# Judging Field Trials



## Lorri (Dec 18, 2003)

As most of you know, I haven't run a field trial in about 1 1/2 - 2yrs. I am still active judging and will still attend local trials when my job permits. That, being said, I have talked to folks in the gallery and many are saying that judging has become very unfair and the word "political" gets used a lot. Now, if you judge enough you will get called "political" at some point. I would like to hear from folks, that if this is true, and we are seeing this more and more how do we prevent these folks from judging. I did see an open where there were at least 2 dogs that ran and crushed the 1st test. They weren't call back! I asked why, and someone said well so and so is judging and if he doesn't like you, you won't get called back! How does this happen? Both handlers questioned via the marshall and were not called back. Is this why we have a field trial committee? Why don't they act? 
Please don't point fingers but lets figure a way to alleviate this growing problem. Thjs forum can be put to good use. This is a great tool if we use it wisely.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

I've only been running FTs since 1995 but I have heard about political judging from day one, especially back in the old days when it was said by certain judges they would never give the win to a Golden for example. That said, I can honestly say I haven't witnessed it personally. I have seen some questionable call backs and placements here or there, but I wouldn't call them dishonest. Sometimes certain judges have certain pet peeves in dogs, put greater or lesser emphasis on certain traits. I know judges that will drop a dog for lack of style or voice for example while another judge completely ignores it. I am able to anticipate my call backs 90% of the time, and I usually know when I'm in the money, just not exactly where.

I really don't think it is a very big problem right now.


----------



## Mistyriver (May 19, 2005)

I thnk it still can happen. Fortunately there are 2 judges. I always wondered if any impact on a decision if the judge is also the breeder of dogs x,y, and z running under them.


----------



## labguy (Jan 17, 2006)

Good dog work is good dog work and personal biases should never, ever enter into a judging decision. This hurts everyone in the game and does a huge disservice to every dog and every competator no matter where they place in an event. 

If some judges are in fact "political" then it seems to me that it is the responsibility of the host club and the FT committee to refrain from asking these judges again. 

I myself have never seen this. I have seen some bad judging where mistakes were made but never (as far as I know) intentional ones. 

In the trial you saw, where the 2 dogs weren't called back, it is possible that a mistake was made. A good way of finding out is to ask the judges yourself their reasoning for dropping those dogs. A good judge will have no problem discussing their decisions and even showing you the sheets. 

Listening to what people in the gallery say is a poor way of forming a conclusion about something as the gallery is usually a fair way off line and has preconceived notions of reality and lots of their own biases. Go straight to the source and it will help avoid rumor and innuendo. 

Maybe the dropped dogs were noisy on line, maybe the handler touched/pushed the dog with his knee, maybe the dogs left line before being given a number, maybe the handler was talking quietly to the dog as the guns went off.....who knows. Many things could have happened on line that people in the gallery didnt see.

This is a funny game and an interesting study in human nature. I've never seen any group that is more prone to gossip, rumor mongering, backstabbing, sniping and generally poor manners and sportsmanship than competative retreiver people.

If there is blatant unfair judging and politics then there are channels available to deal with it. 

Formal complaint regards and this is...............................JMHO


----------



## Fred Warf (Mar 7, 2005)

Quote ( They weren't call back! I asked why, and someone said well so and so is judging and if he doesn't like you, you won't get called back! How does this happen? Both handlers questioned via the marshall and were not called back. Is this why we have a field trial committee? Why don't they act?)

Lori - committee has NO input on call backs - only if a test is unsafe or is not with in the rules. It takes 2 judges to drop a dog, it only takes 1 judge to carry a dog - so both have to agree to drop.


----------



## Lorri (Dec 18, 2003)

Misty River, I have been in that situation where I have had to judge my own breeding. Three times actually. On all 3 ocassions I deferred to my co judge TOTALLY!


----------



## MikeBoley (Dec 26, 2003)

Mistyriver said:


> I thnk it still can happen. Fortunately there are 2 judges. I always wondered if any impact on a decision if the judge is also the breeder of dogs x,y, and z running under them.



I am certain I have seen this happen.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

labguy said:


> This is a funny game and an interesting study in human nature. I've never seen any group that is more prone to gossip, rumor mongering, backstabbing, sniping and generally poor manners and sportsmanship than competitive retriever people.


While this is a rather broad generalization which applies only to a minority of people involved there is more than a little truth to it.


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

When I first got int the game I was helping a AA stake. One of the judges was likely the 1st AA judging assignments and the other was a well known and likely a HOF inductee or may already be in the HOF. While rebirding and some folks came up to the line to look at the last series someone asked where so and so was. The senior judge spouted off who gives a [email protected]#* they will only get a greenie because they have not been around long enough and have yet to pay their dues. 

The co judge did not say anything but had a look of shock on her face. I was new to the sport and did not know what to do or who to talk to. Hopefully stupid crap like this goes away. Maybe this mentality died along with him. 

If this had happened currently I would have made sure things would have surely turned out differently.


----------



## Kyle B (May 5, 2005)

Unfortunately, this is how we all start our "Won't Run Under" lists. Fortunately, my list is pretty short.....but I will drive over those trials or not run at all rather than run under those judges. 

Sure it takes 2 to drop, but I have seen it over and over again where you have a really senior judge and a no or low point judge just get bulled over for call backs and placements (and sometimes 2 senior judges but one just doesn't care enough to argue). 

The good part of this is there are some judges out there that we all want to run under. Not because they give "us" the nod, but you know their tests are fair, well thought out, don't rely on circus tricks, etc and they themselves are fair to friends, enemies and people they don't know. Best way to find those judges......sit next to them in the chair.


