chris - I asked John a question that deserves an answer. Then he would be contributing to this thread .



Marvin S said:


> I have made the point of asking people who are eminently qualified
> why they don't judge more & the most common answer is that they have not been asked.
> Why would that be?


----------



## John Lash (Sep 19, 2006)

As to why eminently qualified judges aren't being asked to judge, I have no idea. 
Personally I think by and large the people who are asked to judge, honestly try to do their best.
I hate to read the implications from the naysayers who say the judges are incompetent, corrupt and political.


----------



## Gary Wayne Abbott I (Dec 21, 2003)

I agree with John and well said.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Gary Wayne Abbott I said:


> I agree with John and well said.


Me too, well said by Mr. Lash...


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

John Lash said:


> *As to why eminently qualified judges aren't being asked to judge,* I have no idea.
> Personally I think by and large the people who are asked to judge, honestly try to do their best.
> I hate to read the implications from the naysayers who say the judges are incompetent, corrupt and political.


Here is my take on why some are not asked to judge ; When people exit the game whether their dog(s) retire or they just decide to not go thru the grind of campaigning another dog, We tend to forget about them.Also they may become a victim of the rule where they may not have competed in the last couple of years. I am sure that there are more than a few former qualified judges out there that no longer play on the circuit that would/could judge. Its not like they forgot how to set up a quality test, or that they forgot what good dog work looks like, but like many other instances in our society " out of sight, out of mind" seems to prevail


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

John Lash said:


> As to why eminently qualified judges aren't being asked to judge, I have no idea.
> Personally I think by and large the people who are asked to judge, honestly try to do their best.
> I hate to read the implications from the naysayers who say the judges are incompetent, corrupt and political.


I agree, well said.

Keep in mind some just like to keep grinding their ax, hoping to make a point, but instead they just end up with a dull blade in the end....bitterness/jealousy/hatred isn't very attractive.


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

You guys may not like Marvin's way of saying what he says... Maybe you don't even like the message. But sticking your head in the sand and pretending that everything is milk and homey is a joke. There are good judges and bad. We all know it. We just get stuck with the bad ones because there are not enough good ones to go around. It's just the way it is.


----------



## rboudet (Jun 29, 2004)

BonMallari said:


> Here is my take on why some are not asked to judge ; When people exit the game whether their dog(s) retire or they just decide to not go thru the grind of campaigning another dog, We tend to forget about them.Also they may become a victim of the rule where they may not have competed in the last couple of years. I am sure that there are more than a few former qualified judges out there that no longer play on the circuit that would/could judge. Its not like they forgot how to set up a quality test, or that they forgot what good dog work looks like, but like many other instances in our society " out of sight, out of mind" seems to prevail


The problem with getting those that are no longer in the game to judge is they no longer have a vested interest in the game. When the going gets tough, (bad weather, long delays waiting on dogs, or other issues that could and do arise) they tend to check-out and would rather not be there and sometimes it shows.


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

rboudet said:


> The problem with getting those that are no longer in the game to judge is they no longer have a vested interest in the game. When the going gets tough, (bad weather, long delays waiting on dogs, or other issues that could and do arise) they tend to check-out and would rather not be there and sometimes it shows.


I guess I look at the situation as a glass half full guy...Because they have no vested interest in the game I think they are more impartial, and if they are quality people they have enough pride to take their assignments seriously...If they arent totally committed to the stake then the invitation should have never been extended in the first place


----------



## Criquetpas (Sep 14, 2004)

Kajun Kamakazi said:


> Can some of the many FT Judges on here explain to me how marks are judged. I'm familiar with how Hunt Test marks are judged, but I'm just starting to run in Q's and am curious in the differences. Are they judged with a numerical scoring like HT's? Thanks.


