# First Master Test question re "Challenging the Blind"



## Arnie

We're about to run our first Master test this weekend. I've read that "challenging the blind" is very important. How tight a line to the blind is considered challenging the blind? I'm afraid to risk refusals if I handle too much.


----------



## Ron in Portland

There are several ways to know.

Watch dogs run, see which ones you think would be on the bubble to fail, and see who gets carried. That will give you a feel for what is considered "passing". Of course, not all judges see it the same.

Another way is to look at the line to the blind and do your best to stay on it. Blow as many whistles as you feel your dog has in him, to stay on the line. If you feel blowing another whistle isn't going to get you what you want from your dog, then don't blow it, but the judges will judge accordingly. (and train further for next time)

I think the main thing is to look at the line to the blind and see where the challenges are. Do the judges want you to go over a point of land? Through a keyhole between the trees? Down the shore to the blind? That's what you should challenge. If your dog is swimming past a point, at least give one or two tries to cast them on it. Between some trees? Don't let him carry past them before blowing your whistle. Down teh shore, don't let him beach halfway there and run the bank without giving a least a few tries to cast him back into the water (use a straight over, it's testing, not training).

It's the handler that doesn't even attempt to handle to or through the obstacle that gets dropped for not "challenging the blind". I had a judge refer to those as "neighborhood blinds". You give your dog a back, and let him run straight out until he's in the neighborhood of the blind and then you give him a big over. The handler thinks he's one-whistled the blind, and wonders why he's been dropped.


----------



## Arnie

2tall said:


> I think if you are afraid of refusals, you are probably not quite ready for that level. When my dog passed his first senior this weekend, I was delighted to hear the judge say "challenge the blind"! Knew we could.



We have passed all three intermediate levels AKC, NAHRA, and HRC. He has lined a few blinds at that level without any handling. We train out to over 200 yards on land and water. He responds well to whistle and hand. I have worked more than a few Master tests but from a flyer or winger station. I have never actually seen a Master test from the line. What I am trying to get is how tight to the line will the judges expect us to hold.






Ron in Portland said:


> It's the handler that doesn't even attempt to handle to or through the obstacle that gets dropped for not "challenging the blind". I had a judge refer to those as "neighborhood blinds". You give your dog a back, and let him run straight out until he's in the neighborhood of the blind and then you give him a big over. The handler thinks he's one-whistled the blind, and wonders why he's been dropped.



Ron, thanks for the thoughtful answer. I just learned something.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002

Draw a straight line from mat to bird. Hit the key aspects of the blind. Stay inside 5 yards to either side of the line.

/Paul


----------



## Good Dogs

It depends on the judge. (Don't you hate that answer?) But if one of them says "Challenge the blind" you know they are looking for a very tight line and a narrow fairway. And there is at least one judge out there that, regardless of how well you hold inside the fairway, will drop you if phideaux does not hit or cross the line at least once. (That's his definition of "challenging the blind.") Understand also that the "fairway" is not always the same width on each side of the line. If 5 yds to one side puts you on the beach on a shoreline blind you're off course, but 5 yds out to sea will likely play. 
A well constructed blind, will as noted above, present obvious hazards or obstacles that have to be managed. A good judge sets those up in anticipation that dogs will have to handled to manage the course of the blind, so don't be afraid of your whistle. Think about what the judges are likely looking for at the beginning, in the middle and at the end of the blind. Pick out your guideposts and focus on hitting each one along the way. It's easy to suddenly realize that the tight line you thought you were running is actually way off line. 
Good luck, have fun and don't forget to breathe.


----------



## Sue Kiefer

Worry more about cast refusals and whistle refusals . If you are looking at the blind ,run it like shooting an arrow of sorts.
Common sense will tell you that "IF" you have to give a big over you are probably out and NOT challenging the blind.
Sue


----------



## j towne

I look at the line to the blind and think to myself why did the judge set up this blind and look at the obsticles. Is there a key hole, point, log, ditch, or cover and try to make sure my dogs doesnt avoid the obsticles.


----------



## twall

The judges set up blinds so they will get to see how well dogs handle. They want to see dog and handler work as a team. They don't want to see the dog swim offline and then take one over and pick up the bird. Handlers count whistles, judges shouldn't. Dogs running before you will show you where the challenges are.

Don't over-analyze the blind. And, don't over handle.

Have fun with your dog,

Tom


----------



## Jeff Brezee

Sue Kiefer said:


> Worry more about cast refusals and whistle refusals . If you are looking at the blind ,run it like shooting an arrow of sorts.
> Common sense will tell you that "IF" you have to give a big over you are probably out and NOT challenging the blind.
> Sue


I agree with this, but, respectfuly, that "big over" can be the $$$ cast when it comes to a key feature..


----------



## Gun_Dog2002

How many of the people who replied actually judge master?

/Paul


----------



## fishduck

The acceptable corridor is going to be different with different judges. Most will have easily defined hazards that a judge expects the dog to negotiate. Avoid those factors at your own peril. 

My personal approach to Master blinds is to stop my dog when I feel a cast will improve my line. That varies for each of my dogs. I run the blind on as tight of a line as the dog is capable. 

I am NOT a Master judge but have ran a lot of Master tests. Most of the advice seems to be spot on. In my experience most judges will not give a lot of specific information about what they expect. This gives them some leeway if a particular factor/hazard is much harder than anticipated.


----------



## Ron in Portland

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> How many of the people who replied actually judge master? /Paul


/Paul,

Not me, but I've run (and passed, and failed) enough Master tests to express an opinion. What part of my response would you disagree with? 

I do think challenging the blind is more than staying in the lane +/- five yards. What if it's a down the shore blind? I know you've seen dogs that handlers let beach halfway there and run down the bank the last 30-40 yards without blowing a whistle. Do you carry that dog to the next series?


----------



## Kajun Kamakazi

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> How many of the people who replied actually judge master?
> 
> /Paul


That's not a fair insult disguised as a question. I will take someone's advice that has titled multiple MH's and been to the AKC judges/handlers seminar just as quickly as someone who just judges. Someone who fits that description is more than qualified to answer what is expected of a dog running blind in a master test. Attempting to lower other people's input, doesn't raise yours.


----------



## paul young

Kajun Kamakazi said:


> That's not a fair insult disguised as a question. I will take someone's advice that has titled multiple MH's and been to the AKC judges/handlers seminar just as quickly as someone who just judges. Someone who fits that description is more than qualified to answer what is expected of a dog running blind in a master test. Attempting to lower other people's input, doesn't raise yours.


Whose opinion counts at the end of the weekend? 

Paul has titled a boatload of MH's and also judges. His opinion is very well informed.

Speaking for myself, I hate shoreline blinds that are one-sided. There should be enough water for the dog to get off line and still be in the water.-Paul


----------



## Karen Klotthor

I do judge Master and Finish and most all of the answers are good. Just as it is said, "challenage the blind". That is the best way for judges to say what they want to see without digging themselves in a hold.


----------



## DarrinGreene

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> Draw a straight line from mat to bird. Hit the key aspects of the blind. Stay inside 5 yards to either side of the line.
> 
> /Paul


Titled one and judged one so far and even I know you can't go wrong with that very straight forward and simple advice.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002

Ron in Portland said:


> /Paul,
> 
> Not me, but I've run (and passed, and failed) enough Master tests to express an opinion. What part of my response would you disagree with?
> 
> I do think challenging the blind is more than staying in the lane +/- five yards. What if it's a down the shore blind? I know you've seen dogs that handlers let beach halfway there and run down the bank the last 30-40 yards without blowing a whistle. Do you carry that dog to the next series?


The only part is the first part. Watching the dogs ahead of you can tell you as a handler the difficulties of the test and help you make a better mental game plan. However how it is judged doesn't help you at all since you will only get that info after you run and callbacks are done. Apparently people skipped my second sentence and went right to the 5 yard comment I made. If its a shoreline blind, then a key aspect is staying in the water. 

/Paul


----------



## Gun_Dog2002

Kajun Kamakazi said:


> That's not a fair insult disguised as a question. I will take someone's advice that has titled multiple MH's and been to the AKC judges/handlers seminar just as quickly as someone who just judges. Someone who fits that description is more than qualified to answer what is expected of a dog running blind in a master test. Attempting to lower other people's input, doesn't raise yours.


I don't see how asking how many people posting actually judge is an insult. It does though help give the OP an idea of the person's advice being presented. I ran and titled MH dogs for close to 8 years before sitting in the chair and judging other people's dog work. I can tell you that my experience and opinions changed once I had done both. I also made no comments on other peoples input, however I will tell you that people who both run MH and judge can provide more insight to the OP because they are thinking of answers from two perspectives instead of just one. Before I judged my goal was to "challenge the blind" and survive to run the next series. Now I tackle each series by thinking like a judge would. Why this blind? What aspects of trainability are the looking to evaluate? How does this blind give them those aspects? If I was judging this blind, what score would I give the few dogs ahead of me? What score would I give my own dog? Those who don't judge rarely get the opportunity to understand any of that because they never do it. 

/Paul


----------



## jb504079

Very helpful thread. I'd like to hear more about what judges are particularly looking for on setups, blinds in particular. I think attacking a setup that way is most productive. What aspects of train ability are they looking to evaluate? Best question one could ask.


----------



## P J

Don't be afraid to ask questions. They may not be answered, but if you don't ask, you are assured it will not be answered. 

Watch as many as you can before you run and watch how they handle their dogs, especially the pros. Don't be afraid to ask other handlers questions, most pros are more than willing to talk to you if they are not too busy.

Good luck and enjoy yourself!


----------



## Dman

Good post Paul.


----------



## duk4me

Dman said:


> Good post Paul.


Yes, yes indeed.


----------



## Good Dogs

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> How many of the people who replied actually judge master?
> 
> /Paul


Over 20+ years maybe 40 or more M assignments. 8 points +++ in all HT stakes. 3 pups with MH, 3 with HRCH. My post was not meant as a recommendation on how to set up a blind, but my observations on what judges are looking for today. Good, bad or indifferent, you have to be prepared for whatever is thrown at you.

Bob Swift


----------



## steve schreiner

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> The only part is the first part. Watching the dogs ahead of you can tell you as a handler the difficulties of the test and help you make a better mental game plan. However how it is judged doesn't help you at all since you will only get that info after you run and callbacks are done. Apparently people skipped my second sentence and went right to the 5 yard comment I made. If its a shoreline blind, then a key aspect is staying in the water.
> 
> /Paul


Should the dog be dropped if it beaches and the dog is cast back into the water even after a 2nd or 3rd attempt? Steve S


----------



## steve schreiner

jb504079 said:


> Very helpful thread. I'd like to hear more about what judges are *particularly looking for on setups, blinds in particular.* I think attacking a setup that way is most productive. What aspects of train ability are they looking to evaluate? Best question one could ask.



Initial line, stops on a whistle ( when needed ) and takes the cast ...and ...carries it for some distance...I hate choppy blinds to keep a dog threading the needle...NOT a master level performance...Steve S PS and I do judge...To comment on PJ's post, By all means ask question of the judges ..but ...do it at the proper time ...after an event or between series if they have time ...Go through the marshal to see if the judges have time ....


----------



## jb504079

steve schreiner said:


> Initial line, stops on a whistle ( when needed ) and takes the cast ...and ...carries it for some distance...I hate choppy blinds to keep a dog threading the needle...NOT a master level performance...Steve S PS and I do judge...To comment on PJ's post, By all means ask question of the judges ..but ...do it at the proper time ...after an event or between series if they have time ...Go through the marshal to see if the judges have time ....


Thanks. We need more threads like this one.


----------



## Jeff Brezee

steve schreiner said:


> Should the dog be dropped if it beaches and the dog is cast back into the water even after a 2nd or 3rd attempt? Steve S


My dog failed a senior test for this sole reason. That was the day I learned what "challenge the blind" and "this is a water blind" meant. That failure on my dogs record was a very valuable lesson that earned me some passes and some compliments since. Now I love it when the judge says "challenge the blind"!


----------



## JustinS

steve schreiner said:


> I hate choppy blinds to keep a dog threading the needle...NOT a master level performance


I first want to point out that I am not trying to get anyone going, I ran a Master this last weekend and was failed at the end of the test for points my blinds did not qualify a pass, I am fine with that. 

On a blind in a hunt test the purpose is to make progress to the bird with each cast, no cast refusals - 

Here is my question on the water shore line blind - If I send the dog and it takes the line and then after 20 to 30 yards starts to curve towards shore, I whistle and give a back right, and she takes it then after 10 to 15 yards she starts to curve in and the process is repeated until the bird is picked up. 

*If it takes 6 casts to get the dog out to an 80 yard shoreline water blind but you maintain a line and did not get any cast refusals why is it not master level?* 

I was told in the past that it did not matter the number of casts it takes to get a dog to the blind in a hunt test as long as there was no cast refusals and you stayed in a reasonable area along the line. 

I do want to know how the judges feel a blind should be judged, and was i given poor information?