----------



## Lorri (Dec 18, 2003)

I have been very blessed with the people I judged with. When it has come time to do placements everything has been spot on. At some point you will have to judge your best friend, pro and dogs you have bred. I have had some wonderful mentors that have taught me to tune out everything but dog work. If you can't be fair just say no thanks!


----------



## 24116 (May 8, 2004)

I guess I believe the game today is the same game it was 30 years ago just dogs and people. But because of cell phones and the internet the politics bitching and whining is just so much more in your face.


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

B Peterson said:


> I guess I believe the game today is the same game it was 30 years ago just dogs and people. But because of cell phones and the internet the politics bitching and whining is just so much more in your face.


true to a certain extent...but what info, aka gossip,inuendos, or perceived errors in judgement used to take days, now is viral within minutes via a text message or email..some say there is a dwindling pool of capable judges but I think there are still a few qualified judges out there that no longer actively campaign a dog,so they are not being considered because they aren't on the "circuit"...


----------



## greg magee (Oct 24, 2007)

labguy said:


> This is a funny game and an interesting study in human nature. I've never seen any group that is more prone to gossip, rumor mongering, backstabbing, sniping and generally poor manners and sportsmanship than competative retreiver people.


Obviously you've never been to a cub scout pinewood derby competition.
And the horse people aren't far behind.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Unfortunately, politics exist in FT. Fortunately, not as much as some believe.

Unfortunately, poor judging (bad tests, bad evaluation of dog work) also exists. 
Unfortunately, more than some would believe

Neither can be alleviated by the Field Trial Committee.


----------



## Mike W. (Apr 22, 2008)

> I always wondered if any impact on a decision if the judge is also the breeder of dogs x,y, and z running under them.


Interesting. I know of two trials in the last 60 days where the winner was bred by one of the judges. Probably just a coincidence.


----------



## Gawthorpe (Oct 4, 2007)

It is too easy to point to politics as to why someone placed, or was dropped in a field trial. One thing that comes up time and time again is that those that commit the most, work the hardest and give back to the sport tend to do better than those that do not.

In my region many people come to mind that have the attributes mentioned above. Fortunately, very few people come to mind that are political manipulators of the game.


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

Kyle B said:


> Unfortunately, this is how we all start our "Won't Run Under" lists. Fortunately, my list is pretty short.....but I will drive over those trials or not run at all rather than run under those judges.
> 
> Sure it takes 2 to drop, but I have seen it over and over again where you have a really senior judge and a no or low point judge just get bulled over for call backs and placements (and sometimes 2 senior judges but one just doesn't care enough to argue).
> 
> The good part of this is there are some judges out there that we all want to run under. Not because they give "us" the nod, but you know their tests are fair, well thought out, don't rely on circus tricks, etc and they themselves are fair to friends, enemies and people they don't know. *Best way to find those judges......sit next to them in the chair.*




Yep, it's the best way to find both the good & the bad (both political & unknowledgeable) among judges. Have to admit, like most folks, I too have a list of judges I prefer not to run under, but it's short.


----------



## labguy (Jan 17, 2006)

Ted Shih said:


> Unfortunately, politics exist in FT. Fortunately, not as much as some believe.
> 
> Unfortunately, poor judging (bad tests, bad evaluation of dog work) also exists.
> Unfortunately, more than some would believe
> ...



I don't understand the logic with the last line in the above post................By acknowleging the problems and never inviting those poor judges or the ones who let politics interfere with their decisions, to judge for that trial again................the Field Trial Committee and host club could do much to alleviate the problem.

Or am I missing something obvious here???


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

I can remember posting on this very subject in about 2003 and being told that it was a figment of my imagination.

john


----------



## kip (Apr 13, 2004)

labguy said:


> I don't understand the logic with the last line in the above post................By acknowleging the problems and never inviting those poor judges or the ones who let politics interfere with their decisions, to judge for that trial again................the Field Trial Committee and host club could do much to alleviate the problem.
> 
> Or am I missing something obvious here???


 i tried and got wrote up.


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

If only I could set up the test and judge my own dog!
No gossip, no politics, no complaining......
Tim


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

> This is a funny game and an interesting study in human nature. I've never seen any group that is more prone to gossip, rumor mongering, backstabbing, sniping and generally poor manners and sportsmanship than competative retreiver people.


You forgot one...* Paranoia*

People who compete in the breed ring are just as bad... I always wonder how much fun they can be having???

Angie


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

labguy said:


> I don't understand the logic with the last line in the above post................By acknowleging the problems and never inviting those poor judges or the ones who let politics interfere with their decisions, to judge for that trial again................the Field Trial Committee and host club could do much to alleviate the problem.
> 
> Or am I missing something obvious here???


I am referring to decisions on callbacks or placements. Those are in the sole discretion of the judges. The FTC has no role in either and should not try to influence either.

As for who gets invited to judge, that is up to the club members, who may or may not compose the FTC.


----------



## labguy (Jan 17, 2006)

Ted Shih said:


> I am referring to decisions on callbacks or placements. Those are in the sole discretion of the judges. The FTC has no role in either and should not try to influence either.
> 
> As for who gets invited to judge, that is up to the club members, who may or may not compose the FTC.


I understand all that. I think we're on exactely the same page.........but the question is..........Why do more clubs not nip these behaviors in the bud and stop inviting these poor judges back? 

Judging mistakes are one thing but blatant favoritism and politics is another that does no good for the sport or anyone involved in it. 

If poor judges are continually invited to judge and they are not improving their skills with each judging assignment then poor judging is the responsibility of the clubs hosting an event.

What's wrong with my thinking here???


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

First, I don't think the problem with political judges is that widespread.

Second, most clubs are composed of only a handful of members and those members may not run many FT's out of their geographic area. If you don't run outside of your area, it is hard to know who does what.