In the most simple terms . in my opinion, field trial judging is a art, that requires find the best marking dog, the best trained dog (for the weekend). extensive experience or knowledge of the stake you are judging, bird placement, time management skills , fairness, etc. Numerically the scores can be anything from the education type scores A plus on down or score each bird, or scores each series blinds or marks. Many judges have their own systems. Most of the time, no matter the methods most judges are able to collectively come up with a winner. Once you have a winner, then the placements, the RJ and any JAMS are decided. Some judges bring their own agenda, like , dislikes, some are technocrats (RULES) , some are hard core marking types, some are more loose on line manners, rather to watch what goes on in the field, some are the unwritten rule of two mistakes and you will not be called back, especially in the all-age stakes. Some apply the minor and moderate rulebook faults differently , some more in accumulation of the faults etc. For the most part they are mostly honest, work hard to set up good tests, and like to watch good dog work. It is an art! that may take years of experience to develop. It has been said the only folks happy at the end of the trial are the two judges, the owner/handler (might be a pro) and the owner's significant other of the winning dog, but, think that is overstated.


----------



## rboudet (Jun 29, 2004)

BonMallari said:


> I guess I look at the situation as a glass half full guy...Because they have no vested interest in the game I think they are more impartial, and if they are quality people they have enough pride to take their assignments seriously...If they arent totally committed to the stake then the invitation should have never been extended in the first place


Unfortunely, its hard the know the level of commitment before adversity strikes.


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

rboudet said:


> The problem with getting those that are no longer in the game to judge is they no longer have a vested interest in the game. When the going gets tough, (bad weather, long delays waiting on dogs, or other issues that could and do arise) they tend to check-out and would rather not be there and sometimes it shows.


Hell, there are guys like that who are running dogs. What difference does that make?


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

rboudet said:


> The problem with getting those that are no longer in the game to judge is they no longer have a vested interest in the game. When the going gets tough, (bad weather, long delays waiting on dogs, or other issues that could and do arise) they tend to check-out and would rather not be there and sometimes it shows.


On the plus side, they are not going to make you judge their trial in return for their judging yours.


----------



## rboudet (Jun 29, 2004)

huntinman said:


> Hell, there are guys like that who are running dogs. What difference does that make?


So you are ok with someone that has been out of the game for 10 years judging a trial? Or what about someone who has never even stepped to the line in a Field Trial being asked to take the test so they can judge. Heck what difference does it make as long as there is a somewhat warm body in the chair drawing lines right?


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

rboudet said:


> So you are ok with someone that has been out of the game for 10 years judging a trial? Or what about someone who has never even stepped to the line in a Field Trial being asked to take the test so they can judge. Heck what difference does it make as long as there is a somewhat warm body in the chair drawing lines right?


1. I must be since I haven't run a dog in the all age since 2003. I have however been in the game for a long time and have run multiple Nationals and have had two titled dogs. I have judged continuously except for about two years during my sons final years in High School. Do you think folks such as myself are unqualified? If so, be sure not to run if I ever judge in your neck of the woods. 

2. In my humble opinion, I feel that all age judges should have at least run an all age dog. Even better if they trained it themselves. 

3. Your last sentence is just dumb.


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

John Lash said:


> As to why eminently qualified judges aren't being asked to judge, I have no idea.
> Personally I think by and large the people who are asked to judge, honestly try to do their best.
> I hate to read the implications from the naysayers who say the judges are incompetent, corrupt and political.


John - Thanks for your honest answer - Beware those who agree with your position. In most cases they have never owned 
a dog good enough to get the shaft, nor will they ever, so do not understand the emotion that goes into biting your tongue
& saying nothing when that happens. There are dog venues available if one does not strive for excellence in performance & 
that's where they should be playing. 

If Susie or Johnnie are unaware of what is going on & are still holding the book please explain to me the difference between 
that condition & the highlighted statements in your post? The end result will still be the same.

For the little guy who makes this sport possible by their unrewarded labors to not receive an award that would qualify their dog 
to run a national because of their perceived status is really sad. For many that will not happen often. It is especially sad when the
mechanism could easily be put in place to ensure that does not happen, but the ruling class will not go there. 

As I have on the back of the card that announced my website "Every well trained Field Trial Retriever deserves 
COMPETENT & IMPARTIAL judging capable of recognizing that Retriever's unique talents in competition".

What you are saying is, You don't agree with that statement!!! It is about the dogs, not the people judging them.


----------



## canuckkiller (Apr 16, 2009)

*Judging*

Nouveau Judging critics & 'others'.