----------



## Eric Johnson

Here's a tip that may help during the handlers meeting,

Step up to the point of origination. Hold your arm out with the forefinger and little finger extended up. Now center your fist on the blind. Get a good look at that sight picture between your fingers because that's roughly the fairway that the judge will use. In fact, as a judge, I do that too during the setup to be certain that we've got the starting point correctly placed for what we want to see.


----------



## Gary Wayne Abbott I

I am surprised no one has offered the advice given to me when I was brand new, it worked for the me when I was new, it still works and it is what I teach new people when asked about acceptable corridors. 

Extend your arm full length at eye level and then frame the middle of the corridor between your thumb and forefinger, like your arm is a gun and your thumb and finger the sight. That loosely should be a minimum acceptable corridor in anyone's book on most all Master level blinds. On some blinds like shoreline blinds, unique land features and points there is likely only one side of the corridor more acceptable than the other. You still have to dictate some common sense based on what features are included in the blind and remember that should be the minimum corridor and that a good or winning blind is likely in even a tighter corridor. That said often for a new person the most important advantage of deploying this technique is that it should help highlight those key spots in the corridor. Senior level dogs I tell people to double that space by putting both arms up with thumbs side by side and keep the dog between both fingers. The All Age corridor might generally be between the forefinger and the middle finger (pun intended). 

Double blind


Short blind. Key point is to get the side hill as highlighted, as possible. 


Long blind. If I was trying to win the trial I want between the hill and the puddle as highlighted. 


As a point of discussed qualification I have never judged a AKC licensed hunting test for retrievers. I would like to if I could ever manage to get qualified to do so. I have however trained 24 dogs that achieved a their MH titles in addition to 3 FC's.


----------



## Arnie

I appreciate all the advice. We'll be driving about 400 miles now to find out how well I'll put it to use. Be back Monday or Tuesday. Let you know how things turned out.

Thanks, again.

Arnie & Gage


----------



## Gary Wayne Abbott I

Eric Johnson said:


> Here's a tip that may help during the handlers meeting,
> 
> Step up to the point of origination. Hold your arm out with the forefinger and little finger extended up. Now center your fist on the blind. Get a good look at that sight picture between your fingers because that's roughly the fairway that the judge will use. In fact, as a judge, I do that too during the setup to be certain that we've got the starting point correctly placed for what we want to see.


Ha!

You beat me to it by 9 minutes, well done and excellent tip!


----------



## Happy Gilmore

What about when the master national rep just says no matter what you do no master national judge will pass you because you have an opinion and you've expressed it on the Internet?


----------



## Gun_Dog2002

Happy, I love you brother, but that is politics. I have ran with Gary for years when he ran hunt tests. I've judged Gary when he ran hunt tests. As a handler and a judge I have great respect for him and absolutely love his demeanor with his dogs. His dogs mostly met what I wanted as a judge, and I've lerned from watching him run dogs, when hey don't meet his standard he stops them, and walks off the line. He took some time to post his thoughts, provided pictures, and described it very well. Thank u gary. i one day hope to impliment your style so well. While he doesn't judge, he does have a good read on dogs and what is expected. I asked what people judge to help the op, but this thread has great info, and I hope he gleans some great info from it.

/Paul


----------



## Gun_Dog2002

steve schreiner said:


> Should the dog be dropped if it beaches and the dog is cast back into the water even after a 2nd or 3rd attempt? Steve S


This is a great question for many reasons, that really depends on the team and the blind. I have set shoreline blinds as a judge that looking back now perhaps I would have changed. However as a judge I look at the picture I presented, and I look at what key points did I want to see. Is the team working together? Is the dog reacting appropriately based on the challenge presented. I've had situations where the dog wasn't reacting appropriately and where the handler wasn't doing their part. I can tell you that in most cases, when I as a judge fail a dog on a blind, I feel bad. Most dogs are giving effort, most handlers are giving effort, one of them came up short. While handlers play some of the role in marks, they play most of the part in blinds and it is hard to fail a dog in a test knowing its probably not the dog. I have failed a lot of dogs on blinds, but if there is any doubt on passing a test it comes down to marks and if the dog did his job there well I say the dog passes. That being said most of the dogs that failed blinds, did so because of handler errors, unless the dog goes completely out of control. If the handler has a good game plan and executes it, and the dog responds accordingly, even if it takes a few casts, they are going to pass in my book. 

/Paul


----------



## Gun_Dog2002

Good Dogs said:


> Over 20+ years maybe 40 or more M assignments. 8 points +++ in all HT stakes. 3 pups with MH, 3 with HRCH. My post was not meant as a recommendation on how to set up a blind, but my observations on what judges are looking for today. Good, bad or indifferent, you have to be prepared for whatever is thrown at you.
> 
> Bob Swift


 I thank you for sitting in the chair that many times. I've found it very rewarding to judge in the 15 some times I've done it, but very taxing as well. I personally can run dogs all day, and while tired, it's nothing like the weight and and mental exhaustion that comes with judging.

/Paul


----------



## jeff evans

JustinS said:


> I first want to point out that I am not trying to get anyone going, I ran a Master this last weekend and was failed at the end of the test for points my blinds did not qualify a pass, I am fine with that.
> 
> On a blind in a hunt test the purpose is to make progress to the bird with each cast, no cast refusals -
> 
> *Here is my question on the water shore line blind - If I send the dog and it takes the line and then after 20 to 30 yards starts to curve towards shore, I whistle and give a back right, and she takes it then after 10 to 15 yards she starts to curve in and the process is repeated until the bird is picked up.*
> 
> *If it takes 6 casts to get the dog out to an 80 yard shoreline water blind but you maintain a line and did not get any cast refusals why is it not master level?*
> 
> *I was told in the past that it did not matter the number of casts it takes to get a dog to the blind in a hunt test as long as there was no cast refusals and you stayed in a reasonable area along the line. *
> 
> I do want to know how the judges feel a blind should be judged, and was i given poor information?


I do not say this in a condisending way and with due respect. If a dog requires 6 casts off the shore in 80yds, that translates to probably 5 cast refusals possibly 6. The dog is not changing direction and is caving to shore. If the dog took every cast it would require a cast off shore (dog changes direction out to sea) and then a cast straight back to the bird. So I would conclude that there are a number of cast refusals in the blind you describe, especially at the distance you described. I would also advocate giving a walking silent over cast away from the shore or any suction for that matter in a trial situation. Have fun and give it a though. Oh and a disclaimer I am not a HT judge, just an amateur FTer...


----------



## jeff evans

Gary Wayne Abbott I said:


> I am surprised no one has offered the advice given to me when I was brand new, it worked for the me when I was new, it still works and it is what I teach new people when asked about acceptable corridors.
> 
> Extend your arm full length at eye level and then frame the middle of the corridor between your thumb and forefinger, like your arm is a gun and your thumb and finger the sight. That loosely should be a minimum acceptable corridor in anyone's book on most all Master level blinds. On some blinds like shoreline blinds, unique land features and points there is likely only one side of the corridor more acceptable than the other. You still have to dictate some common sense based on what features are included in the blind and remember that should be the minimum corridor and that a good or winning blind is likely in even a tighter corridor. That said often for a new person the most important advantage of deploying this technique is that it should help highlight those key spots in the corridor. Senior level dogs I tell people to double that space by putting both arms up with thumbs side by side and keep the dog between both fingers. The All Age corridor might generally be between the forefinger and the middle finger (pun intended).
> 
> Double blind
> 
> 
> Short blind. Key point is to get the side hill as highlighted, as possible.
> 
> 
> Long blind. If I was trying to win the trial I want between the hill and the puddle as highlighted.
> 
> 
> As a point of discussed qualification I have never judged a AKC licensed hunting test for retrievers. I would like to if I could ever manage to get qualified to do so. I have however trained 24 dogs that achieved a their MH titles in addition to *3 FC's. *


3 FC's and counting, keep up the good work buddy, it shows! I keep telling these guys to watch out that "Abbott" is coming...


----------



## Good Dogs

JustinS said:


> If I send the dog and it takes the line and then after 20 to 30 yards starts to curve towards shore, I whistle and give a back right, and she takes it then after 10 to 15 yards she starts to curve in and the process is repeated until the bird is picked up.
> 
> *If it takes 6 casts to get the dog out to an 80 yard shoreline water blind but you maintain a line and did not get any cast refusals why is it not master level?*
> 
> I judge I respect said after my young dog completed the blind, but with many whistles - ''That's a nice pup ya got there but you got to quit feeding him all those scallops."
> A cast is a directional command that is carried for some distance. If pup turns in the right direction but quickly curves back he's "scalloped" and that, in most books, will be counted as a CR (cast refusal.) Maybe not as heavy a penalty as a turn in the wrong direction, but still not a solid cast. Repeated weak responses will be counted more severely. In other words, 1 scallop may not hurt you if pup then takes a long solid cast. 2 in a row will hurt. 3 in a row will really hurt. 4 or more in a row - if you have not already gotten the shoulder tap - and you can pretty well figure the day is over in most judges' opinions. You have not carried the line to the blind for any acceptable distance. Minor corrections to keep pup within a corridor is a different scenario from repeated refusals to stay in that corridor.
> 
> As for me, my judging in HRC influences my inclination to "judge the recovery" not the mistake. After all, we set up blinds with hazards and traps. Why penalize a dog for doing what we expected she would? But, if pup can't quickly recover then we learned whether and how well the team can handle. So, in a HT scenario I'd likely not drop a dog that got out early on a water blind, unless she stayed out or refused to recover the proper line. But that's just me.
> 
> Work on those scallops. Once it's ingrained behavior it's difficult to correct. (Speaking from experience here.)


----------



## DoubleHaul

Good Dogs said:


> As for me, my judging in HRC influences my inclination to "judge the recovery" not the mistake. After all, we set up blinds with hazards and traps. Why penalize a dog for doing what we expected she would? But, if pup can't quickly recover then we learned whether and how well the team can handle. So, in a HT scenario I'd likely not drop a dog that got out early on a water blind, unless she stayed out or refused to recover the proper line. But that's just me.


That is a very good point. Whatever factor the dog initially caves to, you as a judge put it there exactly so they would cave and you would get the opportunity to judge the control the handler has of the dog. For a master dog, if it does cave, I would expect the handler to blow the whistle give the cast and have the dog take that cast and hold it for a distance. If the handler blows the whistle, gives the cast, dog scallops a little but then with another cast is doing fine, that would probably be okay as well. Frankly, I would rather see that than a big fat movement away.

There HT rules talk about progress to the blind but for a master level dog that progress should be significant and sustained versus, say, a senior level blind. In the case mentioned above (and without seeing it) if I were judging SH you are good, but I would probably want to see more progress to the blind in a master level dog than what it sounds like here.

And for the record, I don't judge HTs or run them very often any more but I have judged MH and have titled and run dogs at the level.


----------



## mathewrodriguez

It may be a little late and doesn't address your question on _"how tight you need to challenge the blind"_, but may help you prepare. The KRD (Key Relationship Drill) was helpful for my dog. Preparing for masters as opposed to seniors, we just ran the blinds tighter to the guns, under the arch and further past the guns. We also introduced poision birds off the KRD. I saw improvement of my dog holding a line close and around the gunners. If you can find a soccer field or something similar on your way, it might be a good tune-up to run through prior to your event tomorrow. We normally ran them one to two days out before the Test. Good luck this weekend.


----------



## DarrinGreene

steve schreiner said:


> Should the dog be dropped if it beaches and the dog is cast back into the water even after a 2nd or 3rd attempt? Steve S


If we could only drop the handler


----------



## DarrinGreene

JustinS said:


> I first want to point out that I am not trying to get anyone going, I ran a Master this last weekend and was failed at the end of the test for points my blinds did not qualify a pass, I am fine with that.
> 
> On a blind in a hunt test the purpose is to make progress to the bird with each cast, no cast refusals -
> 
> Here is my question on the water shore line blind - If I send the dog and it takes the line and then after 20 to 30 yards starts to curve towards shore, I whistle and give a back right, and she takes it then after 10 to 15 yards she starts to curve in and the process is repeated until the bird is picked up.
> 
> *If it takes 6 casts to get the dog out to an 80 yard shoreline water blind but you maintain a line and did not get any cast refusals why is it not master level?*
> 
> I was told in the past that it did not matter the number of casts it takes to get a dog to the blind in a hunt test as long as there was no cast refusals and you stayed in a reasonable area along the line.
> 
> I do want to know how the judges feel a blind should be judged, and was i given poor information?


There are three blinds in a MH test so you're only asking about 1/3 of the total picture. A lot depends on how it all looked, wind influence and so forth. If the dog is fighting a wind on it's front shoulder and just losing the battle, then that's different than a still day where the dog is deciding to swim toward shore. They really look different and should be judged differently. 

As for the handler, I would never do the same thing 5 times if I wasn't getting the result I wanted. If I gave a slight angle back and got a scallop, I would give more angle, then an over, then an over with a step. Remember, it doesn't matter what cast you give if the dog does the right thing. A smart handler doesn't just keep giving the same cast over and over to a dog whose response isn't strong enough.


