# Judges Question - Derby



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Got this in a PM from a friend who wanted my opinion. Unfortunately her PM box was full. 

So here it is. Comments?



> Here's a hypothetical. Derby. Last series. Dog has run nearly perfect three series. On last bird down in fourth series. Dogs eyes flick --handler is in training mode. Quietly says "sit", Handler realizes mistake. Judge gives dog a number. Dog is sent for the go bird. As dog is returning judge asks handler if he wants to continue and pick up memory bird. Handler says of course and sends dog for memory bird. Absolutely perfect fourth series.
> 
> Handler realizes judges do not know rules regarding controlled break in a minor stake and are treating this as an automatic disqualification.
> 
> ...


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

My comment is that there are plenty of judges who don't know the rules.


----------



## Swampcollie (Jan 16, 2003)

I don't judge Field Trials but I would think that the judges need to decide if they're going to drop the dog or not. (Handler error) If they decide the dog is still playing, then they should be placing the dog based upon the merits of its work that day.


----------



## 24116 (May 8, 2004)

dogs out.....


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

Section 25 of the “STANDARD’’ provides that noisy or frequent restraining of a dog on-line by his handler, except in extraordinary circumstances, is sufficient cause to justify elimination of the dog from the stake. In less flagrant instances, the degree of the penalty should correspond to the extent and frequency of repetition of the infraction. Although such is not required, it is a considerate gesture by Judges, if they are in agreement, to notify handlers when their methods of restraint are incurring penalties for their dogs.


I think the judges have some discretion based on what they saw and heard.


----------



## Miriam Wade (Apr 24, 2003)

B Peterson said:


> dogs out.....


Why? In both the Derby & Q a controlled break is allowed. Handler error, but it has to be called as a controlled break. Still, what a shame that a dog who clearly was the superior marker that day was dropped to the bottom of the pack for something that in no way impacted the marking ability that the Derby is all about. I would have given him the first or second based on his marking and ignored the handler error.

M


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

Based on the facts as presented here, I probably would have argued to place the dog, if my co-judge thought differently. Hopefully they wouldn't.

You have to consider that the portion of the rules Bill quoted applies to dogs in ALL stakes whether Championship or Minor, and definitely allows the judges some discretion as to how it should be applied in each instance. Derby dogs are the least fully trained in the trial and are supposed to be evaluated for natural talents more than for trained responses.-Paul


----------



## Wayne Nutt (Jan 10, 2010)

What is the definition of controlled break? Did the dog have a controlled break? Thinking that the dog may break is not a controlled break. I would have dropped the dog. Handler made a mistake.

My opinion is based on my HT experience as I have no FT experience. 

Ted what is your opinion?


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

The BOOK *instruct* the judges to treat a handlers talking to the dog between the time he signals for the birds and the time he is given his number as the handler believing that the dog was going to break....and to treat said talking as a controlled break. 

In stakes that do not allow controlled breaks the dog is eliminated; in stakes that do allow for controlled breaks this talking should be judged accordingly.

I wish I could say "end of story" unfortunatly it seems that I cannot.......

john


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

john fallon said:


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


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

Since the handler told the dog to sit, it would be a controlled break in my book. I would put it in the category of moderate faults that were so slight as to be considered only a minor fault. Based on what was said above, I don't think this would take the dog from first to JAM, but I'd have to see it.

Had something similar happen to me in a Q with my creeper. Every series in both the Am and Q that day the dog crept, but he is not a breaker so I never said anything, but the judges were pretty consistently telling me to re-heel my dog. Last series of the Q in which we were doing very well birds went down, dog crept a couple of feet and stopped. The judges didn't call my number and I *thought* I heard them tell me to re-heel my dog, so I told him to heel. When he was back by my side, they called my number and he nailed the marks. At the placements, we got a JAM and the judges told me that if it were not for our controlled break, we would have gotten a very nice placement. I started to ask "what controlled break" and then it hit me what happened.

I also told my dog to sit once when it head swung in an AM. Judges let me get the birds, but unfortunately they heard me. Oh well, It happens.