There is a wide spectrum, range of reasons, the 'phone' "stops ringing" for
judging assignments. Some of these reasons are legit, others are not.

Irresponsible comment, flawed attitudes and prejudicial thinking are cancers 
in the game. 

Charlie Morgan's words ring true and should be re-read and remembered.
See what he says in his book - Charles Morgan on Retrievers, pages 144-152.

Bill Connor


----------



## RookieTrainer (Mar 11, 2011)

The next time I step to the line in an FT will be the first, so I obviously can't say if you are right or wrong. I am forced to ask if it is half as corrupt as you think it is, why in the world do you keep participating? I am not sure I would. Then again, it has been pretty clearly my fault when I have failed so far, so maybe I have not experienced the problems you describe as of yet. 

I would also say that discussions like these really make me want to put myself through what it would take to become a judge (FT or HT) and then give up 2-3 weekends per year to give back to the sport only to be called incompetent or corrupt. And while I understand the logic behind wanting a judge to have competed at a level to judge at that level, I think you can't necessarily generalize that because you can't do it (or haven't done it - yet) you can't tell when it is being done.



Marvin S said:


> John - Thanks for your honest answer - Beware those who agree with your position. In most cases they have never owned
> a dog good enough to get the shaft, nor will they ever, so do not understand the emotion that goes into biting your tongue
> & saying nothing when that happens. There are dog venues available if one does not strive for excellence in performance &
> that's where they should be playing.
> ...


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

huntinman said:


> 1. I must be since I haven't run a dog in the all age since 2003. I have however been in the game for a long time and have run multiple Nationals and have had two titled dogs. I have judged continuously except for about two years during my sons final years in High School. Do you think folks such as myself are unqualified? If so, be sure not to run if I ever judge in your neck of the woods.


People like yourself? No. You yourself? Yes, probably.  I think there is a certain 'out of sight, out of mind' when folks who run every weekend cease to do so for whatever reason. It is sort of a shame and I think that some very good judges may be left out of the mix.



huntinman said:


> 2. In my humble opinion, I feel that all age judges should have at least run an all age dog. Even better if they trained it themselves.


I don't disagree, but I am not going to freak out and start grumbling in the gallery if I got to the trial and saw that one of the judges had otherwise completed the requirements to judge an AA stake but had not yet run an AA trial--or very many. Lots of tangible experience is better, but there are also bad judges with lots of experience. Let's give folks a shot, at least.


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

The loudest grumblers are the ones that have never judged.-Paul


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

Marvin S said:


> John - Thanks for your honest answer - Beware those who agree with your position. In most cases they have never owned
> a dog good enough to get the shaft, nor will they ever, so do not understand the emotion that goes into biting your tongue
> & saying nothing when that happens. There are dog venues available if one does not strive for excellence in performance &
> that's where they should be playing.
> ...



Marvin, I went to your website last night but could not find your ratings for any judges. I clicked on every sidebar. Would you please send me a pdf of your ratings? Thanks in advance!-Paul


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Over the past five or so years, there has been a significant increase in the number of field trials that are held. Look at the Texas winter circuit, where there are more conflicting trials than ever. This means that there is an increasing demand for people to judge those trials. We have more older participants retiring from judging, and fewer new participants entering the sport, who are available to judge. That means that there is a shortage in supply.

Everyone has a formula for the ideal judge. I don't think that they necesssarily apply.

I have run under judges who train their own dogs. Some were good, some were not.
I have run under judges who don't train their own dogs. Some were good, some were not.
I have run under judges who are very successful competitors. Some were good, some were not.
I have run under judges who were not very successful competitors. Some were good, some were not.
I have run under judges who are currently active in the sport. Some were good, some were not.
I have run under judges who have been out of the sport for several years. Some were good, some were not.

There are some judges who are technically great, but hard on the help and club.
There are some judges who are easy to work with, but challenged in setting up tests.

In short, I don't think generalizations really apply.

Field trials are a reflection of our society in general.
- There are people who are dedicated and competent. There are people who are not.
- There are people who know what they are doing. There are people who do not.
- There are people who are influenced by reputation. There are people who are not.

By and large, I believe that people try to do their best.