----------



## Granddaddy

My observations in running both HTs and FTs are that an inexperienced handler generally fails in two ways. Either 1) they are late with their whistles letting their dogs get way out of shape before they blow a whistle to correct the line, i.e., there has to be some anticipation of what the dog is going to do rather than waiting to correct after it happens. Just behind that tendency is a handler 2) who handles too soon and too often. 2) becomes a problem if a handler handles too soon, i.e., doesn't allow the dog to get enough off-line in order to get a good correcting cast, setting up a pin-pong response from the dog over the course of the blind. Drills that train carrying a good initial line will help with both of these issues because it will reduce the need for correcting the line taken and help make the line run, even with handles, a more aesthetically pleasing blind.

At trials or HTs I watch those in front of me run their blinds to gain some expected tendencies of the dogs in response to the factors presented in the blind. I also try to mitigate those tendencies by helping my dog be in the right position to avoid the pitfalls yet meet the supposed requirements of the factors.


----------



## Troy Tilleraas

My thoughts are this and yes I have judged multiple... Break the blind down into thirds. If you are off line by 5 yards in the first 1/3 you are NOT challenging the line, now looking at the middle of the blind, there is probably a factor involved that you are going to want to be on line +- a yard either direction, and the ending 1/3 , no judge wants to see an over in Master of more than a couple yards. If your dog can't do an angle back then it is not at that level in my book. But I did see some last weekend even though the lady judge said "challenge the line" that did not go down the hill... but went out and gave a 5 yard over and passed. So if a judge is gonna say one thing and do another-Oh well????? IMO Most at Master level get dropped on blinds for multiple refusals,(either cast or whistle) not for being off line.


----------



## DarrinGreene

Troy Tilleraas said:


> My thoughts are this and yes I have judged multiple... Break the blind down into thirds. If you are off line by 5 yards in the first 1/3 you are NOT challenging the line, now looking at the middle of the blind, there is probably a factor involved that you are going to want to be on line +- a yard either direction, and the ending 1/3 , no judge wants to see an over in Master of more than a couple yards. If your dog can't do an angle back then it is not at that level in my book. But I did see some last weekend even though the lady judge said "challenge the line" that did not go down the hill... but went out and gave a 5 yard over and passed. So if a judge is gonna say one thing and do another-Oh well????? IMO Most at Master level get dropped on blinds for multiple refusals,(either cast or whistle) not for being off line.


I'm curious why you're talking about angle vs. over casts? If my dog is 5 yards off line and I give an over, sit him on line then give a back, and he takes both, including challenging the blind's factors, how is that not a MH level performance? If I have that kind of control and cooperation (AKA train-ability), and I hit the factors (perseverance) and the dog is stylish (style), then why don't I pass? Because the handler didn't raise his arm at a 45 degree angle?

That's not to say I would ever handle a dog that way, but I'm curious why we would be discussing the cast given by the handler vs. the response of the dog. I ask because I think the newbs might get confused by your post.

I don't even look at the handler generally. I'm watching the dog and listening to the whistle. Did the dog stop and look back crisply? When cast did he make progress to the blind (which includes being put back on line if necessary)? I know one handler who can't raise his right arm to give a cast. He does so by stepping and adding voice. Does he fail for not giving an angle back?


----------



## RookieTrainer

DarrinGreene said:


> That's not to say I would ever handle a dog that way, but I'm curious why we would be discussing the cast given by the handler vs. the response of the dog. I ask because I think the newbs might get confused by your post.


Color me a confused newb. It seems to be a chronic condition.

I was just about to ask this question: if the "runway" is that narrow, how do you give an angle back cast and not get a scallop (which might actually put the dog back on line) or get accused of ping-ponging the blind? Are you saying that you should not let them get far enough off lie that a good literal cast "Back" would not get them back on line?


----------



## Hunt'EmUp

As it was explained to me. Make a peace sign with your hand. Stretch your arm, Put the blind in the middle of your 2 fingers. Casts to Keep your dog inbtw your 2 fingers and your challenging the blind. If the dogs gets out of the peace sign, and doesn't get back in quick, drop the pointer finger, and see what you got left


----------



## Sue Kiefer

8Pt. Master Judge with numerous minor assignments as well as Major FT pts. and minor stakes pts as well.
I hate down the shore blinds. I do NOT set them up if I can find something else.
I love using natural terrain, I hate Hail Mary Overs AND I don't move my chair when judging your blind.
I tell folks when your dog moves away from the intial line its time to handle. A handle should change the dog's direction and he/she should stay on that new line till the handle blows the whistle again. Pretty simple right?
I don't count whistles only cast/whistle *refusals.
*Scalloping is NOT keeping the same direction the dog was given. He/she is going *back *to the original direction.
Sue


----------



## DarrinGreene

RookieTrainer said:


> Color me a confused newb. It seems to be a chronic condition.
> 
> I was just about to ask this question: if the "runway" is that narrow, how do you give an angle back cast and not get a scallop (which might actually put the dog back on line) or get accused of ping-ponging the blind? Are you saying that you should not let them get far enough off lie that a good literal cast "Back" would not get them back on line?


If you're running a really good blind all you would need to do is give straight back casts to one side or another. Sheet happens though. We've all been slow on a whistle with a stylish dog and needed more cast to get back on track. 

and... there are angles and then there are angles. A really seasoned dog knows more than 8 casts. My first dog through a formal program, by 5 years old would take an angle from almost any position on the clock face if I gave it to him. I could get a little angle or a lot, depending on my cast.


----------



## steve schreiner

JustinS said:


> I first want to point out that I am not trying to get anyone going, I ran a Master this last weekend and was failed at the end of the test for points my blinds did not qualify a pass, I am fine with that.
> 
> On a blind in a hunt test the *purpose is to make progress to the bird with each cast*, no cast refusals -
> 
> Here is my question on the water shore line blind - If I send the dog and *it takes the line and then after 20 to 30 yards starts to curve towards shore, I whistle and give a back right, and she takes it then after 10 to 15 yards she starts to curve in *and the process is repeated until the bird is picked up.
> 
> *If it takes 6 casts to get the dog out to an 80 yard shoreline water blind but you maintain a line and did not get any cast refusals why is it not master level?*
> 
> *I was told in the past that it did not matter the number of casts it takes to get a dog to the blind* in a hunt test as long as there was no cast refusals and you stayed in a reasonable area along the line.
> 
> *I do want to know how the judges feel a blind should be judged,* and was i given poor information?


To use these words as a catch phase is to say no overs are allowed...As Darrin pointed out an over to put the dog on line and then continue to the blind should be viewed as an acceptable performance...I agree...My first QAA dog didn't know angle backs back then...It is the response I look for not the route ( within my window or fairway as some have said) to get there being the final decision maker...I usually don't set up a must do in my blinds... Except show control of the dog...I use hazards and factors to see if the dog will sit on a whistle and take a proper cast to get back on line or finish the blind.... Carrying a cast is something over looked by many judges as a part of trainability in the handling process...Shouldn't a dog carry the cast more than a few feet before sucking back into the shore..? Some judges don't care about the number of whistles and or cast to get the bird...I believe there should be an acceptable level of performance expected from a master level dog...This is where each judge is different...That is my 2cents on how I view them....Steve S


----------



## steve schreiner

jeff evans said:


> I do not say this in a condisending way and with due respect. *If a dog requires 6 casts off the shore in 80yds, that translates to probably 5 cast refusals possibly 6. The dog is not changing direction and is caving to shore. If the dog took every cast it would require a cast off shore (dog changes direction out to sea) and then a cast straight back to the bird. So I would conclude that there are a number of cast refusals in the blind you describe, especially at the distance you described. * I would also advocate giving a walking silent over cast away from the shore or any suction for that matter in a trial situation. Have fun and give it a though. Oh and a disclaimer I am not a HT judge, just an amateur FTer...


How far does a dog have to turn/go in the proper direction to have been considered to have taken the cast..? I agree the dog is caving into suction but that is the whole point of having the shore line close by...Just by the description given I would say the dog took every cast but didn't carry them very far....How many cast will the dog take before it tells the handler I'm going to shore? Then can the handler get the dog back into the water and continue or does he/she loose control of the dog ...How much suction is on that bank? Scented ? Wind blowing dog to the shore? Previous marks retrieved from there? Running water vs swimming water? Just food for thought...Steve S


----------



## Thomas D

The judges might have relied on what is written in the rulebook:

Multiple cast refusals – failure to take lines and directions,
or to hold lines and directions more than a short distance.


----------



## Ted Shih

paul young said:


> .
> 
> Speaking for myself, I hate shoreline blinds that are one-sided. There should be enough water for the dog to get off line and still be in the water.-Paul


Paul

What do you mean by one-sided blinds?
Why are you opposed to them?

Ted


----------



## DarrinGreene

Thomas D said:


> The judges might have relied on what is written in the rulebook:
> 
> Multiple cast refusals – failure to take lines and directions,
> or to hold lines and directions more than a short distance.


I think what most are saying supports that fully Tom. In the scenario where we say "ignore the handler" there is the inherent assumption that whatever cast was given was meant to improve the dog's position relative to the blind. Whether it's a back, an angle or an over, whether or not the voice is used, all that stuff, matters not if you assume the handler is directing the dog toward the stated objective with each cast, and simply watch the dog to see where it goes and for how long it carries.


----------



## RookieTrainer

DarrinGreene said:


> I think what most are saying supports that fully Tom. In the scenario where we say "ignore the handler" there is the inherent assumption that whatever cast was given was meant to improve the dog's position relative to the blind. Whether it's a back, an angle or an over, whether or not the voice is used, all that stuff, matters not if you assume the handler is directing the dog toward the stated objective with each cast, and simply watch the dog to see where it goes and for how long it carries.


This is getting at the question I was really asking earlier. 

The object, as I understand it, is to stay on a good line to the blind, and to stop, take, and carry casts if given. And a "good line" means staying on a fairway that is only 10-20 yards wide, or 5-10 yards on either side. 

So I am handling my dog and he gets 5 yards off to the left and I stop him. Not saying this is what I would or should do in a given situation, but say an angle back right is the needed cast and I give it. Given the tight runway, the dog doesn't seem to have much room to carry that cast if he takes it properly. I didn't get my slide rule out, but that doesn't seem to give him more than about 25 yards until he is bumping the right boundary of the runway. Is that long enough to carry the cast?

I know the real answer is that it depends. But what I am asking is where is the line (pardon the expression) between too many whistles (to keep the dog close enough to the line to use backs) and really ping-ponging the blind with angle backs while keeping him in the runway.

If it helps, I have one of those "stylish" dogs referred to earlier, and I have to keep a breath for the whistle at all times. He does typically take good initial lines, and he has done well on blinds in tests to this point, although we have only made it through Seasoned so far. Hoping to tackle Senior this fall and hopefully Finished/Master in the spring.


----------



## Ted Shih

Maybe I missed it, but has anybody referred to what the Rule Book says about blinds?


----------



## DoubleHaul

RookieTrainer said:


> So I am handling my dog and he gets 5 yards off to the left and I stop him. Not saying this is what I would or should do in a given situation, but say an angle back right is the needed cast and I give it. Given the tight runway, the dog doesn't seem to have much room to carry that cast if he takes it properly. I didn't get my slide rule out, but that doesn't seem to give him more than about 25 yards until he is bumping the right boundary of the runway. Is that long enough to carry the cast?


Give him less angle and more back.  I am only partly being facetious. If the cast to the bird is not an angle back why would you give it? With literal casting you give the dog the cast that will take it to the bird if it takes the cast, not to get back on the line or to the other side of the 'fairway'. 

I don't know your dog but for most, a back is not a straight back and an angle back is not 45 degrees forever. With my dogs, at HT distances anyway, they can detect the difference in the angle back--it can be more over than back or more back than over. Think wagon wheel casting or Evan's Definitive Casting videos.

That loses its effectiveness at FT distance as the dog is farther away and can't see you as well, so there are other ways. So say a straight back is not enough cast for your dog (i.e., it won't change direction the whole five yards) and an angle back is too much. I might give a straight back with a step in the sideways direction to influence the dog for more direction change. Alternatively, I can give an vocal angle back, which leads to less directional change and more back.


----------



## Criquetpas

If your training is good angles can be measured in degrees. Straight backs with more advanced dogs are backs with slight angles not straight backs. Overcasting can occur in training when pressure is applied where you get too much angle. It takes much training practice to accomplish the slight angles or degrees to keep dogs on precision lines. You will see those precision casts much of the time in field trial training not so much in hunt tests, why? I can only surmise. I too have judged my share of Master Hunt Tests and also major stake field trials. Too many times the blinds in hunt tests are sometimes real "hack jobs", even with pro handlers in our regional area of the Midwest. In my opinion if one would use field trial standards in training for hunt test blinds and judged accordingly, the lines to the blinds would be very obvious. To quote a very good friend, experienced amateur retriever trainer, judge of many, many field trials, "You can teach any dog to do blinds, you can't teach them to mark" , why not spend some time in training to develop those precision lines and casts, the line to the blind, straight, advoid the hazards, and get the chicken, something like golf. Practice, practice, practice, even handicap yourself in training, with obscure handling techniques, waste up body that dog can only see partial on the cast, movement, etc. Marking you can't do too much about if your dog is an average marker, blinds now you can make up the difference in scores with training.