Third, alot of this is just time in the saddle. Until you compete alot, judge alot, and travel alot, most of what you hear, is just that, hearsay. Once you get the time in the saddle, you have a better feel for what is out there.

Finally, charity starts at home. Before I got on any particular club's case about its selection process, I would consider what my club was doing. If we all take care of business at home, there would be no problems elsewhere.


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

labguy said:


> I understand all that. I think we're on exactly the same page.........but the question is..........*Why do more clubs not nip these behaviors in the bud and stop inviting these poor judges back?*
> 
> Judging mistakes are one thing but blatant favoritism and politics is another that does no good for the sport or anyone involved in it.
> 
> ...


I think you know the answer but just in case , here is my educated guess...some if not many FT clubs are controlled/dominated by a handful and in some cases one or two individuals that ultimately make the final decisions as to who gets invited to judge..also some clubs will usually invite a judge where someone has a personal connection with that person, or a person that has run that particular trial and is open to traveling to that locale...

Some clubs just seem to attract the top judges year in year out, and it shows in the large fields that they attract, whether that is because they have the reputation of treating their judges better than others or that they have better grounds or just a more desired location..

It still comes down to who is making the invitation/decision for that particular club


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> *If we all take care of business at home, there would be no problems elsewhere.*


That's brilliant!

SM


----------



## fetchtx (May 12, 2005)

After many years, one compiles many memory's of what can be called miscues, mistakes, politics, favorites etc etc. Lots of these can be attributed to emotion, attachment, ignorance on both handler and judges parts. 
I guess my own feeling is sorta a three strike rule and if I see the same kind of stuff going on with a particular judge then I save the entry fee after that and edit my list. 
For the most part good clubs with dedicated members tend to weed out these kind of judges or contestants and move on. 

Of the "Good the Bad and the Ugly" usually the Bad and Ugly fall by the wayside and the drive home is more enjoyable.


----------



## labguy (Jan 17, 2006)

BonMallari said:


> It still comes down to who is making the invitation/decision for that particular club


And this is exactly my point. The people making the invitations/decisions don't seem to "get it".

Maybe this just isn't fixable. Maybe it's not even broken. I certainly don't have the answers and the people who have been in the game forever don't seem to either.

Maybe it does all come down to what my friend and training partner (whose been in the game for 40 plus years) is always saying........... 

"Run your dog, shut the F... up and be happy there's someone there to judge it."

The more I'm around this game the more I'm thinking that this is pretty solid advice.

Going training regards,


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

> Second, most clubs are composed of only a handful of members and those members may not run many FT's out of their geographic area. If you don't run outside of your area, it is hard to know who does what.


The above quote from Ted is very pertinent. So many times when we're sitting around talking about who to get as a judge the names are just names and not people who have set up tests we have run and thought were good well thought out tests. Many times we've gotten a warm body no one really knew. Mostly they work out well. Sometimes not so well.


----------



## J. Walker (Feb 21, 2009)

I'm new to the field trial game. My pup will be running his first Derby in November. However, I've attended and worked at a number of trials. Maybe this seems trivial but when I see dog after dog being brought to the line by pros and serious amateurs while the judges and handlers greet each other by name, it doesn't seem like much of a stretch for judges to favor the pros and serious amateurs, if only slightly, that show up at trials week in and week out purely due to familiarity. I have to think if a judge has judged or run against a handler and particular dog and on a day in question, if the dog does work that puts him on the bubble for a callback, a judge may call the dog back anyway if he or she has seen better work out of the dog at a previous trial. In comparison, I would think some judges would drop another dog with which they were unfamiliar for the same level work just because they hadn't seen better work out of the dog previously. This is purely speculation though and is in no way directed at anyone who may judge me and my dog in the future.


----------



## Lorri (Dec 18, 2003)

Angie, I am also a conformation person, I show my own dogs. No matter what venue you compete in you do it because you enjoy it. Conformation judges don't have as much freedom as trial judges. They can't see a catalog, go out to dinner with someone showing under them and in some cases can't be on the show grounds till it is there time to judge. Oh, they do get paid per entry as well. I think trial judges should not be allowed to go out to dinner with their pro or look at the catalog only after their placements are done. I also think if a judge (no matter what venue) should be penalized for errors.


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

greg magee said:


> Obviously you've never been to a cub scout pinewood derby competition.
> And the horse people aren't far behind.


Hahaha! There are guys that make good stipends, maybe even fulltime livings, selling high performance pinewood derby cars on the likes of EBay. I have an acquantance who got caught up in it pretty seriously. 

One adult said to him once something like: "Is it really worth this much just to beat an eight year old boy in a cubscout race?"


----------



## GLFLYER (Jun 29, 2004)

I have only been involved for about 7 years and FT judging for 2 1/2, and I have not witnessed blatant favoritism. But have heard whining and accusations regarding all sorts of subjects in the gallery. This, unfortunately, is human nature, so is "kindness" to familiar handlers. That being said, If you don't like the judging pool, then get certified and pick-up the notebook. I believe more choices will make for better judging.


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

Judging is subjective, and it is never, ever perfect across the board amongst all judges. There will always be judges with more knowledge, less knowledge, more/less experience, and differing ethics. I dealt with it for 30+ years in horse shows as both judge and exhibitor, and also judging dogs for UKC bench shows. If there has to be a winner, and there are 50 entries, you're only going to make as many friend as you have ribbons. And it's worse if you don't pin people you know or are friends....and that can also be because of lack of knowledge or barn-blindness/kennel-blindness on their part, not necessarily politics on the part of the judge.