Are there crooked judges? Of course, just like there are crooks throughout our society. But, I do not believe it is a pervasive issue - anymore than I believe that our society in general is over run by crooks.

Many times, placements that seem initially confusing are understood when you understand what the judge likes - or dislikes.
- Some judges care only about marks. Blinds are simply survival
- Some judges are very precise about their blinds. Failure to hit a keyhole is death
- Some judges care about line manners.
Once you understand their taste, placements and callbacks make more sense.

My analogy is to referees in football or umpires in baseball.
Some referees allow a lot of downfield contact. Other call pass interference.
Some umpires call the high strike. Others call the low one.
It is a different interpretation. Once you understand how the game is called, you adapt your behavior. 

Is there a conspiracy to keep qualified judges from field trials? I don't think so.

I think field trial clubs across the country do the best they can. Remember, this is a volunteer sport.

If a person is unhappy with the quality of judging, I suggest that they get active in their local club and become involved in obtaining judges. Then you can discover what the practical realities are of finding qualified judges are.

Overall, I think clubs and judges are doing the best they can, with very little thanks from us.

They deserve more appreciation from all of us.

Ted


----------



## 8mmag (Jan 1, 2010)

OK I just counted. I have run a mere 27 trials in my lifetime, and I thought the judging in 26 of them was fair, honest, and competent. We would all like to be 100% satisfied all the time, but I don't think you're gonna get much better than 96+% although it is a worthy goal worth striving for. I guess for me the glass is still half full.

I'm gonna get blasted by all the six sigma gurus out there for saying that I know...


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

paul young said:


> Marvin, I went to your website last night but could not find your ratings for any judges. I clicked on every sidebar. Would you please send me a pdf of your ratings? Thanks in advance!-Paul


Paul - the website does not rate judges - it's only purpose was to show there is an ample supply 
of judges to choose from if the amateurs who place in stakes are asked to judge same, which does 
not happen. 


When you need a lawyer you do not hire someone untrained in law
When you need an engineer you do not hire someone who is untrained in engineering
When you need a house built you are smart to hire an architect to design same
When your car doesn't run do you fix it yourself or hire a mechanic?

Not all of these people will do the best job, as an engineer I know there is vast difference 
in quality but most can get the job done, some much better than others. Like toast they 
pop up.

I know the amount of effort, preparation & skill that goes into creating a FT competitive dog 
as I am one of those who did most of the work myself, with a lot of mentoring from quality 
pro's & amateurs. To allow some who are as vastly untrained as some judges are sit in 
judgement of that effort makes little sense. 

Ted is a lawyer, his skill is making people put their own numbers on generalizations such as
his previous post. Nothing is absolute in FT's, so one cannot disagree with his generalizations. 
As some one who places great emphasis on fact & the numerical results of those facts, I would 
like him to quantify each of the generalizations he had time to place in play.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

8mmag said:


> OK I just counted. I have run a mere 27 trials in my lifetime, and I thought the judging in 26 of them was fair, honest, and competent. We would all like to be 100% satisfied all the time, but I don't think you're gonna get much better than 96+% although it is a worthy goal worth striving for. I guess for me the glass is still half full.
> 
> I'm gonna get blasted by all the six sigma gurus out there for saying that I know...


I have no idea how many field trials I have run but I can honestly say that your experience is within my normal range. The only judges I avoid are the dishonest ones who are few and far between. If a judge is honest and gives his or her best effort I might grumble privately but I always appreciate the commitment of time and effort for a generally thankless job.


----------



## canuckkiller (Apr 16, 2009)

A MEN!!

Connor


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

EdA said:


> I have no idea how many field trials I have run but I can honestly say that your experience is within my normal range. The only judges I avoid are the dishonest ones who are few and far between. If a judge is honest and gives his or her best effort I might grumble privately but I always appreciate the commitment of time and effort for a generally thankless job.


Ed - I would think you bright enough to recognize that while you are not a member of the ruling class, 
you are still FT royalty  & as such will receive different treatment than those who sit in the rows in back.