----------



## steve schreiner

[QUOTE=Granddaddy;1141319 i.e., doesn't allow the dog to get enough off-line in order to get a good correcting cast, setting up a pin-pong response from the dog over the course of the blind. 

Just to clarify for the newbes...I consider ping-ponging as when the dog is moving right and left without making progress to the blind ..Usually a poor response to some form of a back cast...Using angle back cast and crossing the line from one side to the other within the window but always moving closer to the blind is good handling in my opinion....I'm not one that wants to see a lot of stops and cast to stay on a line...Steve S 

PS,rookie trainer ...If the window is that tight you need to be working more on straight up back cast than angles....fine tune the cast the dog will take ....


----------



## Gun_Dog2002

Ted Shih said:


> Maybe I missed it, but has anybody referred to what the Rule Book says about blinds?


The rule book does not state any thing about this. It discusses excessive handling, the dog being under control and visable at all times.

/Paul


----------



## DarrinGreene

Ted Shih said:


> Maybe I missed it, but has anybody referred to what the Rule Book says about blinds?


Any of us who have judged have read the rule book, multiple times, I would think Ted. Why do you ask? It would seem you believe there are some errors in the information being posted? 

There is information all throughout the hunting test rules that relate to blind retrieves.

In addition to Paul's info the book also talks about response, which includes both response to a whistle as well as taking and carrying direction. There is a specific statement disallowing any consideration for confusion on the initial cast also.

At the extreme end there is a provision to disqualify a dog for willful disobedience.


----------



## john fallon

Not unlike it's Field Trial counterpart, The Hunt Test rulebook leaves a lot of room for emblishment......

Take for an example: The line to the blind goes over a point by less than two times the width of an average size dog, If a dog does not get all four feet on the point then what ......

If one were to go by the rulebook...To qualify a dog must receive an overall average score of at least seven. Furthermore it must receive an independent average score of at least five (5) in each ability catagory related to marking, and a seperate* independent *average score of at least (5) in each ability catagory related to blinds

So with a good blind going, to fail , that dog must get dinged pretty hard for not having got the other 2 feet on the point.

"Drop dead" spot regards

john

BTW -the word blind is used 48 times and blinds 16 times in the HT rules


----------



## steve schreiner

john fallon said:


> Not unlike it's Field Trial counterpart, The Hunt Test rulebook leaves a lot of room for emblishment......
> 
> Take for an example: *The line to the blind goes over a point by less than two times the width of an average size dog, If a dog does not get all four feet on the point then what ......*If one were to go by the rulebook...To qualify a dog must receive an overall average score of at least seven. Furthermore it must receive an independent average score of at least five (5) in each ability catagory related to marking, and a seperate* independent *average score of at least (5) in each ability catagory related to blinds
> 
> So with a good blind going, to fail , that dog must get dinged pretty hard for not having got the other 2 feet on the point.
> 
> *"Drop dead" spot regards*
> 
> john
> 
> BTW -the word blind is used 48 times and blinds 16 times in the HT rules


My windows are not that tight....Either wet or dry would be fine with me....If the dog and or handler choose dry and can't get the dog back into the water or looses the dog around the point ,,well that is another story...The only thing I would be concerned with is if the handler choose water and is sooooo far from the point he/she is clearly out of my window and thus avoiding the hazard of the blind...If I wanted the dog out, the window would be clear and the point would probably be scented to add some difficulty of putting the dog back in ...If the dog can't finish the blind I view them as out of control and thus resulting in a score of 0 for that blind...All birds must be picked up so it would be an elimination for that dog...If the dog recovers with some difficulty, even a 3 , if the other 2 blinds will bring the average up to 5 ,we continue to play...Steve S


----------



## Ted Shih

DarrinGreene said:


> Any of us who have judged have read the rule book, multiple times, I would think Ted. Why do you ask? It would seem you believe there are some errors in the information being posted?
> 
> There is information all throughout the hunting test rules that relate to blind retrieves.
> 
> In addition to Paul's info the book also talks about response, which includes both response to a whistle as well as taking and carrying direction. There is a specific statement disallowing any consideration for confusion on the initial cast also.
> 
> At the extreme end there is a provision to disqualify a dog for willful disobedience.




I ask because, as a judge, I start with the Rule Book. It is difficult for me to gauge whether the advice offered is correct - or not - without knowing what the rules are. And yet, as far as I can tell, there has been no reference to the Rule Book. I find that curious.


----------



## steve schreiner

Arnie said:


> We're about to run our first Master test this weekend. I've read that "challenging the blind" is very important. How tight a line to the blind is considered challenging the blind? I'm afraid to risk refusals if I handle too much.


Ted, This is the original post...How does the rule book HT or FT describe "CHALLENGING THE BLIND" ...? I don't believe the op can get the answer from the book ...It ( challenge the blind) is a judges decision on if the handler did or didn't ....How would you have judged the dog in John's example of "on or off" the point..? Steve S


----------



## Ted Shih

Steve

I don't judge HT, I judge FT. So, I don't presume to tell someone how they should judge a blind in a HT. If the words "challenging the blind" are not in the HT Rule Book, then why is everyone making such a big deal about it? Is it inferred from portions of the Rule Book? Is it part of the tradition of HT? I am looking for some context in which to understand the discussion

Ted


----------



## steve schreiner

Ted Shih said:


> Steve
> 
> I don't judge HT, I judge FT. So, I don't presume to tell someone how they should judge a blind in a HT. If the words "challenging the blind" are not in the HT Rule Book, then why is everyone making such a big deal about it? Is it inferred from portions of the Rule Book? Is it part of the tradition of HT? I am looking for some context in which to understand the discussion
> 
> Ted


Since I don't have my book in front of me at this time to quote it ,I'll just give my opinion....The term challenge is a carry over from the fT game ...As used by most judges...They don't want to put themselves in a box and have to eat their own words when they find out the contestants didn't run it as explained by the judge before it began...because if they did the odds were a lot higher they will loose the dog...As in John's example of "on or off ", too tight to judge properly in my opinion..#64...I believe the person isn't worth their salt if they don't judge as they instructed ....Just put the blind out there and say have at it ....judge the dog and handlers performance in getting the job done ....Constants want to know what the judge expects as far as an acceptable performance will be so they ask ....Don't set up blinds with out a clear line that is visible to all that look at it ...Steve S


----------



## Ted Shih

Here is what the FT Rule Book has to say about blind retrieves




> 28. When ordered to retrieve, a dog should proceed quickly and eagerly on land or into the water to marked falls, or on the line given him by his handler on falls he has not seen. He should not disturb too much ground or area and should respond quickly and obediently to any further directions his handler might give him. Failure to enter either rough cover, water, ice, mud or any other situation involving unpleasant or difficult going for the dog, after having been ordered to do so several times, is sufficient cause to justify elimination from the stake. A dog which pays no attention to many whistles and directions by his handler can be said to be “out-of-control,’’ and, unless in the opinion of the Judges there exist valid mitigating circumstances, should be eliminated from the stake. Page 33
> 
> 39. A dog sent on a blind retrieve shall at once proceed in the general direction of the line given by the handler. A dog that fails to do so shall, in the absence of unusual extenuating circumstances, be eliminated from the stake. Page 34
> 
> On “blind’’ retrieves, wherever possible, the Judges should plan their tests in such a way that they take advantage of natural hazards, such as islands, points of land, sand bars, ditches, hedges, small bushes, adjacent heavy cover, and rolling terrain. Despite such natural distractions, it should be possible, at least in theory, for a dog to “find’’ a well-planned blind-retrieve on the initial line from his handler; that he will do so is highly improbable because of those natural hazards, so he must be handled to the “blind.’’ Nevertheless, the test should be so planned that the dog should be “in-sight’’ continuously. A blind retrieve is a test of control, and a dog which is out of sight for a considerable period cannot be said to be under control. Utilizing natural hazards should obviate the need for Judges issuing special instructions about the manner of completing a blind retrieve, other than to “get the meat’’ by the shortest, fastest, or most direct route. Page 42
> 
> (3) Response to direction is all-important in handling tests, also whenever a dog must be brought back to the “area of the ‘fall,’ ’’ when he has mismarked. In such response to direction, a dog should take the original line given to him by his handler and continue on it until he either makes the “find,’’ or until stopped by the handler and given a new line. He should then continue in this new direction until he “finds,’’ or is given further directions, etc.
> 
> Faults, or justifications for penalties, include the following: (a) not taking the line originally given by the handler, (b) not continuing on that line for a considerable distance, (c) stopping voluntarily, i.e., “popping-up’’ and looking back for directions, (d) failure to stop promptly and look to the handler, when signaled, (e) failure to take a new direction, i.e., a new cast, when given, and (f) failure to continue in that new direction for a considerable distance.
> 
> The seriousness of the penalty for any or all of the foregoing faults varies with the seriousness of the infraction, whether that infraction was repeated and how often, and whether there was a combination of various infractions. However, before inflicting a severe penalty because of a dog’s failure to stop promptly at the whistle, Judges should determine whether the wind, the cover, or the distance seriously interfered with the dog’s ability to hear his handler. In general, the performance in the test should be considered in its entirety; an occasional failure to take and hold a direction may be considered a minor fault, if offset by several other very good responses. A considerable penalty should be imposed for repeated, willful disobedience of the handler’s orders; and less penalty when, after taking the proper direction, he does not continue on it as far as the handler desired. Stopping voluntarily, to look back for directions, in an isolated instance, may be considered a minor fault, but frequent repetition may convert such “popping-up’’ into the category of serious faults. Pages 53-54



Note that the words "progress to the blind" and "challenge the blind" are not used.

I am not big into mystery when I judge, so lately I have gone to drawing a diagram showing the "ideal" line to the bird from the mat.

Ted


----------



## RookieTrainer

steve schreiner;114167PS said:


> Well, I was really trying to come up with an example that would take all the "train your dog" and "fine tune your casts" responses out of the running. Not that those are not needed, particularly in my case, but that is really not what I am trying to ask. That's why my example assumed that the angle back was the right cast and also imposed a tight window.
> 
> Steve, I think you at least partially answered my question if taking the cast, crossing the line to the blind, and continuing to make progress to the blind would constitute "challenging the blind."
> 
> I hear my dog has made some real progress over the summer in deciding to actually take casts, so the blind running is now really dependent on my handling. I wasn't worried about this nearly as much when I was struggling to figure out how to get him to stop scalloping and rolling back.
> 
> *Sigh* There's just a lot to this whole deal.


----------



## Good Dogs

Ted Shih said:


> Maybe I missed it, but has anybody referred to what the Rule Book says about blinds?


See Tom's post #53.


----------



## Ted Shih

Good Dogs said:


> See Tom's post #53.



As I understand it, that was only a partial recitation of the Rules


----------



## john fallon

In a Master HT, to be in compliance with the_ Challenge the Blind _embellishment/proviso must one aggressively challenge the laser line to the blind to pass, or may one simply hold their own within an (x ) yd wide fairway and still garner a passing 7+ average?

john


----------



## RookieTrainer

john fallon said:


> In a Master HT, to be in compliance with the_ Challenge the Blind _embellishment/proviso must one aggressively challenge the laser line to the blind to pass, or may one simply hold their own within an (x ) yd wide fairway and still garner a passing 7+ average?
> 
> john


Good question John. As a follow-up to that question, would a given set of judges drop a "stylish" dog for getting slightly outside the runway but sitting quickly on the whistle and taking one cast to the bird?

On the flip side, would the same given set of judges pass another dog who stays within the runway and takes casts but takes several casts to get there?

I know the real answer is it depends, and if you and the dog are on the same page you can take some of this stuff out of the equation. However, as most of you know much better than me, you don't always get what you expect coming off the tailgate on a given day. I am trying to pick some experienced brains to start to develop some sense of the strategy involved here and to start building some sort of framework for analyzing a particular setup to determine how to attack it.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002

john fallon said:


> In a Master HT, to be in compliance with the_ Challenge the Blind _embellishment/proviso must one aggressively challenge the laser line to the blind to pass, or may one simply hold their own within an (x ) yd wide fairway and still garner a passing 7+ average?
> 
> john


i refer you to post #4

/Paul


----------



## steve schreiner

Ted Shih said:


> Here is what the FT Rule Book has to say about blind retrieves
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Note that the words "progress to the blind" and "challenge the blind" are not used.
> 
> I am not big into mystery when I judge,* so lately *I have gone to drawing a diagram showing the "ideal" line to the bird from the mat.
> 
> Ted


I agree these words are not written ...but...I assume you have some kind of guide line you go by when you judge a blind....Not just wonder all over the field and get there in the end...If a dog is not "progressing towards the blind ", how would you describe it's direction ? How do you answer people when they ask about the line to the blind as in John's example before...? . Is there a special set of words you tell people or just ignore them and let them try and figure it out for themselves..? I too draw diagrams of the dogs route . the ideal line is always a straight line in my opinion ...so no need for that line ...I also didn't see the words "pleasing to the eye " in you quote...I don't per-say count whistles to just count ...If a whistle is blown the handler must have thought there was a need to change the dogs direction ...I have dropped dogs for style on water blinds and I look for dog response to the handler, not just did they keep the dog with in my window...Some handlers are too slow at the controls for fast stylish dogs...I don't like to punish the dog for their handlers mistakes ...They have to assume some responsibility as being part of the team though ...Are they trying to attempt to run the blind or to avoid the hazards along the way ...Steve S 

PS:The word *lately* just caught my attention ...I was taught that back in the 80's ..A picture is worth a thousand words when it comes time to explain to a new handler what their dog did in your eyes...In the HT game we have to show our books to handlers and in the beginning of the game we had to send them in to AKC...