----------



## Barry Ireland (Feb 18, 2005)

A number of years ago I had driven half the night to get to the trial. Upon arriving the marshall instructed me that they were waiting on me as I was dog number 1. Unloaded my guy and aired him and to the line we went. Go bird was thrown at 25 yards and my guy was gone. With some frustration I reheeled him and the judge called my number, me figuring we had driven half the night and were out on the first series 20 minutes there. The judges allowed the controlled break and we went on to run 3 series. I did control the dog but he was into jet mode and was wanting the short bird. I always appreciated the judges allowing us to continue and I think in the younger stakes there needs to be a little help.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

This is more of a question for you guys than a statement. As a contestant I think it pays to know. 

Once the mistake was made the dog's performance is now relative to the other dogs in the field, right? Could affect nothing, could drop the dog a couple of places, could eliminate any ribbon at all, it depends on the performance of the top 5-6 dogs, doesn't it?

Is there something customary that if a dog finishes the trial it get a JAM? I don't think I've seen that in the trials I ran/attended.

I know in a hunting test situation I certainly would never have had that conversation with a contestant, were I a judge. Just opens up too much scrutiny (as evidenced by the thread appearing here to begin with).


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Field trial judges should be generous with callbacks (when possible) and awarding Judge's Award of Merit, PARTICULARLY in minor stakes (Derby and Qualifying)


----------



## Miriam Wade (Apr 24, 2003)

Wayne Nutt said:


> What is the definition of controlled break? Did the dog have a controlled break? Thinking that the dog may break is not a controlled break. I would have dropped the dog. Handler made a mistake.
> 
> My opinion is based on my HT experience as I have no FT experience.
> 
> Ted what is your opinion?


A controlled break is when a dog has either crept out to a point where the judges ask you to re-heel the dog OR when a dog is actually breaking to retrieve, but is brought back under control by the handler. It also is considered a controlled break even if the dog has made no forward motion, but the handler gives a command before being released by the judges.

I ran my first Master with my old dog Kate many years ago. I had been running NAHRA. Kate was very good on line and breaking was never something I worried about. In NAHRA-even at the Master level, you were allowed to quietly talk to your dog. Sometimes I would out of habit. We came to line at the AKC Master and as the last bird was shot in the first series, I quietly whispered "Sit". Tap on the shoulder and the judge said, "Sorry". I was soooo disappointed and my poor dog drove a long way never to be rewarded with a bird. But, in that instance, the rules dictated that's what the judge had to do. 

Again, in the Derby and the Q it's not an eliminating fault in and of itself. If at the end of the day you have two dogs with equal work you have to look at all the little dings against them to make a decision, but what a shame to reward a dog with inferior marks to a dog that simply had a controlled break.

M


----------



## Charles C. (Nov 5, 2004)

My interpretation is that in minor stakes talking to your dog before your number is called is a controlled break. All else being equal, I might use it to separate 2 dogs, but I would never drop a dog from 1st or 2nd to a JAM where the talking was limited and didn't actually involve an all out break.


----------



## Renee P. (Dec 5, 2010)

The rules say that a Derby dog who has a controlled break shall be penalized. The rules also say that a judge should assume that a dog attempted to break, if the handler makes an effort to stop his dog.

The rules also say that the Derby dog is expected to be reasonably (not totally) steady. 

The way I read the rules, the handler perceived his dog was breaking and brought it under immediate control. This unsteadiness should be penalized, but since the Derby dog is not expected to be totally steady, how it affects the placements depends on how close this dog's other work was in relation to the competition.

From P. 33 of the Standard:

"In any stake other than an All-Age stake, if a dog makes a slight break and is brought immediately under control, the dog need not be eliminated, but shall be penalized for unsteadiness...

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

From p. 53 of the standard:
"A “reasonable’’ degree of steadiness and general obedience are the requirements in Derby stakes. "


----------



## tzappia (Aug 21, 2008)

The one thing I hate is seeing a Minor stakes judge think they need to treat/judge these young dogs like they're running in the Open, All-Age stakes. Give me a break!