So...you pays your money and you takes your chances.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

If I were looking to improve the sport I would focus more on improving the quality of judging, and less on the fairness of judging


----------



## labguy (Jan 17, 2006)

Ted Shih said:


> If I were looking to improve the sport I would focus more on improving the quality of judging, and less on the fairness of judging


That sounds like a great plan. I think Ed A already put forth a proposal about a FT judging mentoring program.

If a few more people like Ed and yourself (people who are well respected in the game and have a fair amount of knowlege) pooled your energy and talents with other like minded FT's, and initiated a nationwide program, I'll bet it would go a long way towards improving the quality of the judging.

Care to pick up the challenge???? For the good of the game??????


----------



## meat hunter (Oct 4, 2007)

I would agree with Ted's last statement the trials I attended and competed in this year have been good and bad I have seen dogs fail tests and be placed because a very well known pros were running the dog. I was at one trial where only 4 dogs found the birds the last two were ran buy a well known pro he had the advantage of running last so he false cast his dog very extremely this helped initially but the dogs both broke down and hunted 100 yards short and eventually hunted out to the birds the fact that these dogs got the birds allowed the judges to place 4 dogs I believe that the judges were so relieved to have 4 dogs finish they forgot what the work really was these were both experienced judges and good guys. the test was probably not as good as you would like considering no one could do it clean. I don't think the judges did this on purpose but were told they needed to finish that day and were stuck with the test, it happens .I would run under these guys again and doubt I would see this more than 1 out of 100 times, it happens. I have seen a lot judges setting up training tests that are great for training put poor tests some of this might come from judges watching their pro's train and think that they are good marks. I believe that most judges are just people and they will improve with time and experience including myself.


----------



## Jim Harvey (Feb 7, 2007)

Labguy, that is another great idea.

I would like to go on record that myself (and many others I would think), would gladly participate in a program put on by either Ted or Ed A.

Sincerely,


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

Jim Harvey said:


> Labguy, that is another great idea.
> 
> I would like to go on record that myself (and many others I would think), would gladly participate in a program put on by either Ted or Ed A.
> 
> Sincerely,


We have well respected pros and amateurs putting on excellent training and handling seminars, but to my knowledge no judging seminars (except for the ones that AKC does for hunt tests). Maybe someone needs to pick up the ball and run with it. 

I believe that the AKC judging seminars are classroom, is that correct? I think the best classroom is out in the field.


----------



## kip (Apr 13, 2004)

seminars will never solve pure stupid or dishonesty. i have a lot of time to think about this things will i serve my suspension. i have no regrets for standing up for what i believe is right. anyone can be a good judge if you dont a have an agenda.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

kip said:


> seminars will never solve pure stupid or dishonesty. i have a lot of time to think about this things will i serve my suspension. i have no regrets for standing up for what i believe is right. anyone can be a good judge if you dont a have an agenda.


Were you suspended for your post on that other thread? I just read this post after PMing you an apology for a post I made the other day on another, kind of related thread. I'm sorry you were suspended and don't agree with it. 

Someone had PM'd me "the rest of the story" regarding why you were so mad on that other thread, and I felt bad about chastising you. In general I think it is a really bad idea to air out specifics of questionable judging or other specific gripes. I think it was a mistake for OP Judge of that other thread to even open up that can of worms, and you would have probably been better served to keep your hands off the keyboard until you cooled down, but I understand your passion. 

John


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

Ted Shih said:


> If I were looking to improve the sport I would focus more on improving the quality of judging, and less on the fairness of judging


Neither will happen as long as the existing attitude in the sport is prevalent. 

There are enough qualified judges to hold the book, in many cases they are not household names & are not active socially so they are not asked. Additionally some of the really big names in the sport, though they make use of the resouces of the sport, do not pull their weight when it comes to holding the book. 

As for Fairness, IMO, if all the results of trials were published for trials that people judged you would see a distinct bias on the part of some judges. It happens often enough with certain judges that even though it is not something being recorded there is a visible bias. It is more distinct when you are participating & see the blatant favoritism exhibited by those same judges toward certain handlers & dogs. Dogs competing for High Point titles & positions on the All Time High Point list come to mind, but are not the only cases.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Buzz said:


> Maybe someone needs to pick up the ball and run with it. .


Pursuant to my request for input about field trial judge mentoring and after talking to some people, both experienced and novice judges, I/we have decided to do a simulated field trial, a hybrid judge's clinic, with 10-15 dogs, 2 or 3 experienced judges, and 10-15 people who will participate.

We will have time to discuss setting up and evaluating tests in a real life environment where the group will be small enough that time, or the lack of, will not become a deterrent to open discussion. 

It will be a joint Cimarron and North Texas project which we plan to video. I have spoken with 3-4 prospective participants who are interested. 

Tentatively this will happen in North Central Texas or South Central Oklahoma in February. If things go well and if we get positive feed back from the participants maybe we can go national with several each year in different parts of the country. If the AKC decides this is a positive thing and wishes to become involved that would be a positive for everyone.


----------



## Miriam Wade (Apr 24, 2003)

EdA said:


> Pursuant to my request for input about field trial judge mentoring and after talking to some people, both experienced and novice judges, I/we have decided to do a simulated field trial, a hybrid judge's clinic, with 10-15 dogs, 2 or 3 experienced judges, and 10-15 people who will participate.
> 
> We will have time to discuss setting up and evaluating tests in a real life environment where the group will be small enough that time, or the lack of, will not become a deterrent to open discussion.
> 
> ...



When will the details be available for those who want to particpate and....

..thank you for putting your money where your mouth is!

M


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

EdA said:


> Pursuant to my request for input about field trial judge mentoring and after talking to some people, both experienced and novice judges, I/we have decided to do a simulated field trial, a hybrid judge's clinic, with 10-15 dogs, 2 or 3 experienced judges, and 10-15 people who will participate.
> 
> We will have time to discuss setting up and evaluating tests in a real life environment where the group will be small enough that time, or the lack of, will not become a deterrent to open discussion.
> 
> ...