----------



## steve schreiner

john fallon said:


> In a Master HT, to be in compliance with the_ Challenge the Blind _embellishment/proviso must one aggressively challenge the laser line to the blind to pass, or may one simply hold their own within an (x ) yd wide fairway and still garner a passing 7+ average?
> 
> john


John , Please for the record ..How do you judge blinds in respect to the above question..? Thanks Steve S


----------



## john fallon

steve schreiner said:


> John , Please for the record ..How do you judge blinds in respect to the above question..? Thanks Steve S


I loth one sided blinds, that is to say that a dog that gets 6' feet of the point (4' to the left of the lazer line did no more or less of a job than the dog that still had 2 feet in the water. 

In the blind in question, when judging against a standard, rather that judging to pick a winner and placements, I feel that a dog that gets two feet on the point has performed to the upper end of that standard for that aspect of the blind. A dog that stays in the fairway gets a C or 7.

When judging to pick a winner and placements the field sets the standard .

john


----------



## Erik Nilsson

This is what I look at as challenging the Blind

Red line is the most direct path
yellow lines are my guide lines
blue diamond is what I shoot for


How would you judge a dog that took the while lines but took the cast to the blind? Depending on the level of dog of course.


I failed our first seasoned test because I "challenged the line" IMO way too much and created too many whistle and cast refusals just to move a dog x feet to keep the line. 

One thing I see is a lot of dogs are allowed to get into the general area at the end and just hunt? I like to pin it, but thats me


----------



## mostlygold

I do judge HT and minor stake FT and I judge Q dogs and MH dogs the same on a blind. When I set up a blind there are specific hazards or "challenges" inherent in that blind. I expect handlers at those levels to see what those hazards are and to respond appropriately. That means to me not allowing your dog to go way right or left to avoid a scented area, bird crates, PB etc. I don't expect those dogs to take 2ft of a point or go thru the middle of 4 FT of cover. Cover may push a dog one way or the other requiring the handler to handle but they certainly are not make or break. If the line to the blind is over the last 2 FT of point, again it may require handling if the dog takes too much land or too much water, but it is not crucial to passing the blind. I have never judged AA stakes and don't have the experience to discuss what is expected at those levels.

Dawn


----------



## Ted Shih

steve schreiner said:


> I agree these words are not written ...but...I assume you have some kind of guide line you go by when you judge a blind....Not just wonder all over the field and get there in the end...If a dog is not "progressing towards the blind ", how would you describe it's direction ? How do you answer people when they ask about the line to the blind as in John's example before...? . Is there a special set of words you tell people or just ignore them and let them try and figure it out for themselves..? I too draw diagrams of the dogs route . the ideal line is always a straight line in my opinion ...so no need for that line ...I also didn't see the words "pleasing to the eye " in you quote...I don't per-say count whistles to just count ...If a whistle is blown the handler must have thought there was a need to change the dogs direction ...I have dropped dogs for style on water blinds and I look for dog response to the handler, not just did they keep the dog with in my window...Some handlers are too slow at the controls for fast stylish dogs...I don't like to punish the dog for their handlers mistakes ...They have to assume some responsibility as being part of the team though ...Are they trying to attempt to run the blind or to avoid the hazards along the way ...Steve S



In Field Trials, work is both relative to the field and cumulative. In that way (and others), a FT differs from a HT. In HT, even though judges are supposed to operate under a standard, Judge A may judge a blind different than Judge B. It is any surprise that in FT, where there is no standard, that there is a variance between what Judges think a blind should look like?

I would say that I judge a blind in its "entirety" (see post 69) - which might be interpreted to meaning "pleasing to the eye", although what is pleasing to my eye might differ significantly from what is pleasing to your eye.

I would say that the FT Rules about the line from the blind being the "fastest, shortest, most direct route" (FSD) might be interpreted to mean "challenging the line."

I disagree with those who say that the line to the blind is obvious, and the obstacles on the path to the blind that need to be negotiated are apparent.
It is neither obvious nor apparent because of the subjectivity of judging

- Some people have the same corridor from beginning to end (Paul's 5 yards from either side of the imaginary line from point A to point B)
- Some people have a corridor that is narrow at the beginning and wide at the end - their corridor is shaped like a "V"
- Some people have a corridor that is shaped like a football "()" narrow at the beginning, wide in the middle, narrow at the end.

- Some people judge blinds pass/fail
- Some people have mandatory criteria for their blinds

- Some people do not care how many whistles are used, if the line is followed
- Some people care less about the precise line than style

My point is this - in a Field Trial at least - to say to a particular handler "This is how you should run your blind" is silly.

Among other things, how you run a blind is dependent upon:
1. The dog you are running (you should never ask a dog to do something that it is not capable of doing)
2. The judge overseeing your dog (you need to know his/her tastes in blinds)
3. How good your dog has run compared to the field (If you are on top, you can play it safe. If you are on the bottom, you need to take chances)
4. How the other dogs are running on the blind. (If it is a bloodbath, you probably need to adjust your approach.)

So, as a whole, I am not sure how you can answer the OP without more specific information concerning the conditions under which he/she is running (dog, stake, judge, etc.)




steve schreiner said:


> r
> [/B] just caught my attention ...I was taught that back in the 80's ..A picture is worth a thousand words when it comes time to explain to a new handler what their dog did in your eyes...In the HT game we have to show our books to handlers and in the beginning of the game we had to send them in to AKC...



Showing the handlers the book after they have run is not the same as showing them what you view to be the line to the blind before they run. Which do you do?


----------



## steve schreiner

john fallon said:


> I loth one sided blinds, that is to say that a dog that gets 6' feet of the point (4' to the left of the lazer line did no more or less of a job than the dog that still had 2 feet in the water. I agree ..too close for any separation in my opinion..
> 
> In the blind in question, when judging against a standard, rather that judging to pick a winner and placements, I feel that a dog that gets two feet on the point has performed to the upper end of that standard for that aspect of the blind. A dog that stays in the fairway gets a C or 7. In my book both dogs receiver the same score...
> 
> When judging to pick a winner and placements the field sets the standard .Agreed ...this blind is no place to pick a winner ,in my opinion...
> 
> john


Thanks for the reply ...Steve S


----------



## steve schreiner

Ted Shih said:


> In Field Trials, work is both relative to the field and cumulative. In that way (and others), a FT differs from a HT. In HT, even though judges are supposed to operate under a standard, Judge A may judge a blind different than Judge B. It is any surprise that in FT, where there is no standard, that there is a variance between what Judges think a blind should look like?
> 
> I would say that I judge a blind in its "entirety" (see post 69) - which might be interpreted to meaning "pleasing to the eye", although what is pleasing to my eye might differ significantly from what is pleasing to your eye.
> 
> I would say that the FT Rules about the line from the blind being the "fastest, shortest, most direct route" (FSD) might be interpreted to mean "challenging the line."
> 
> I disagree with those who say that the line to the blind is obvious, and the obstacles on the path to the blind that need to be negotiated are apparent.
> *It is neither obvious nor apparent because of the subjectivity of judging*
> - Some people have the same corridor from beginning to end (Paul's 5 yards from either side of the imaginary line from point A to point B)
> - Some people have a corridor that is narrow at the beginning and wide at the end - their corridor is shaped like a "V"
> - Some people have a corridor that is shaped like a football "()" narrow at the beginning, wide in the middle, narrow at the end.
> 
> - Some people judge blinds pass/fail
> - Some people have mandatory criteria for their blinds
> 
> - Some people do not care how many whistles are used, if the line is followed
> - Some people care less about the precise line than style
> 
> My point is this - in a Field Trial at least - to say to a particular handler "This is how you should run your blind" is silly.
> 
> Among other things, how you run a blind is dependent upon:
> 1. The dog you are running (you should never ask a dog to do something that it is not capable of doing)
> 2. The judge overseeing your dog (you need to know his/her tastes in blinds)
> 3. How good your dog has run compared to the field (If you are on top, you can play it safe. If you are on the bottom, you need to take chances)
> 4. How the other dogs are running on the blind. (If it is a bloodbath, you probably need to adjust your approach.)
> 
> So, as a whole, I am not sure how you can answer the OP without more specific information concerning the conditions under which he/she is running (dog, stake, judge, etc.)
> 
> 
> 
> Showing the handlers the book after they have run is not the same as showing them what you view to be the line to the blind before they run. Which do you do?


Very informative post...I have run field trials in the past and understand the differences in the two games....I don't give special instructions in the holding blind ...I try to make the line to the blind as clear as possible so there is no questions in the minds of the handlers as to how to get there that will get them a passing score...I know there is worlds of difference in judges opinions and views at to what they deem passable or except able work...That is what makes running more difficult to the newer people ..What does this judge want to see...? I agree the blind should be judged in its entirety not just points or spots along the way to be hit.... How can we as judges in both games take some of this ( bodled print ) out of the game..? I don't want the games to come to the point of the SRS game of being a bean counter ..No room for judgment at all ....thanks for sharing your thoughts and insights ...Steve S


----------



## Ted Shih

steve schreiner said:


> I try to make the line to the blind as clear as possible so there is no questions in the minds of the handlers as to how to get there that will get them a passing score...I know there is worlds of difference in judges opinions and views at to what they deem passable or except able work...



Because there is a "world of difference" from one judge to another, it is impossible that the "line to the blind is as clear as possible". There is too much subjectivity.


----------



## steve schreiner

Ted Shih said:


> Because there is a "world of difference" from one judge to another, it is impossible that the "line to the blind is as clear as possible". There is too much subjectivity.


This is where we are going to disagree....I believe the line to the blind should be such that any person can draw a line from point A to B...The not being clear on what the judge prefers is where the problem lies...As in the example of the water blind...If I wanted dogs dry, all 4 feet , put it on paper and put it in the last holding blind ...Then have the gumption to stand by it and drop every dog that wasn't ...Even it meant having only one dog left for the water marks...No subjectivity to it ...The difference between some judges when it comes to mandatory hitting key spots and others not so much is subjectivity...Not telling or explaining exactly what is expected is where the problem lies in my opinion...Some judges don't want to be questioned about their test and the how and whys of it ...So they tend to leave things vague in the minds of people...I would love to sit beside you at an event some time to gain some insight from you on dogs and how you understand their natural behaviors....May even get some insight into subjectivity ...Steve S


----------



## Ted Shih

steve schreiner said:


> .Not telling or explaining exactly what is expected is where the problem lies in my opinion.


Steve

If you believe that the line to the blind is "clear" then why is any explaining necessary?
It is precisely because people's lines to the blind differ, that it is unclear what is expected.

If you believe that the line to the blind is obvious, is it
- the same regardless of terrain (5 yards +/- the perfect line)
- unchanging regardless of stake (Open, Am, Qualifying)
If there is any variance, for whatever reason, the line to the blind is not obvious

Over time, I have made book on several different judges. Some are very strict about the line, some are not. Some stress momentum and style, others do not. Some insist that you navigate an obstacle (point, piece of cover) even if it is not really on line.

It is a myth to say that the line to the blind is obvious.

It is like saying that every umpire in professional baseball has the same strike zone. The Rule Book tells each umpire what the strike zone should be. Some umpires have a high strike zone. Others have a low strike zone. Some strike zones are large, some are small. Some strike zones change depending upon the batter or pitcher.

And so, I say that - practically speaking - there is no such thing as a "line to the blind." There are only "lines to the blind" established by individual judges.

Ted


----------



## steve schreiner

Ted Shih said:


> Steve
> 
> If *you believe that the line to the blind is "clear" then why is any explaining necessary?*It is precisely because people's lines to the blind differ, that it is unclear what is expected.
> 
> If you believe that the line to the blind is obvious, is it
> - the same regardless of terrain (5 yards +/- the perfect line)
> - unchanging regardless of stake (Open, Am, Qualifying)
> If there is any variance, for whatever reason, the line to the blind is not obvious
> 
> Over time, I have made book on several different judges. Some are very strict about the line, some are not. Some stress momentum and style, others do not. Some insist that you navigate an obstacle (point, piece of cover) even if it is not really on line.
> 
> It is a myth to say that the line to the blind is obvious.
> 
> It is like saying that every umpire in professional baseball has the same strike zone. The Rule Book tells each umpire what the strike zone should be. Some umpires have a high strike zone. Others have a low strike zone. Some strike zones are large, some are small. Some strike zones change depending upon the batter or pitcher.
> 
> And so, I say that - practically speaking - there is no such thing as a "line to the blind." *There are only "lines to the blind" established by individual judges.*
> Ted


There is only one line to the blind...There may be several different one in the judges minds though...this is the problem...As you mentioned some want the dog to hit cover even if it is not on line to the blind ...This is why I say they should explain THEIR line to be judged...I have seen blinds that the line to the blind was clearly off the point but if the dog didn't get dry they were dropped...This kind of judging is not fair to the constant...As you mentioned momentum and style are important and should exist with in the boundaries of the blind...Not some far corner of the field ...They are judged in the style category of the HT score sheet...Thank you for the exchange of thoughts...Steve S


----------



## BJGatley

Arnie said:


> We're about to run our first Master test this weekend. I've read that "challenging the blind" is very important. How tight a line to the blind is considered challenging the blind? I'm afraid to risk refusals if I handle too much.