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Miriam Wade said:


> A controlled break is when a dog has either crept out to a point where the judges ask you to re-heel the dog OR when a dog is actually breaking to retrieve, but is brought back under control by the handler.
> M


In Field Trials creeping short of breaking and breaking (deliberate intent to retrieve) and different situations and are handled differently. Judges are not obligated to ask a creeping dog to be reheeled although most do and asking that the dog be reheeled does not elevate the infraction to the point of a controlled break.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

paul young said:


> You're a licensed judge, John. What would you do based on the information given, and why would you do so?
> 
> I'd like to hear from as many licensed judges as possible on this scenario.-Paul


The part of the rule in question is "Judge insists that dog wasn't going to break "

In the Derby and the Q, the AKC allows for a controled break and further *clarifies it to mean that the handler as in this situation "thought" that the dog was breaking as the talking indicated this to be so. * Based on the information, the dog would remain under judgement and if based on its marks it was alone in first place it would win the field trial.

john


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

In the clip below substitute the first"is" with "sit"

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=j4XT-l-_3y0


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

The one thing I really like about this story is the part where the other handlers and marshal stepped up in defense of this team. Doing so may well have convinced the judges to place this dog ahead of one of the ones who stepped up. That kind of sportsmanship is one of the great things about this game.


----------



## waycool (Jan 23, 2014)

Ah... Now I remember this all too well..  Positive or negative judging.. you make the call.. Every time I judged I focused on being positive.. AND making sure the best dog (the one I would like to own!) within the rules was put up. I understand some things are black and white.. others not so much but having put up the best dog is the correct result and the right message. IMHO. (remember my experience is in pointing dogs fwiw)

Good discussion fwiw.. certainly will be helpful to other judges and future judges 

As you were


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

DoubleHaul said:


> The one thing I really like about this story is the part where the other handlers and marshal stepped up in defense of this team.


BUT where was the co-judge?

The handler/dog was given a number. At that point they are still in competition. As the co-judge I would tell the handler to pick-up the other bird and my partner and I would sort out the details.

Tim

PS: If as posted the details would which color ribbon!


----------



## Miriam Wade (Apr 24, 2003)

EdA said:


> In Field Trials creeping short of breaking and breaking (deliberate intent to retrieve) and different situations and are handled differently. Judges are not obligated to ask a creeping dog to be reheeled although most do and asking that the dog be reheeled does not elevate the infraction to the point of a controlled break.


Thanks Ed. I knew they weren't required to ask the dog to re-heel, but I didn't know that asking them to do didn't elevate it to a controlled break.

M


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

I would like to start with a discussion of overall philosophy, before digging into the scenario. 

*First,* I believe that if you are interested in growing the sport, you have to encourage new comers. By and large, this happens in the minor stakes. I posted some time ago about a derby that Ray Vreeland and I judged at North Platte, where we discussed with the handlers - after the series was over - the factors in the marks and how they could have better handled their dogs. I have seen two or three of those participants at different field trials and have to believe their experience at North Platte contributed to their interest in the sport. 

*Second*, I believe that in all stakes - you make the tests as hard as you can for the field - and you make call backs as generous as time permits. 

* As a judge, time is always the enemy. Time must be factored into everything, including call backs. But, if you are relentless about time, you give yourself room to be generous. I know of no contestant that likes easy tests with hard callbacks - but, they frequently occur when you have judges that don't understand dogs and are lazy about time.

When you make the tests hard, contestants are challenged. Most contestants want to be challenged, they want to compete, that's why they chose Field Trials. So challenge them, but be as generous as you can
*
Third*, so in the minor stakes, I would be tough, but generous (and more generous than in the All Age Stakes). In the qualifying and derby, if there were no serious faults - and I had time - I would bring you back.
*
Fourth*, so I start with the underlying philosophy that I want to let the people play in the minors

Personally, I view this as a controlled break. The Rule Book defines the conduct as a break. As Mitty properly notes, the Rule Book states: 


> *On the other hand, if the handler does make an effort to stop the dog, the Judges should assume that the handler believed the dog intended to retrieve and should deal with such infraction accordingly.*


This handler made an effort to stop the dog. As a judge, I am not responsible for evaluating whether the dog might not have gone. The Rule Book tells me that I should assume the dog intended to retrieve. 