That's awesome Ed. Looking forward to at least watching the DVD!


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Miriam Wade said:


> When will the details be available for those who want to particpate and....
> 
> ..thank you for putting your money where your mouth is!
> 
> M


I am not sure, we are in infancy with this project, we have much to work on, where, when, and who being the most important factors, while not putting much money up this is my substitute for my decision not to judge field trials any longer. 

I do not enjoy the pressures of judging any more, I am unwilling to make the sacrifices of time, which has become the most precious commodity in my life, and I have 3 nice young dogs to run. I/we can influence many more people in one day than I could in 4 days when judging (only my co-judge and maybe an apprentice).


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

EdA said:


> Pursuant to my request for input about field trial judge mentoring and after talking to some people, both experienced and novice judges, I/we have decided to do a simulated field trial, a hybrid judge's clinic, with 10-15 dogs, 2 or 3 experienced judges, and 10-15 people who will participate.
> 
> We will have time to discuss setting up and evaluating tests in a real life environment where the group will be small enough that time, or the lack of, will not become a deterrent to open discussion.
> 
> ...


I would burn a couple of vacation days and drive cross country to throw birds for you or gun for that clinic...keep me in mind


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Buzz said:


> That's awesome Ed. Looking forward to at least watching the DVD!


Frankly I am ambivalent about the video since the video leaves an indelible mark subject to misinterpretation but my co-conspirators feel it is important to produce a video. 

Soooo, I will make concession to my younger colleagues and hope that the video properly conveys the decisions and conclusions we make. I want the participants to come prepared as they would if they were judging a real field trial, I want them to watch and score the dogs using their own method(s), and then I want to have a frank and open discussion about their conclusions. Lofty goals perhaps but we will never know until we try.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Ed

Many moons ago, I went to a seminar in which you were the moderator, and Judy Aycock, Mitch Patterson, and the late Tony Snow were the guest judges. It was a mix of class room and field work and it was excellent.

Would love to attend another seminar and would be happy to help however I can 

You should give Dennis Bath a ring as he is working on a seminar project also

Ted


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

There would be more good judging if judges were require to substantiate their decisions..... Having to post their judges sheets along with the placements would be a step in that direction.

indelible mark regards

john


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> You should give Dennis Bath a ring as he is working on a seminar project also
> 
> Ted


I would be delighted to exchange ideas with Dennis who is one of the best and most savvy judges the sport has ever had.


----------



## Miriam Wade (Apr 24, 2003)

EdA said:


> I would be delighted to exchange ideas with Dennis who is one of the best and most savvy judges the sport has ever had.



As someone fairly new to the sport and not familiar with many names-what sets Dennis apart?

M


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Dennis has a lot of qualities that many good judges do

1) Dennis has been around the dogs a long time
2) He trains his own dogs
3) He has been successful in running his dogs
4) He roots for the dogs and handlers
5) He has a solid understanding of the Rule Book
6) His tests are fundamentally sound
7) He has fun and wants you to have fun
8) He has a passion for the sport and a great desire to preserve and protect the sport
9) He understands dogs and he understands people

Ted


----------



## greg magee (Oct 24, 2007)

I'd be curious what the clinical symptoms are that define poor judging. Is it when the gallery judges disagree with the real judges. Are both judges poor judges, or is it just one. And does a good judge take the blame of being a poor when he is paired with what is defined as a poor judge. Is it not following the rule book. Is poor judging defined by the fact that you really do not know the judges personally, and therefore makes it easier to attach negative connotations to their ability. Is it defined by their ability to handle the logistics of running a large all age stake, or a large minor stake for that matter. Is it setting up 400 yard marks on a 90 degree day. Or is it just the fact that we/you think we're more knowledgeable than the people holding the pencil on any given weekend. And therefore perpetuates the fact that there is an elitist overtone throughout the field trial community. 

A certain amount of leway has to be given to people who are atleast trying to learn how to judge. It takes time and experience to develope into a competent judge. All the seminars and mentoring in the world will not take the place of sitting in the chair. I feel it is to easy to sit back and throw stones without being specific and mentioning the people you consider poor judges by name. At least post what you thought was poor judging etiquette and offer some form of critique to help us (the community) move forward.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

One element of poor judging is lack of attention to fundamentals

For example, with Marks, I would consider tests where:

1) Dogs cannot see guns 
2) Dogs cannot see birds
3) The sun is in dog's eyes (see 1 and 2)
4) Birds called too quickly (see 1 and 2)
5) Handlers not given enough time to show dogs guns and birds (see 1 and 2)
6) Dogs run into wind
7) Dogs run into dangerous areas of the field
8) Flyer is shot as a control bird
9) Flyer shot into the wind, flyer shot towards other gun stations
10) Running dog comes out of holding blind close to honor dog
11) Running dog runs across the honor dog on go bird
12) Setting tests where a dog can wind one bird when sent for another bird
13) Retiring guns in such a fashion that it is either distracting or misleading to the dogs

to be indicative of poor judging

Poor time management

1) Holding blind too far from line
2) Don't call guns up until running dog returns to mat with bird
3) Don't consolidate re-birds with lunches, gun changes, etc.
4) Do not work on call backs until after the last dog has run instead of as the dogs are running
5) Not thinking about land blind until after the last dog has run marks

Is another indication of poor judging

Those are some of the attributes of poor judging that I have seen


----------



## Goldenboy (Jun 16, 2004)

The Maine Retriever Trial Club put on a Field Trial Judging seminar this past winter with John Russell and Don Driggers and provided each attendee with a copy of Pete Simond's Field Trial judging manual. John and Don have been around the block a bunch of times and offered many interesting anecdotes and insights. Pete's manual is comprehensive and excellent.