What I was taught some time ago and have seen it first hand is....As soon as the Master judges let you go, you release your dog and about 20 or 30 yards, you whistle stop your dog and handle your dog to the blind. Again as I was shown....In field trials, I have seen folks stop there dog and then let the dog go and at the same time give hand signals and whistles to the blind...I like this approach from which I was trained....When I get back in the games, which is real soon, I will do the same approach. 

Just my 2 cents as always......


----------



## mostlygold

Just a quick example. MH HT water blind. Blind starts about 20 yds back from edge of water. Line of blind is slight angle entry to left, swim about 50 yd, go over spit of land where previous mark landed, slight angle off that into water, then angle down shore about 60 yds to bird. As the judge the line seemed obvious to me. The dog should enter the water, go over the spit without unduly avoiding the area of the fall and stay in the water while heading for the blind. Things I did not want to see was dogs trying to skirt the first pond, dogs staying too fat in the water after going over the spit and dogs going to shore after being cast off the spit and running down the road to the blind. 5 dogs did hit the shore, but 2 were immediately handled back into the water and finished the blind in good order. Of the other 3, 2 handlers did try to get their dogs back into the water but were unsuccessful and 1 made no attempt to handle back in the water. All 3 of those dogs picked up the blind. 2 other dogs that hit the shore and wouldn't handle back were picked up. Of the above mentioned 3 dogs, 2 of the handlers questioned why they were not called back, which surprised me as I felt it was pretty obvious they had not completed the blind.

Perhaps under another judge the effort of trying to get the dog back into the water would have been enough. There is just too much subjectivity in judging to know. The only remark that was made prior to running was that we considered this a water blind.

Dawn


----------



## Pete

> There is only one line to the blind...There may be several different one in the judges minds though...this is the problem...As you mentioned some want the dog to hit cover even if it is not on line to the blind ...This is why I say they should explain THEIR line to be judged...I have seen blinds that the line to the blind was clearly off the point but if the dog didn't get dry they were dropped...This kind of judging is not fair to the constant...As you mentioned momentum and style are important and should exist with in the boundaries of the blind...Not some far corner of the field ...They are judged in the style category of the HT score sheet...Thank you for the exchange of thoughts...Steve S


I agree with you Steve.
Contestants should not have to be mind readers. And contestants should not have to run under judges long enough to learn what each judge actually is looking for,because that would cause an UNFAIR equity. 

Pete


----------



## DarrinGreene

Ted Shih said:


> I ask because, as a judge, I start with the Rule Book. It is difficult for me to gauge whether the advice offered is correct - or not - without knowing what the rules are. And yet, as far as I can tell, there has been no reference to the Rule Book. I find that curious.


Thanks Ted. Understood. You make great points in your subsequent posts. Thanks for taking the time.


----------



## Arnie

OK, I'm back. It was a great weekend even though we did not pass. Thank you all for the excellent input. I've learned a lot. Too bad I went blank on the second series. 95+% handler error.

First series, water marks. Gage pinned the go bird with an excellent angle entry and the second bird across the pond. He took a straight line to the memory bird but about 30 yards into the water there was downwind suction that pulled him off line. In three casts I was able to turn him back to the line (still in the water). He held the line and he pinned that bird 20 yards back from the far shore as well. 

The water blind consisted of an angle entry about 20 yards down the shore and a fairly long swim to a line of tulies. The bird was planted on the back side of the tulies just inside the far point so the dog could not see it. Gage took a good line to the tulies about 4-5 yards before the end where I stopped him and gave an angle back through the tulies right to the bird.

We got "good job" from the judges, applause from the gallery and some very kind comments. I was still shaking when I kenneled him. Over 25% of the dogs were dropped on this series. Wish I could have quit then.

Second series, land. Memory bird a shot flyer into very heavy cover about 90-100 yards out to the left. Second bird only about 70 yards straight out in tall but sparse cover, Go bird on narrow angle to the right past the second bird but considerably further out and past a cut that put the dogs out of sight if they had to be handled in that area. Gage pinned the go bird but when I sent him to the second bird he forgot his mark. I let him get way past the AOF before I tried to handle him. I then forgot where the bird was and handled him to the wrong spot. It was the groans from the gallery that gave me the hint at what I did and he responded to an over to the right spot (I guessed by process of elimination) and brought in the bird. He then pinned the memory bird! 

There were two blinds. The first was only about 20 yards but no ribbon to give the dogs a hint. He took a straight line and stopped on whistle right at the bird. The second blind was long but over easy cover. I sent him but on a line about 30 to 40 yards to the left of the blind. When I realized what I did it was too late. He was confident that the initial line was the right one and he fought me the rest of the test. The comment from the judge was "in Master the handler is responsible to mark the fall along with the dog". The comment from the gallery was "you know he went exactly where you lined him up".

It was our first Master test but it won't be our last. I proved to myself that my dog has potential. I learned what it is I need to work on and I got past the first time nerves.

To be continued..... (October?)


----------



## shawninthesticks

mostlygold said:


> Just a quick example. MH HT water blind. Blind starts about 20 yds back from edge of water. *Line of blind is slight angle entry to left, swim about 50 yd, go over spit of land where previous mark landed, slight angle off that into water, then angle down shore about 60 yds to bird.* As the judge the line seemed obvious to me. The dog should enter the water, go over the spit without unduly avoiding the area of the fall and stay in the water while heading for the blind. Things I did not want to see was dogs trying to skirt the first pond, dogs staying too fat in the water after going over the spit and dogs going to shore after being cast off the spit and running down the road to the blind. 5 dogs did hit the shore, but 2 were immediately handled back into the water and finished the blind in good order. Of the other 3, 2 handlers did try to get their dogs back into the water but were unsuccessful and 1 made no attempt to handle back in the water. All 3 of those dogs picked up the blind. 2 other dogs that hit the shore and wouldn't handle back were picked up. Of the above mentioned 3 dogs, 2 of the handlers questioned why they were not called back, which surprised me as I felt it was pretty obvious they had not completed the blind.
> 
> Perhaps under another judge the effort of trying to get the dog back into the water would have been enough. There is just too much subjectivity in judging to know. The only remark that was made prior to running was that we considered this a water blind.
> 
> Dawn


Bolded by me. This is where confusion starts to set in for me. When I read the bolded area,it seems that as a judge you want me to put my dog on the point ,which is well out of the lazer line from line to planted blind. You say 'as a judge the line seems obvious to me". The line seems no where close to the straight line that others have talked about.
I attached (I hope) a diagram similar (closet point I could find on google earth) in hopes of clarification. I understand that in training we cast onto/off of the point for handling,but at a test trial,there is 2 points to a blind ,Point A (starting mat),point B (planted bird) When factors like points of land are added ,but not on true line,how as a handler am I supposed to know that you as a judge actually have 2 lines in your head to add factors. l
Line 1 (from mat to 1st point) line 2 (from point to planted bird) ,without explaining this.

I am still trying to learn,not being argumentative about your judging,only trying to understand better. Nice thread,good knowledge


----------



## Greg Heier

Not sure on the rule book in hunt tests, but the standard procedures in field trial suggest that giving instructions to handlers is not a good idea. From the standard procedures. "Utilizing natural hazards should obviate the need for Judges issuing special instructions about the manner of completing a blind retrieve, other than to “get the meat’’ by the shortest, fastest, or most direct route."

Greg Heier


----------



## steve schreiner

*line to the blind*



shawninthesticks said:


> Bolded by me. This is where confusion starts to set in for me. When I read the bolded area,it seems that as a judge you want me to put my dog on the point ,which is well out of the lazer line from line to planted blind. You say 'as a judge the line seems obvious to me". The line seems no where close to the straight line that others have talked about.
> I attached (I hope) a diagram similar (closet point I could find on google earth) in hopes of clarification. I understand that in training we cast onto/off of the point for handling,but at a test trial,there is 2 points to a blind ,Point A (starting mat),point B (planted bird) When factors like points of land are added ,but not on true line,how as a handler am I supposed to know that you as a judge actually have 2 lines in your head to add factors. l
> Line 1 (from mat to 1st point) line 2 (from point to planted bird) ,without explaining this.
> 
> I am still trying to learn,not being argumentative about your judging,only trying to understand better. Nice thread,good knowledge
> 
> View attachment 14873


Page33 of the hunt test book states it shall be possible for a dog to find a well planted blind retrieve on the initial line from it's handler" I hope we all can agree the initial line given should be a straight line....Shouldn't all hazards be on the line from mat to bird? Steve S


----------



## steve schreiner

gdog said:


> Not sure on the rule book in hunt tests, but the standard procedures in field trial suggest that giving instructions to handlers is not a good idea. From the standard procedures. "Utilizing natural hazards should obviate the need for Judges issuing special instructions about the manner of completing a blind retrieve, other than to “get the meat’’ by the shortest, fastest, or most direct route."
> 
> Greg Heier


Why isn't it a good idea to give instructions..? Steve S


----------



## DarrinGreene

You'd have to show me in person but just exactly how close to the point is TOO close?


----------



## huntinman

steve schreiner said:


> Why isn't it a good idea to give instructions..? Steve S


Some judge might make a bold statement like " I want to see all 4 feet on land on the point". The first 6 dogs do that and disappear. The 7th dog comes up, run by the most famous or intimidating pro in the land (sarcasm). Dog 7 gets toenails of two front feet on the point and handler casts him off... And completes the blind. (Judges sit there with lips sealed). First one to do so. Now everyone starts doing it that way (if they can). 

Making the initial instruction or statement, made the judges look foolish because they didn't enforce it. Happens all the time. If you make an instruction, you better stick to it verbatim. If not, someone will call you on it. As they should.


----------



## steve schreiner

huntinman said:


> Some judge might make a bold statement like " I want to see all 4 feet on land on the point". The first 6 dogs do that and disappear. The 7th dog comes up, run by the most famous or intimidating pro in the land (sarcasm). Dog 7 gets toenails of two front feet on the point and handler casts him off... And completes the blind. (Judges sit there with lips sealed). First one to do so. Now everyone starts doing it that way (if they can).
> 
> Making the initial instruction or statement, made the judges look foolish because they didn't enforce it. Happens all the time. If you make an instruction, you better stick to it verbatim. If not, someone will call you on it. As they should.


You got that one right....That is why I say the line to the blind should be clear enough to avoid guessing on what the judges want to see the dog do....Steve S


----------



## JS

WOW! 100 posts on this???

I didn't realize running a blind was this complicated. 

JS


----------



## steve schreiner

JS said:


> WOW! 100 posts on this???
> 
> I didn't realize running a blind was this complicated.
> 
> JS


Running the blind is the easy part...doing it the way the judge wants it is the hard part ....Steve S


----------



## DarrinGreene

JS said:


> WOW! 100 posts on this???
> 
> I didn't realize running a blind was this complicated.
> 
> JS


It's not, but this isn't a post about running a blind. It's a post about judging consistency.


----------



## 2tall

Did anyone even notice that the OP was back with a report on his Master Test? It appears that his original concern about risking too many cast or whistle refusals did not do him in. His own eyes did. I can sympathize!!!!


----------



## DarrinGreene

steve schreiner said:


> Running the blind is the easy part...doing it the way the judge wants it is the hard part ....Steve S


shouldn't be that way, should it?


----------



## JS

steve schreiner said:


> Running the blind is the easy part...doing it the way the judge wants it is the hard part ....Steve S


There's only one way to run a blind. Stand on the mat and look at the pin. Then do your best to hit everything that's in the way. If the judge doesn't like it, I'll go home. But I'm always going to try to run a perfect blind ... not worry about what I "have to do".


----------



## Pam Spears

Congrats to the OP for surviving his first master test (I ran my first master a few months ago and was petrified.) Now that you've got one under your belt, you might find yourself relaxing a teensy bit. If there's one thing I've noticed in the 4 master tests I've done this summer, it's that each one is quite different from the others in a way that junior and senior cannot be. Master setups are challenging, but it's fun to see what they'll think of next, and then see what we can do to get through it. I like JS's advice above... 

Keep training, and report back after your next one


----------



## mostlygold

Hi Shawn

Not sure where you got that picture but it is not at all accurate to what our blind was. The line was a slight left angle entry into a body of water, over approx the middle of a spit of land, then angled left slightly off the spit with the angle continuing towards the shore where the blind was about 60 yds down the shore. A dog could technically line this blind. None did,mbut one came very close with one cast off the spit and one quick check down cast next to bird.