----------



## rboudet (Jun 29, 2004)

huntinman said:


> 1. I must be since I haven't run a dog in the all age since 2003. I have however been in the game for a long time and have run multiple Nationals and have had two titled dogs. I have judged continuously except for about two years during my sons final years in High School. Do you think folks such as myself are unqualified? If so, be sure not to run if I ever judge in your neck of the woods.
> 
> 2. In my humble opinion, I feel that all age judges should have at least run an all age dog. Even better if they trained it themselves. 3. Your last sentence is just dumb.


1. No I do not think you are unqualified. You have stayed in the game. So I don't understand why you are taking offense to this. So, if I run under you in "my neck of the woods" you wouldn't give my dog a fair shake because we have different opinions on judging? Good to know.

2. I feel the same way. I won't judge an open until I have at least finished one.

3. I was being sarcastic.


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

rboudet said:


> 1. No I do not think you are unqualified. You have stayed in the game. So I don't understand why you are taking offense to this. So, if I run under you in "my neck of the woods" you wouldn't give my dog a fair shake because we have different opinions on judging? Good to know.
> 
> 2. I feel the same way. I won't judge an open until I have at least finished one.
> 
> 3. I was being sarcastic.


This is a prime example of how black and white print can be misinterpreted. I give every dog (and handler) the same fair shake. At least I try to. 

We probably agree more than disagree.


----------



## rboudet (Jun 29, 2004)

huntinman said:


> This is a prime example of how black and white print can be misinterpreted. I give every dog (and handler) the same fair shake. At least I try to.
> 
> We probably agree more than disagree.


I agree!!!!


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

8mmag said:


> OK I just counted. I have run a mere 27 trials in my lifetime, and I thought the judging in 26 of them was fair, honest, and competent. We would all like to be 100% satisfied all the time, but I don't think you're gonna get much better than 96+% although it is a worthy goal worth striving for. I guess for me the glass is still half full.
> 
> 
> 8mmag said:
> ...


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

8mmag said:


> OK I just counted. I have run a mere 27 trials in my lifetime, and I thought the judging in 26 of them was fair, honest, and competent. We would all like to be 100% satisfied all the time, but I don't think you're gonna get much better than 96+% although it is a worthy goal worth striving for. I guess for me the glass is still half full.
> 
> I'm gonna get blasted by all the six sigma gurus out there for saying that I know...


It seems like we have this debate every year. Those of us that pretty much agree with your position are considered hopelessly naïve Pollyanna's by Marvin. Ed Aycock maybe part of FT royalty but I certainly am not. Have I been disappointed in getting a JAM where I thought a placement was in order, or a second where I thought we won? Sure, but not once did I ever think it was politics or a dishonest judge. I have a very short list of judges who's test I don't like and some judges that are not fun to run under, but none that I can think of as dishonest. 

I believe the number one component in judging is choosing a person with _good judgment_. I'm talking about the kind of person who in general day to day life, is quick to recognize and sum up situations, make a judgment of said situation and act accordingly. In addition that person needs to possess good dog sense. Some people just seem to naturally understand what makes dogs tick, while others no matter how many years they spend around dogs, just don't get it. Thirdly that person needs to know the rules inside and out, and have the integrity to adhere to those rules. 

Rboudet, I have run under Bill. He is one of the good ones, good test, fair call backs and one of those judges that puts the handler at ease when he is running his dog, you would like him.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

rboudet said:


> I agree!!!!


Looks like you guys are back on track.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

John Robinson said:


> Ed Aycock maybe part of FT royalty .


I have been accused of many things both accurate and inaccurate but I do not think I have ever been accused of that.

Being outspoken about field trial matters does not generally endear oneself to "FT royalty or the ruling class". That being said I have been fortunate to share my home with several members of field trial canine royalty so perhaps that makes me guilty by association.


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

EdA said:


> I have been accused of many things both accurate and inaccurate but I do not think I have ever been accused of that.
> 
> Being outspoken about field trial matters does not generally endear oneself to "FT royalty or the ruling class". That being said *I have been fortunate to share my home with several members of field trial canine royalty* so perhaps that makes me guilty by association.


Now you're talkin';-)


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

EdA said:


> I have been accused of many things both accurate and inaccurate but I do not think I have ever been accused of that.
> 
> Being outspoken about field trial matters does not generally endear oneself to "FT royalty or the ruling class". That being said I have been fortunate to share my home with several members of field trial canine royalty so perhaps that makes me guilty by association.