----------



## Lorri (Dec 18, 2003)

I was at the judging seminar that Ed moderated and if we could repeat that I would be there in a New York City minute. It was wonderful!!!! I think everyone that judges should attend 1 every so many years. It can only make you better.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

A poor judge is one that can't set up a difficult mark of under 300 yds
A poor judge is one that can't judge a good mark save for one accompaned by a straight line.
A poor judge is one that judges with an enbelished set of rules.
A poor judge is one that lowers their standards in the 4th
A poor judge is one that does not use their alloted time wisely....
A poor judge is one that can be pressured into making a poor decision by their co-judge......

...and the list goes on regards

john


----------



## SamLab1 (Jul 24, 2003)

The original question was whether decisions are being made for political reasons or in favor of the more experienced handlers rather than the dog work. 

It appears the answer is now better setups and time management which is needed but does that answer the original question?


----------



## greg magee (Oct 24, 2007)

Ted Shih said:


> One element of poor judging is lack of attention to fundamentals
> 
> For example, with Marks, I would consider tests where:
> 
> ...


So would one have to perform these errors only once to be considered a poor judge? 
I also find it interesting that you pointed out that Dennis falls into great judge category because of hands on experience training his own dog. But failed to mention the lack of hands on experience as a precurser to poor judging. I wonder why. As I have found this to be one of the most prevalent short comings there is.

Some of your points are valid though. Some are problematic due to changing weather conditions and should not be a performance indicator of poor judging, and fall into the luck of the draw category. Although everyone should try to run a south to north test if possible. East/west test will get sun glare every time, at some point. 

It's a good list though Theodore, and people should make note of the items listed.


----------



## greg magee (Oct 24, 2007)

john fallon said:


> A poor judge is one that can't set up a difficult mark of under 300 yds
> A poor judge is one that can't judge a good mark save for one accompaned by a straight line.
> A poor judge is one that judges with an enbelished set of rules.
> A poor judge is one that lowers their standards in the 4th
> ...


John, I'll ask you the same question, does one have to perform these poor judgements more than once to be considered a poor judge. Is any credit given to the fact that one judge might be new. Are both judges poor judges if one or more of these things happen. Are they poor judges just that weekend or are they always poor judges. I just think it to easy to say someone is a poor judge with one broad stroke of the paint brush and not consider their whole body of work. I would like to meet the person who has not performed one of the itemized bullets on your list or Theodores. Because his next trick would be making wine from water. Learning curve regards


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

SamLab1 said:


> The original question was whether decisions are being made for political reasons or in favor of the more experienced handlers rather than the dog work.
> 
> It appears the answer is now better setups and time management which is needed but does that answer the original question?



Although there are political judges, I don't think that the problem is widespread. I think poor judging is a more widespread issue.

As for how to deal with the political judge

1) FT clubs should not invite them to judge
2) FT participants should not run under them

As long as clubs continue to invite political individuals to judge and participants continue to run under them, the issue will continue to exist


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

> I would like to go on record that myself (and many others I would think), would gladly participate in a program put on by either Ted or Ed A.


 

As far as someone picking up the ball and running with it~~~

Our HRC club has asked a VERY prominent member of the FT community to put on a seminar for our club. (marking seminar)

He gracioulsy accepted!! We are delighted, and are looking forward to the event.

I was going to mention names, but thought it would be better if that person, who visits this board fequently, identifes himself. It shows just how much dedication some of us has to good dog work throughout the spectum of the dog games!

Gooser


----------



## Pat Oneill (Jun 10, 2009)

Lorri said:


> As most of you know, I haven't run a field trial in about 1 1/2 - 2yrs. I am still active judging and will still attend local trials when my job permits. That, being said, I have talked to folks in the gallery and many are saying that judging has become very unfair and the word "political" gets used a lot. Now, if you judge enough you will get called "political" at some point. I would like to hear from folks, that if this is true, and we are seeing this more and more how do we prevent these folks from judging. I did see an open where there were at least 2 dogs that ran and crushed the 1st test. They weren't call back! I asked why, and someone said well so and so is judging and if he doesn't like you, you won't get called back! How does this happen? Both handlers questioned via the marshall and were not called back. Is this why we have a field trial committee? Why don't they act?
> Please don't point fingers but lets figure a way to alleviate this growing problem. Thjs forum can be put to good use. This is a great tool if we use it wisely.


 
I think the saying that, " people only ask questions that they have already answered" applies here. I'll say that politics are a part of every aspect of human life, more somedays than others.

This applies for dogs as well as people. It is not as bad as you may think, but more somedays than others. i.e. Lean Mac ( or hot dog of the time) not called back in first series, comon. Or Joe Public land owner sweating blood for sport, worked for a little influence( just the way it is). I once judged with a guy who said I got run under these people, and there is pressure. That being said, somedays things are little stinky, but the real dog people know who and know how you got a bright green ribbon (more times than not--the fact of the matter is--it takes a long drive home to conclude that maybe my dog didn't place--and its not for me to say who did ). 
I hope education, and exposure will bring both ends of the spectrum a little closer. time will tell.


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

Ted Shih said:


> Although there are political judges, I don't think that the problem is widespread. I think poor judging is a more widespread issue.


You make this comment based on what level of knowledge? 

There are roughly 300 AKC licensed events in a given year of which you attend possibly 20. You run several dogs & multistake, just how would you know if a judge were fudging? 

While I believe some areas may not have as big a problem as others, I believe it to be fairly wide spread. 