Again the line was clear to me as a judge and to most of the handlers. Once off the spit of land the dog should angle slightly towards the shore but not take a sharp left and get out. Also the dog should not be allowed to stay 30 yds fat in the water with a big over to shore at the end. Both of those scenarios would not get you carried as they in no way met the criteria of the blind. 

Dawn


----------



## mostlygold

Maybe a drawing would help.

Blind
|
|
|
|
|
__________________________

Spit of land 
__________________________
|
|
|
|
|
|___________water____________________




Line


----------



## mostlygold

Whoops

The line should be under where the word water is.

Dawn


----------



## Greg Heier

steve schreiner said:


> Why isn't it a good idea to give instructions..?
> 
> One reason is the standard procedures say you shouldn't need to give instructions. More importantly, field trials are about the relative merits on a given day and the rule book is clear that the entire performance on a test should be judged. It is entirely possible that a dog that does not comply with the letter of a judges instruction that all four feet dry on a water blind has still outperformed other work including dogs that got all four feet dry. To take an extreme example, take a stylish dog that takes the best initial line on an angle entry water blind, demonstrates courage by doing the best job of the field of shouldering into a heavy crosswind while swimming to a skinny point, and is about to hit the the point when the handler stops the dog. The dog turns promptly and sits but still has one front foot in the water. The handler casts the dog off the point and the dog again does the best job of shouldering the wind and completes the swim and the blind with the cast given by the handler off the point. All the other dogs have no real interest in running the blind, fighting the tough cross wind, and take several casts to even get in the water and none on the true line to the blind. Some handlers manage to get four feet dry and get their dogs back off the point but their dogs get well off line despite multiple whistles because they won't hold their line after the reentry. In this situation, to call dogs back that got all four feet dry and drop the dog who had three feet dry but did clearly the best in every other aspect of the blind would not be a good judging decision. A judge who chooses to give the instruction "four feet dry" has prejudged the work and elevated one aspect of the blind over the entire performance of each dog and the relative merits on that day.
> 
> I like setting up and running blinds like key hole blinds and blinds either narrowly missing points or going over them. The are good tests of control and they give great reference points for judging one dog against another. To give instructions in advance, however, could put the judge in a box where he or she feels compelled to drop a dog that did not comply with the letter of his or her instruction even if, in retrospect, the entire performance of that dog on that test is superior to most if not all of the field.
> 
> Greg Heier


----------



## shawninthesticks

Thanks for the clarification Mostlygold.


----------



## huntinman

gdog said:


> steve schreiner said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why isn't it a good idea to give instructions..?
> 
> One reason is the standard procedures say you shouldn't need to give instructions. More importantly, field trials are about the relative merits on a given day and the rule book is clear that the entire performance on a test should be judged. It is entirely possible that a dog that does not comply with the letter of a judges instruction that all four feet dry on a water blind has still outperformed other work including dogs that got all four feet dry. To take an extreme example, take a stylish dog that takes the best initial line on an angle entry water blind, demonstrates courage by doing the best job of the field of shouldering into a heavy crosswind while swimming to a skinny point, and is about to hit the the point when the handler stops the dog. The dog turns promptly and sits but still has one front foot in the water. The handler casts the dog off the point and the dog again does the best job of shouldering the wind and completes the swim and the blind with the cast given by the handler off the point. All the other dogs have no real interest in running the blind, fighting the tough cross wind, and take several casts to even get in the water and none on the true line to the blind. Some handlers manage to get four feet dry and get their dogs back off the point but their dogs get well off line despite multiple whistles because they won't hold their line after the reentry. In this situation, to call dogs back that got all four feet dry and drop the dog who had three feet dry but did clearly the best in every other aspect of the blind would not be a good judging decision. A judge who chooses to give the instruction "four feet dry" has prejudged the work and elevated one aspect of the blind over the entire performance of each dog and the relative merits on that day.
> 
> I like setting up and running blinds like key hole blinds and blinds either narrowly missing points or going over them. The are good tests of control and they give great reference points for judging one dog against another. To give instructions in advance, however, could put the judge in a box where he or she feels compelled to drop a dog that did not comply with the letter of his or her instruction even if, in retrospect, the entire performance of that dog on that test is superior to most if not all of the field.
> 
> Greg Heier
> 
> 
> 
> In other words... It's all relative. Good post.
Click to expand...


----------



## Ted Shih

gdog said:


> I like setting up and running blinds like key hole blinds and blinds either narrowly missing points or going over them. The are good tests of control and they give great reference points for judging one dog against another. To give instructions in advance, however, could put the judge in a box where he or she feels compelled to drop a dog that did not comply with the letter of his or her instruction even if, in retrospect, the entire performance of that dog on that test is superior to most if not all of the field.



If you draw a diagram with the obstacles, and tell handlers that the line is the "ideal" line, you have

1. Shown them what you think is important;
2. But, have still left yourself running room.

You have not announced any "mandatory" criteria, and in any field trial, work is based on relative work on a given test and cumulative work through the trial

The problem with the mantra that the line to the blind is "obvious" is that FT after FT, experienced handlers discover what they thought the line to the blind was, was not what the judges thought that it was

Ted


----------



## huntinman

Ted Shih said:


> If you draw a diagram with the obstacles, and tell handlers that the line is the "ideal" line, you have
> 
> 1. Shown them what you think is important;
> 2. But, have still left yourself running room.
> 
> You have not announced any "mandatory" criteria, and in any field trial, work is based on relative work on a given test and cumulative work through the trial
> 
> The problem with the mantra that the line to the blind is "obvious" is that *FT after FT, experienced handlers discover what they thought the line to the blind was, was not what the judges thought that it was*
> 
> Ted


How about the problem of experienced handlers who know exactly where the line to the blind is and the obstacles as well... who intentionally avoid the obstacle? Their are some who are known for it. They are basically daring the judges to call them on it. In many cases, they have gotten away with it so many times, they are shocked when they get dropped for dodging an obvious obstacle. 

It's an insult to the other handlers in the stake to let those few who try it slide. It's one thing when a handler tries to get his or her dog through an obstacle and just misses. I'll give them an "E" for effort. But if other dogs are going down in flames trying to hit an obstacle and someone comes up and just slides by without even trying to hit it. They are going to be in deep kimchi with me. They are running a different blind.


----------



## DarrinGreene

Ted Shih said:


> If you draw a diagram with the obstacles, and tell handlers that the line is the "ideal" line, you have
> 
> 1. Shown them what you think is important;
> 2. But, have still left yourself running room.
> 
> You have not announced any "mandatory" criteria, and in any field trial, work is based on relative work on a given test and cumulative work through the trial
> 
> The problem with the mantra that the line to the blind is "obvious" is that FT after FT, experienced handlers discover what they thought the line to the blind was, was not what the judges thought that it was
> 
> Ted


Kind of like throwing a retired mark and asking a handler to walk a straight line to it!!


----------



## Ted Shih

huntinman said:


> How about the problem of experienced handlers who know exactly where the line to the blind is and the obstacles as well... who intentionally avoid the obstacle? Their are some who are known for it. They are basically daring the judges to call them on it. In many cases, they have gotten away with it so many times, they are shocked when they get dropped for dodging



That's a different issue than the one we are pursuing here. 

I do think when judges provide handlers with a diagram, the handlers you are concerned about, have little room to argue that they didn't know what was expected


As for whether the handlers who bother you get called back - for me - that depends on the relative and the cumulative work of the dog


----------



## Greg Heier

Ted Shih said:


> "If you draw a diagram with the obstacles, and tell handlers that the line is the "ideal" line, you have
> 
> 1. Shown them what you think is important;
> 2. But, have still left yourself running room.
> 
> You have not announced any "mandatory" criteria, and in any field trial, work is based on relative work on a given test and cumulative work through the trial"
> 
> Agreed and I have no problem with judges that choose to use diagrams. There is certainly nothing in the rules that prevents diagrams. One danger in using diagrams is that contestants and judges might interpret a diagram as eliminating the judges' responsibility to judge the entire performance of each dog or as de facto instructions as to how to complete the blind. I know you did not suggest this interpretation of a diagram but I have seen judges unfairly criticized for providing a diagram and then carrying dogs who missed a goal post or a point that was on the drawing. Bottom line, as long as the rule book emphasizes the relative performance of each dog, contestants and judges alike must accept the fact that a dog who completes a blind hitting every hazard on a diagram provided by the judges could still be outperformed by a dog that did not hit every hazard depending on other aspects of each dog's performance. No diagram can ever capture all that the standard rules and procedures require a judge to take into consideration in evaluating a dog's work on a blind retrieve. As such, the quest for certainty in judging dogs remains illusive and unobtainable even if diagrams are used.
> 
> Greg Heier


----------



## huntinman

Ted Shih said:


> That's a different issue than the one we are pursuing here.
> 
> I do think when judges provide handlers with a diagram, the handlers you are concerned about, have little room to argue that they didn't know what was expected
> 
> 
> *As for whether the handlers who bother you get called back - for me - that depends on the relative and the cumulative work of the dog*


Handlers who purposely avoid the test when I'm judging don't bother me. It's actually more amusing than anything else when someone who has been in the game over 30 years or more blatantly dodges a glaring obstacle. All I can do is scratch my head and judge what I just saw. And I do. 

In your scenario, I suppose it depends upon how good your drawings are. Some leave lots of room for interpretation. (Like mine)


----------



## steve schreiner

Ted Shih said:


> That's a different issue than the one we are pursuing here.
> 
> I do think when judges provide handlers with a diagram, the handlers you are concerned about, have little room to argue that they didn't know what was expected
> 
> 
> As for whether the handlers who bother you get called back - for me - that depends on the relative and the cumulative work of the dog


Ted. Your point of the diagram is very good....Judge is not in a box with a must hit or miss but the intended path is clear...The judges has the room to evaluate the dog and handlers performance relative to the field of others and their path in relation to the drawing...Steve S


----------



## Ted Shih

Judging is part objective, part subjective. The latter will always play a large role in judging and is by its nature difficult to express in precise terms. In defense of the diagram, I would say

1. The diagram equalizes information. In the Open, pros are looking over your shoulder, trying to get a peek of your judging book, so that they can see the reference points you consider important. They try to overhear conversations between judges. They note when a judge closes his/her book. They are sharing this information with one another. Through this process, they are able to glean a great deal about what the judges consider important. Pity the poor Amateur who comes to the Open after running his dog - maybe is given a chance to watch one or two dogs run - and then is sent into the maelstrom. 

Why not make the critical information about your blind available to everyone?

2. If you want to see something, why not improve your chances of seeing it? If I want a dog to the right of that weed clump, why not tell the handlers - instead of whispering to my co- judge "Why aren't they casting inside of that bush?". "Or why are they getting on the tip of the point on this water blind instead of on the fat of the point?" If it's important to you, ask for it!

In one trial that I judged, my co-judge and I wrote something to the effect of "The judge believe that the shoulders of both mounds are on line". That was placed in the holding blind. A handler who had a very stylish dog elected to make no effort to hit either shoulder. I heard people in the gallery say "Didn't he read the note in the holding blind?" I like that. I like that the contestants know what is important to me. 

3. As I mentioned earlier, the diagram only shows the "ideal" line to the blind, it does not replace judging. A dog may hit all the markers, but if it is stopped 20 times in route, exhibits poor style, and/or had poor marks, it is gone - because judging in a FT is both relative and cumulative. I realize that there will be complaining from the gallery because dogs that hit all the markers are dropped, and those that do not are carried. But, as Greg mentioned, a lot goes into judging a dog that you never truly appreciate until you sit in the chair.

I have yet to judge the field trial where everyone approved of my work. I doubt it will ever happen. I do believe that over the course of a judging career, you establish your own book. My goal is to be known for having tough tests, generous callbacks, and consistent placements. Time will tell whether I am successful. Being popular is not important to me. But, I don't want to be known - as some judges are - for having mystery criteria.

I think the diagram eliminates mystery.

4. I think that the diagram can make the blind harder. Any experienced judge has a story about an Open where the pros decided to make their own criteria for the blind. When I put a diagram out - I am telling you what I want. If a handler makes no effort to abide by my diagram, I can only infer that he/she is incapable of controlling the dog as requested, or the dog is incapable of carrying the necessary casts. A blind is a test of control and if a handler makes no effort to demonstrate the control requested - there will be consequences. Sometimes this means a dog is dropped, sometimes it means that a dog's scores are diminished. But, like Bill, I make note when handlers make no effort to run my blind - as illustrated. 

Because I believe that the line to the blind is not always obvious, when I give you my diagram - it is obvious. There is no excuse for the handler not to attempt to run my blind.

5. I don't think it requires too much work to draw the diagram. I am going to put the critical markers on my master diagram anyway. I simply draw over my master diagram and leave the copy in the holding blind.