I kinda thought of you as the Duke Of Windsor of the FT game....


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

John Robinson said:


> Those of us that pretty much agree with your position are considered hopelessly naïve Pollyanna's by Marvin.


You are wrong in your assumption. I believe you have low standards when better is easily available & that is 
not good for the game. I have offered the website & database to both Retriever News & a couple of folks in 
the ruling class but to date there are no takers. Why do you suppose that would be the case? 

When I was choosing judges, which was the prerogative of the POTC & this was in the days before all info 
was easily gathered I still found it easy to line up quality judges. & I will add we could fly them in from near 
& far as the airlines were engaged in price wars. So I did it this way:

1) I asked all board members plus a couple of members who they would like to see judge our trial during my term in office
2) After submission there were names that were on more than 1 list, so they got vetted 1st
3) I went through 10 years of FT News to see if there were any missteps, those who finished less than 4 dogs were dropped
4) I then called the people submitted & gave them their choice of 2 years of trials (Spring & Fall) 

Using that procedure we were able to have a high quality judge in all stakes paired with a local who was active & also worked our trials. 
Among those high quality judges was the Duke of Windsor. I know who he is, he wouldn't recognize me in a lineup .

One of my favorite pastimes going to a National to participate or work was watching the ruling class & the FT royalty parade & preen!



BonMallari said:


> I kinda thought of you as the Duke Of Windsor of the FT game....


That's clever!


----------



## roseberry (Jun 22, 2010)

marvin,
i have never considered judging. one reason is i don't have the necessary experience. the second reason is i like marshalling. the third is i am usually dishonest. being honest is over rated and usually causes me some kind of grief in life.;-) 

here is an example:
yesterday was really nice weather. since the time has changed it doesn't get dark until 7pm. before going out to train i told my wife i would only run two marking sets and a couple of blinds. i said i would be home by six and take her to dinner.

i was training in this field that is adjacent the back lawn of a condominium complex, a large hedge row divides the two. the marking sets were done and i had a double blind with one of the blinds planted by the hedge row. the first two dogs ran the blinds nicely. the third, a bitch, lined the first blind. when i sent her for the second she slipped my whistle, ran through the hedge row and got lost. i whistled and she wouldn' come back through the cover. (some folk have seen her do this recently) so i went out to get her.

when i stepped through the bushes i saw a young beautiful woman sunning in a bikinni. she was petting my blf and sharing a ham sandwich with her. the lady asked if i wanted a sandwich and a glass of lemonaid. i agreed and she invited me inside. well one thing led to another and when i came to my senses i noticed it was 8 pm. i thanked the young lady for the refreshments and ran to my truck. all the way home i was trying to think of a lie to tell my wife that would explain me getting home two hours after i said i would and one hour after dark. i couldn't come up with a good lie and decided that honesty was the best policy.

when i came through the door she said, "WHERE IN THE WORLD HAVE YOU BEEN?" i answered, "honey, i ran 'ol quiz' on this blind. she went through a hedge and didn't come back. i went to get her and this beautiful young woman was sunning in the yard. she invited me in for a sandwich and some lemonaid......one thing led to another and......" 

she interupted me immediately and said, "YOU LYING SACK OF $#IT, YOU RAN FOUR SETUPS AGAIN!!!!!" so much for honesty?


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

roseberry said:


> marvin,
> i have never considered judging. one reason is i don't have the necessary experience. the second reason is i like marshalling. the third is i am usually dishonest. being honest is over rated and usually causes me some kind of grief in life.;-)
> 
> here is an example:
> ...