My estimate, BTW based on a fair amount of looking at results nationwide, my experience & observation with dogs I would say that 75% of the judges are either political or incompetent. Not a very nice statistic where the effort to achieve some sort of parity becomes somewhat meaningless. It's damned easy to make a winner out of an icon to CYA for your judging mistakes or for perceived rewards - i've seen it done by icons in this sport . 


I can remember commenting one time about a somewhat famous person in this sport "that they were either incompetent or so crooked you could screw them into the ground". One of the icons of the sport advised me to be careful saying that as the crooked have many friends . 

So you can preach the party line all you want to, with your limited experience, horizon & circle of associates it only amounts to "GroupThought" & is certainly not based on fact. 



Pat Oneill said:


> I think the saying that, " people only ask questions that they have already answered" applies here. I'll say that politics are a part of every aspect of human life, more somedays than others.
> 
> This applies for dogs as well as people. It is not as bad as you may think, but more somedays than others. i.e. Lean Mac ( or hot dog of the time) not called back in first series, comon. Or Joe Public land owner sweating blood for sport, worked for a little influence( just the way it is). I once judged with a guy who said I got run under these people, and there is pressure. That being said, somedays things are little stinky, but the real dog people know who and know how you got a bright green ribbon (more times than not--the fact of the matter is--it takes a long drive home to conclude that maybe my dog didn't place--and its not for me to say who did ).
> I hope education, and exposure will bring both ends of the spectrum a little closer. time will tell.


With the present hierarchy nothing will change - their is no education like training your own dog, 1 at a time in a knowledgeable training group over a long period of time. The only exposure that will do the trick is sunshine, judges should have to submit their score sheets to a panel for evaluation!

To even imply that it is OK to be political as that's the game is unacceptable. The improvement of the breed does not happen with political results!!!!!!!!!!!!!! & that is why the sport exists, to improve the breed .


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Marvin S said:


> While I believe some areas may not have as big a problem as others, I believe it to be fairly wide spread......
> 
> 
> My estimate, BTW based on a fair amount of looking at results nationwide, my experience & observation with dogs I would say that 75% of the judges are either political or incompetent......
> ...


All YOUR opinion, Marvin...worth no more and no less than anyone else's observations. Give your "facts" the light of day for futher scrutiny by the sport before you pronounce them as gospel and indict everyone who doesn't fit your description of having the experience it takes to judge knowledgeably and do so without prejudice.

k g


----------



## just me (Feb 17, 2010)

who would such an "evaluation panel" consist of? would AKc have to send said panels to each Ft and each stake to actually watch them then evaluate the judges results or would someone who hadn't seen the stake look at score shhets and pull an evaluation out of thier backsides?

and i'll save you the trouble of looking..i don't do FT and seldom do HT

ed samples


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

K G said:


> All YOUR opinion, Marvin...worth no more and no less than anyone else's observations. Give your "facts" the light of day for further scrutiny by the sport before you pronounce them as gospel and indict everyone who doesn't fit your description of having the experience it takes to judge knowledgeably and do so without prejudice.
> 
> k g


This would not be the 1st time I have stood alone & been vindicated, but that's not what I'm looking for. Better judging would improve the breed & I do love to watch good dog work in realistic & challenging situations!!!!! & it could be attained by a few simple tweaks & more information. Again JMO. 

I offered my facts to a couple of members of the SOR, needless to say they had zero interest. But that doesn't make the facts useless, it just shows what kind of leadership there is at present.

As for scrutiny, anyone interested will have to content themselves with what is posted on the website. If they disagree, they can do something themselves, the price of entry is considerable use of time, which I believe you at one time chastised me for spending it thusly . I did allow a good friend of mine a sneak preview & his comments were very positive. The site came before it's time, but little is accomplished when all agree . 

I'm seriously considering putting the site on the market, using the proceeds to establish a trust to benefit the sport as the younger people involved in it would see fit to do. One place where I could help would be to invest the money to provide a steady stream of income for their projects . It requires more computer skills than I have, but I will say the research portion was a real eye opener into what really happens in the sport. 

But I will continue to state my opinion as I believe it to be more valid than the prevailing wisdom. At least my research extends beyond BS'ing in the gallery. 

Have a nice day Keith!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Marvin S said:


> This would not be the 1st time I have stood alone & been vindicated, but that's not what I'm looking for. Better judging would improve the breed & I do love to watch good dog work in realistic & challenging situations!!!!! & it could be attained by a few simple tweaks & more information. Again JMO.


I'm not sure where you find your "vindication," but I don't find much to argue with in the remainder of the paragraph.



> I offered my facts to a couple of members of the SOR, needless to say they had zero interest. But that doesn't make the facts useless, it just shows what kind of leadership there is at present.


Well, take heart in knowing that the AKC has some changes planned for the makeup of the SOR of the RAC, and they are imminent. Again, not sure what you consider your "facts" to represent, but I do know that there will be doors open that haven't been before. I offer this only to say that should you choose to re-establish your position, you may well get the opportunity to do so.



> As for scrutiny, anyone interested will have to content themselves with what is posted on the website. If they disagree, they can do something themselves, the price of entry is considerable use of time, which I believe you at one time chastised me for spending it thusly . I did allow a good friend of mine a sneak preview & his comments were very positive. The site came before it's time, but little is accomplished when all agree .


Not so sure that I chastised you for the way you chose to spend your time as much as I did for the validity of your hypothesis...but that water is WAY down the river now and I have ZERO desire to try to recapture it. I would expect a good friend to offer positive comments; what you have accomplished, if anything, will all come to light at some point in time IF the sport deems it to be valid.



> I'm seriously considering putting the site on the market, using the proceeds to establish a trust to benefit the sport as the younger people involved in it would see fit to do. One place where I could help would be to invest the money to provide a steady stream of income for their projects . It requires more computer skills than I have, but I will say the research portion was a real eye opener into what really happens in the sport.