Ted


----------



## steve schreiner

Ted Shih said:


> Judging is part objective, part subjective. The latter will always play a large role in judging and is by its nature difficult to express in precise terms. In defense of the diagram, I would say
> 
> 1. The diagram equalizes information. In the Open, pros are looking over your shoulder, trying to get a peek of your judging book, so that they can see the reference points you consider important. They try to overhear conversations between judges. They note when a judge closes his/her book. They are sharing this information with one another. Through this process, they are able to glean a great deal about what the judges consider important. Pity the poor Amateur who comes to the Open after running his dog - maybe is given a chance to watch one or two dogs run - and then is sent into the maelstrom.
> 
> Why not make the critical information about your blind available to everyone?
> 
> 2. If you want to see something, why not improve your chances of seeing it? If I want a dog to the right of that weed clump, why not tell the handlers - instead of whispering to my co- judge "Why aren't they casting inside of that bush?". "Or why are they getting on the tip of the point on this water blind instead of on the fat of the point?" If it's important to you, ask for it!
> 
> In one trial that I judged, my co-judge and I wrote something to the effect of "The judge believe that the shoulders of both mounds are on line". That was placed in the holding blind. A handler who had a very stylish dog elected to make no effort to hit either shoulder. I heard people in the gallery say "Didn't he read the note in the holding blind?" I like that. I like that the contestants know what is important to me.
> 
> 3. As I mentioned earlier, the diagram only shows the "ideal" line to the blind, it does not replace judging. A dog may hit all the markers, but if it is stopped 20 times in route, exhibits poor style, and/or had poor marks, it is gone - because judging in a FT is both relative and cumulative. I realize that there will be complaining from the gallery because dogs that hit all the markers are dropped, and those that do not are carried. But, as Greg mentioned, a lot goes into judging a dog that you never truly appreciate until you sit in the chair.
> 
> I have yet to judge the field trial where everyone approved of my work. I doubt it will ever happen. I do believe that over the course of a judging career, you establish your own book. My goal is to be known for having tough tests, generous callbacks, and consistent placements. Time will tell whether I am successful. Being popular is not important to me. But, I don't want to be known - as some judges are - for having mystery criteria.
> 
> I think the diagram eliminates mystery.
> 
> 4. I think that the diagram can make the blind harder. Any experienced judge has a story about an Open where the pros decided to make their own criteria for the blind. When I put a diagram out - I am telling you what I want. If a handler makes no effort to abide by my diagram, I can only infer that he/she is incapable of controlling the dog as requested, or the dog is incapable of carrying the necessary casts. A blind is a test of control and if a handler makes no effort to demonstrate the control requested - there will be consequences. Sometimes this means a dog is dropped, sometimes it means that a dog's scores are diminished. But, like Bill, I make note when handlers make no effort to run my blind - as illustrated.
> 
> Because I believe that the line to the blind is not always obvious, when I give you my diagram - it is obvious. There is no excuse for the handler not to attempt to run my blind.
> 
> 5. I don't think it requires too much work to draw the diagram. I am going to put the critical markers on my master diagram anyway. I simply draw over my master diagram and leave the copy in the holding blind.
> 
> Ted


 Very well put...I believe the answer to the OP's question has been answered...TRY to run the blind as best you can..#3...Steve S....PS:same for HT...


----------



## john fallon

Ted Shih said:


> If you draw a diagram with the obstacles, and tell handlers that the line is the "ideal" line, you have
> 
> 1. Shown them what you think is important;
> 2. But, have still left yourself running room.
> 
> You have not announced any "mandatory" criteria, and in any field trial, work is based on relative work on a given test and cumulative work through the trial
> 
> The problem with the mantra that the line to the blind is "obvious" is that FT after FT, experienced handlers discover what they thought the line to the blind was, was not what the judges thought that it was
> 
> Ted


The *laze*r "line to the blind" is a STRAIGHT line from point A to point B, to say that it could be be anything else is curious at best ..... now, if you are saying that one needs a diagram to figure out YOUR line because of the irregularities of your "corridor" to the blind, causing it to NOT be semetrical about the lazer/center line, and containing one or more *drop dead points *that are actually on or near center , just say so...........

john


----------



## RookieTrainer

Mr. Ted, thanks for that post. From your post and the others on this thread, it appears that the following statements are generally true:

1. It helps to have a diagram or some other indication of what the line is in the judges' minds.
2. Running that line is a safe harbor of sorts, but it may not be the only way to successfully run that blind.
3. Running the safe harbor line does not mean you will be successful, particularly in the FT game. There are other things to be considered in making that determination. 
4. In the end, you do the best job you can do and move on. At worst you got to hang out with your dog a couple days.


----------



## Ted Shih

RookieTrainer said:


> Mr. Ted, thanks for that post. From your post and the others on this thread, it appears that the following statements are generally true:
> 
> 1. It helps to have a diagram or some other indication of what the line is in the judges' minds.



I believe so. Others disagree.



RookieTrainer said:


> 2. Running that line is a safe harbor of sorts, but it may not be the only way to successfully run that blind.



I guess what I would say is that it is not - in the strictest sense - a "line." If it were, we would be requiring the dogs to navigate a path one inch wide and punishing them for a failure to do so. Rather, it is a "corridor." The contours of that "corridor" vary. 

For example
- Paul says that you should stay 5 yards on either side of the imaginary line. See post 4. His corridor is shaped like this - "=" 
- Gary tells you that his corridor is narrow at the beginning and wide at the end. See post 30. His corridor is shaped like this - "V" 
- I know FT judges who believe the corridor is narrow at the beginning and end, but wide in the middle. Their corridors are shaped like a football -"()"

In a FT, the judges have "corridors" not "lines". Those "corridors" vary. That is why I like to use diagrams when I judge. 



RookieTrainer said:


> 3. Running the safe harbor line does not mean you will be successful, particularly in the FT game. There are other things to be considered in making that determination.



For starters, in a FT, there is no standard. Work is judged relatively - that is, how did you do compared to the field. Work is also judged cumulatively - that is, how does your body of work in the FT stack up to what others have done. Moreover, "style" is an element that judges consider too. If you toe the line, but crawl along the line, maybe your lack of "style" results in a drop. So, yes, there are many factors.



RookieTrainer said:


> 4. In the end, you do the best job you can do and move on. At worst you got to hang out with your dog a couple days.


Yes, you run your dog and give it your best shot.


----------



## Wade Thurman

DING, DING. As a judge this is what you would need to understand from me. There is the mat, draw a straight line to the blind. If the 1st point is not on that straight line then swim by it, if the 2nd point is on the straight line then get on & off. Simple!!
I would rather see someone use 5 whistles and keep the dog on the straight line than a dog that runs a banana line and uses one whistle. Blinds are about teamwork and control, IMO. If your dog can run a straight line great, if not show me the two of you can illustrate control along with teamwork.




JS said:


> There's only one way to run a blind. Stand on the mat and look at the pin. Then do your best to hit everything that's in the way. If the judge doesn't like it, I'll go home. But I'm always going to try to run a perfect blind ... not worry about what I "have to do".


----------



## Wade Thurman

Could someone expand on this quote that came out of the Standards regarding blinds? I need a bit of clarification.

"Utilizing natural hazards should obviate the need for Judges issuing special instructions about the manner of completing a blind retrieve, other than to “get the meat’’ by the shortest, fastest, or most direct route"


----------



## steve schreiner

Wade said:


> Could someone expand on this quote that came out of the Standards regarding blinds? I need a bit of clarification.
> 
> "Utilizing natural hazards should obviate the need for Judges issuing special instructions about the manner of completing a blind retrieve, other than to “get the meat’’ by the shortest, fastest, or most direct route"


I read that to mean use humps, bumps . patches of cover, water, logs, points of land, islands on line to the blind...The fastest, most direct route implies a straight line....I also believe that LINE comes with a window, fair way or what every you want to call it some distance on both sides of the line.. That line should be plainly discernible to contestants with out any input from the judge...Steve S


----------



## Tarball

All judges should remember: "Never, ever tell the handlers they must hit/avoid such and such an object."
Then call back a dog that clearly missed/hit the object. 
You already are in a hole do not dig deeper.


----------



## Good Dogs

Ted Shih said:


> Judging is part objective, part subjective. The latter will always play a large role in judging and is by its nature difficult to express in precise terms. In defense of the diagram, I would say
> 
> 1. The diagram equalizes information. In the Open, pros are looking over your shoulder, trying to get a peek of your judging book, so that they can see the reference points you consider important. They try to overhear conversations between judges. They note when a judge closes his/her book. They are sharing this information with one another. Through this process, they are able to glean a great deal about what the judges consider important. Pity the poor Amateur who comes to the Open after running his dog - maybe is given a chance to watch one or two dogs run - and then is sent into the maelstrom.
> 
> Why not make the critical information about your blind available to everyone?
> 
> 2. If you want to see something, why not improve your chances of seeing it? If I want a dog to the right of that weed clump, why not tell the handlers - instead of whispering to my co- judge "Why aren't they casting inside of that bush?". "Or why are they getting on the tip of the point on this water blind instead of on the fat of the point?" If it's important to you, ask for it!
> 
> In one trial that I judged, my co-judge and I wrote something to the effect of "The judge believe that the shoulders of both mounds are on line". That was placed in the holding blind. A handler who had a very stylish dog elected to make no effort to hit either shoulder. I heard people in the gallery say "Didn't he read the note in the holding blind?" I like that. I like that the contestants know what is important to me.
> 
> 3. As I mentioned earlier, the diagram only shows the "ideal" line to the blind, it does not replace judging. A dog may hit all the markers, but if it is stopped 20 times in route, exhibits poor style, and/or had poor marks, it is gone - because judging in a FT is both relative and cumulative. I realize that there will be complaining from the gallery because dogs that hit all the markers are dropped, and those that do not are carried. But, as Greg mentioned, a lot goes into judging a dog that you never truly appreciate until you sit in the chair.
> 
> I have yet to judge the field trial where everyone approved of my work. I doubt it will ever happen. I do believe that over the course of a judging career, you establish your own book. My goal is to be known for having tough tests, generous callbacks, and consistent placements. Time will tell whether I am successful. Being popular is not important to me. But, I don't want to be known - as some judges are - for having mystery criteria.
> 
> I think the diagram eliminates mystery.
> 
> 4. I think that the diagram can make the blind harder. Any experienced judge has a story about an Open where the pros decided to make their own criteria for the blind. When I put a diagram out - I am telling you what I want. If a handler makes no effort to abide by my diagram, I can only infer that he/she is incapable of controlling the dog as requested, or the dog is incapable of carrying the necessary casts. A blind is a test of control and if a handler makes no effort to demonstrate the control requested - there will be consequences. Sometimes this means a dog is dropped, sometimes it means that a dog's scores are diminished. But, like Bill, I make note when handlers make no effort to run my blind - as illustrated.
> 
> Because I believe that the line to the blind is not always obvious, when I give you my diagram - it is obvious. There is no excuse for the handler not to attempt to run my blind.
> 
> 5. I don't think it requires too much work to draw the diagram. I am going to put the critical markers on my master diagram anyway. I simply draw over my master diagram and leave the copy in the holding blind.
> 
> Ted


Ted,
We've not met, but I'd like to. I especially appreciate your references to "effort" as well the other merits of style and perseverance. I think your comments are spot on, both for FT's and HTs. There is no good reason to not insure that handlers understand what is expected.
I recall watching a pair of HT judges repeatedly drop dogs who missed a piece of cover that, from the line, was right of the line to the blind. But to the judges, sitting comfortably off to one side, the cover appeared to be on line. I still wonder if they were surprised at the handlers who, once clued in to what was going on, stopped their dogs short of the cover, gave an angle back right to put phideaux in the cover, then corrected to put their dog back on the actual corridor and complete the blind.


----------



## A team

Ted Shih said:


> I believe so. Others disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> I guess what I would say is that it is not - in the strictest sense - a "line." If it were, we would be requiring the dogs to navigate a path one inch wide and punishing them for a failure to do so. Rather, it is a "corridor." The contours of that "corridor" vary.
> 
> For example
> - Paul says that you should stay 5 yards on either side of the imaginary line. See post 4. His corridor is shaped like this - "="
> - Gary tells you that his corridor is narrow at the beginning and wide at the end. See post 30. His corridor is shaped like this - "V"
> - I know FT judges who believe the corridor is narrow at the beginning and end, but wide in the middle. Their corridors are shaped like a football -"()"
> 
> In a FT, the judges have "corridors" not "lines". Those "corridors" vary. That is why I like to use diagrams when I judge.
> 
> 
> 
> For starters, in a FT, there is no standard. Work is judged relatively - that is, how did you do compared to the field. Work is also judged cumulatively - that is, how does your body of work in the FT stack up to what others have done. Moreover, "style" is an element that judges consider too. If you toe the line, but crawl along the line, maybe your lack of "style" results in a drop. So, yes, there are many factors.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you run your dog and give it your best shot.


I just recently had blinds explained to me in the "corridor" manner and it makes all the sense in the world to me. 

Great post!


----------



## John Robinson

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> Draw a straight line from mat to bird. Hit the key aspects of the blind. Stay inside 5 yards to either side of the line.
> 
> /Paul


This. Watch the test dog run, sometimes the judges will take the test handler aside and ask he or she to hit certain spots, watch for those spots. After the test dog, go up and stand on line, some features should stand out right or left of the direct line to the blind, could be a large rock, prominent bush, tree or piece of cover, you should try to stay on the correct side of anything like that that pops out to you. Don't allow your dog to banana offline, you wouldn't believe how many handlers fail a blind thinking they "lined" it.

John


----------