John, you are over qualified to judge and are hereby nominated as permanent Field Trial Chairman for your club!;-)


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

I have read much of this thread, with some amusement, I might add. Recall someone pressing ED for a defined judging std. There is a std I think that most judges follow. Here's an over-simplication. If you place a mark on your paper, as a judge, showing the place from which all dogs are required to start, then place a mark on your paper for the location of each bird thrown or shot, then draw straight lines between the start & the location where each mark falls, then you have a std of performance. Then trace the actual performance of each dog for each mark once the dog reaches the area of the fall (in the case of marks) & note the performance or hunt in and around the area of the falls for each dog before the dog retrieves the bird. For blinds, draw a straight line between the starting line and the blind location. For each dog running the blind note the deviation from the straight line. Then choose the winner as the dog with the least deviation from the straight lines, i.e., the smallest, shortest hunts (in the area of the falls as we are cautioned not to judge lines to the AOF by the governing rules) & the least deviation from the straight lines on the blinds. The evaluation is relative among the competing dogs with appropriate weight of the marks and blinds as per the governing rules for the particular stake being judged. Be consistent in judgement between the dogs & follow the governing rules.

And I think someone said it with even more simplification, the dog with the least lead on the paper wins....usually.


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

Lines on paper... That's all well and good. But it doesn't take into account style. You could have a dog walk perfectly straight to all the marks... But would you want to sit and watch that? Or ask anyone else to have to do it for another 
series. 

I do know of this happening... And the dog being rewarded. But if you can watch the dog enter the water, and have time to go to your truck have a sandwich, have a cold drink and get back to the gallery before the dog has finished the test... I don't care how straight it's going, we have a problem. (Unless the dog is geriatric) the dog I am thinking of was in its prime. 

But for the newbies reading this... Field trials are (or, in my opinion) about much more than just lines on the paper.
(Though David's description is pretty good)


----------



## RF2 (May 6, 2008)

roseberry said:


> marvin,
> i have never considered judging. one reason is i don't have the necessary experience. the second reason is i like marshalling. the third is i am usually dishonest. being honest is over rated and usually causes me some kind of grief in life.;-)
> 
> here is an example:
> ...


You are a lying sack of $#!+. Anyone that's seen your dogs knows you aren't training. :razz:


----------



## golfandhunter (Oct 5, 2009)

roseberry said:


> marvin,
> i have never considered judging. one reason is i don't have the necessary experience. the second reason is i like marshalling. the third is i am usually dishonest. being honest is over rated and usually causes me some kind of grief in life.;-)
> 
> here is an example:
> ...


Allen, you just have to wonder, what the Hell is going on in that boys mind? Ya know he ain't training if he's got time think up all this $h!t


----------



## Dave Burton (Mar 22, 2006)

Doesn't really apply to the question but just a comparison dog game judging perspective. I've not ran a retriever FT yet,just HT's (but I'm coming) but have ran and judged many bird dog FT's. Here is how most of them work: Two judges on horses watching between 60 and 100 dogs and handlers run two at a time and picking 3 placements(2 placement in championships) WITHOUT EVER MAKING A NOTE. Some will keep a small note pad and write something after each brace but not many. I have witnessed judges riding and chatting and never even look at so and so's dog. Then when a popular dog(or handler) runs they are up in the stirrups watching. I still judge every now and then and how I was taught by a very good judge was that the 1st two dogs that run are 1st and 2nd then the next good dog either is third or bumps the other one or two down a notch and so on for the whole trial. After writing that I'm even more glad I got out of that game. I learned early on to taking a butt kicking and move on to the next one. If your dogs are good enough they can't deny you forever.


----------



## redline (Apr 19, 2003)

Forget the book. (it's important but just for keeping notes)
look for the best judges in your area. Study their marks and the relationship to each other. Where they run from, conditions, etc.
Think why they did what they did or didn't. 
Did what they did work. Why or why not? Try to get the big picture. Draw some pictures yourself.
Although there will always be a few questionable dogs 90%+ will take care of themselves bad or good, if you set up good fun marks!
It can and should be that simple. As for the 10% we're not sure about? Decide! After all you are 1/2 the judge. Just be consistant.
Jan


----------



## roseberry (Jun 22, 2010)

golfandhunter said:


> Allen, you just have to wonder, what the Hell is going on in that boys mind? Ya know he ain't training if he's got time think up all this $h!t


allen and gregg,
thanks for the vote of confidence. i take it as a compliment that if my dogs look bad the two of you assume i have not been training!

when you guys have dogs that do poorly, i have always assumed y'all were training.............poorly!;-)


----------