I think you should go ahead and offer up the site for sale to see what sort of proceeds you can create for your trust. The sooner the better, if you truly believe that the judging (75% was it?) is so bad.



> But I will continue to state my opinion as I believe it to be more valid than the prevailing wisdom. At least my research extends beyond BS'ing in the gallery.


For a man to have taken the time and put forth the effort that you have to create the site and its content, I can understand why you have the opinion you do. As for your opinion being "more valid than the prevailing wisdom" or your research extending "beyond BS'ing in the gallery," time will tell if either your opinion or your research has more impact. Empirical evidence is a great thing IF the baseline for the research has been established. Your baseline is a moving target at best and unestablishable at worst...but that's just my opinion.



> Have a nice day Keith!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


I had a VERY nice day, Marvin...I hope you had the same as well.

k g


----------



## wutadog (Oct 21, 2003)

I've seen judges regarded as "good Judges" lay an egg. One mistake does not constitute a BAD Judge.
I've seen blatant disregard for the rule book, ignorance of the rule book, and political placements. These problems are definitely avoidable.
I think MUCH of the problem comes from a lack of understanding of what dogs tend to do...i.e. a Judge needs to place the birds where the dogs won't go to naturally. As for basic considerations, Ted's comments are SPOT ON.
Perhaps part of the problem is because the level of competition has risen to a point where very few Amateurs (read Judges) can train their dogs to be competitive at this level.
One more thing, sometimes the GROUNDS are inadequate. Sometimes the grounds afforded the judges do not incorporate sufficient factors, or they do not allow ACCESS for a N-S test. Be respectful, and be mindful of the considerations of the Judge. I have chaired a lot of trials, and I judge 2-3 trials a year. Perhaps I run fewer trials than most, but I feel I have a good understanding from BOTH sides of the line.
Pulling for the dogs regards,
Dave

P.S. The sport has no room for favoritism or politics.


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

K G said:


> I'm not sure where you find your "vindication," but I don't find much to argue with in the remainder of the paragraph.


I'll fwd some e-mails - you can make up your own mind. 



> Well, take heart in knowing that the AKC has some changes planned for the makeup of the SOR of the RAC, and they are imminent. Again, not sure what you consider your "facts" to represent, but I do know that there will be doors open that haven't been before. I offer this only to say that should you choose to re-establish your position, you may well get the opportunity to do so.


If I've learned nothing else during my time on this forum - there is a group who believe that unless an idea initiates in their bailiwick there is no validity. I have more productive pursuits at this time. 





> Not so sure that I chastised you for the way you chose to spend your time as much as I did for the validity of your hypothesis...but that water is WAY down the river now and I have ZERO desire to try to recapture it. I would expect a good friend to offer positive comments; what you have accomplished, if anything, will all come to light at some point in time IF the sport deems it to be valid.


I don't have friends who are not honest with me. I also make it a point to not tolerate stupidity.



> I think you should go ahead and offer up the site for sale to see what sort of proceeds you can create for your trust. The sooner the better, if you truly believe that the judging (75% was it?) is so bad.


I probably will as it needs more computer skills than I have or care to learn & I believe it to be a useful tool.



> For a man to have taken the time and put forth the effort that you have to create the site and its content, I can understand why you have the opinion you do. As for your opinion being "more valid than the prevailing wisdom" or your research extending "beyond BS'ing in the gallery," time will tell if either your opinion or your research has more impact. Empirical evidence is a great thing IF the baseline for the research has been established. Your baseline is a moving target at best and unestablishable at worst...but that's just my opinion. k g


I won't pursue this = I'll just forward an e-mail from some former engineers who were in my care for a considerable period of time. The reason they can joke about my name coming up "not always in the most flattering of terms" is they realized at some point I did not care what people thought, there was a job to be accomplished & that accomplishment was my only objective.

I'll await your PM response to the e-mails .


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

If I was involved in ANY sport or hobby and feel that 75% of the judges were below par I would quit and do something else. I am sure that 99% of the people set out to do the best job they can and do so with little thanks. Its crap like this that makes people not judge at all. I have also run under and marshalled under the judging greats mentioned and all have called a set up a turd and not happy with the result. Besides the pay and reward are so great I cant recall hearing " I sure wish I could judge more"


----------



## Blackdog (Feb 12, 2010)

An old amateur friend that has earned more than 200 AA points with 2 different dogs once told me this sport is 50% judges, 25% dog, and 25% handler. After reading this post, I am more inclined to believe him.

After running dogs for some 40 years, I frequently wonder what type of Narcotics it contains? Judging is necessary, but I will no longer judge on the circuit I run on!

Davis Dautreuil


----------



## Moosetogooseranch (Jan 19, 2008)

Interesting reading


----------



## stonybrook (Nov 18, 2005)

Did the seminar referred to in this thread by Dr. Aycock and Mr. Shih ever happen? If so, how did it go and if there is a DVD in the works, how can one obtain it?

Travis


----------



## Losthwy (May 3, 2004)

EdA said:


> Pursuant to my request for input about field trial judge mentoring and after talking to some people, both experienced and novice judges, I/we have decided to do a simulated field trial, a hybrid judge's clinic, with 10-15 dogs, 2 or 3 experienced judges, and 10-15 people who will participate.
> 
> We will have time to discuss setting up and evaluating tests in a real life environment where the group will be small enough that time, or the lack of, will not become a deterrent to open discussion.
> 
> ...


Wondering myself. Especially given recent topics on Field Trial and Keyhole blinds.
Will/did it include "nuts and bolts" basics? Such as shooting a flyer into the test, placing marks deep into sage, and so forth.


----------