This means:
1. Dog intended to retrieve
2. Handler made effort to stop dog from retrieving
3. Dog did not retrieve

Therefore, in my mind, the dog had a controlled break

As for placements, I don't know. I hate hypothetical situations that tell you that the dog marked "perfectly". What is perfect? What about style? What about overall line manners? What about mouth? Most people judge from the gallery with a very limited perspective.

So, I offer no opinion on placements, etc. 

For those of you that are interested, Terry Rotschafer and I have written a two part article on "Picking a Winner" for Retrievers Online.

Ted


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

DoubleHaul said:


> The one thing I really like about this story is the part where the other handlers and marshal stepped up in defense of this team. Doing so may well have convinced the judges to place this dog ahead of one of the ones who stepped up. That kind of sportsmanship is one of the great things about this game.


Penn

You might want to reconsider this and think about this more globally. I don't think we want handlers to feel that they have the liberty to lobby judges for placements and/or call backs. If there is a concern, it should be relayed to the marshal, who in turn may discuss it with the judges. In this case, you are supportive of lobbying the judges. What about the next time, when someone less justified starts lobbying them?

Ted


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

Ted Shih said:


> Penn
> 
> You might want to reconsider this and think about this more globally. I don't think we want handlers to feel that they have the liberty to lobby judges for placements and/or call backs. If there is a concern, it should be relayed to the marshal, who in turn may discuss it with the judges. In this case, you are supportive of lobbying the judges. What about the next time, when someone less justified starts lobbying them?
> 
> Ted


No, I wasn't focusing on the process and completely understand that folks are often bugging the marshals about being dropped, etc. I was just appreciating the spirit and camaraderie that exists but is too often not pointed out, usually because of the actions of a very small minority of folks.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

DoubleHaul said:


> No, I wasn't focusing on the process and completely understand that folks are often bugging the marshals about being dropped, etc. I was just appreciating the spirit and camaraderie that exists but is too often not pointed out, usually because of the actions of a very small minority of folks.



One thing to bug the marshal. Another to bug the judges. It's hard enough to find good judges as it is. If we allow the contestants to get into their grill, it will be even harder. We need to protect the process


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

Ted Shih said:


> One thing to bug the marshal. Another to bug the judges. It's hard enough to find good judges as it is. If we allow the contestants to get into their grill, it will be even harder. We need to protect the process


If a judge doesn't know the rules, that IS the process. Ask the marshal to question it. Or have them discuss it etc... 

You don't just go away and let ignorant judges make ignorant decisions if they are blatantly wrong about the rules. 



I had an 8 pt judge exclaim "that's too bad" when I handled on a bird I had previously picked up during a re-run. The dog picked all the other birds up clean.

Lucky for me, I had the rule book in my pocket, showed it to him and went on to win that AM. (I had the book in my pocket because I thought I may have to handle on the re- run and I also suspected the judge wouldn't know the rule)


----------



## Lpgar (Mar 31, 2005)

Can't immagine a derby that was so light as to have all 4 placings almost perfect in their marking that a derby dog that was simply judged as a controlled break by being spoken too in a single instance to not have it's work in the field have any relevance at all. In judging it is about the Dogs....and their work. Perfect work should always be rewarded. The rule books has plenty of latitude for judges to allow this.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> One thing to bug the marshal. Another to bug the judges. It's hard enough to find good judges as it is. If we allow the contestants to get into their grill, it will be even harder. We need to protect the process


That being said, anytime someone bugged the marshal to talk to the judges, as a judge I never turn them down. I also purposely stick around a reasonable amount of time to allow handlers time to go through the process of talking to marshal then talking to me. Fact is, let them get in my grill and get it off their chest. If a judge can't handle that, you probably shouldn't judge...

/Paul


----------



## 24116 (May 8, 2004)

Miriam Wade said:


> Why? In both the Derby & Q a controlled break is allowed. Handler error, but it has to be called as a controlled break. Still, what a shame that a dog who clearly was the superior marker that day was dropped to the bottom of the pack for something that in no way impacted the marking ability that the Derby is all about. I would have given him the first or second based on his marking and ignored the handler error.
> 
> M



Well...I didn't read this as a controlled break. I read this as a dog that had lost focus on a bird as it was in the air and the handler refocused the dog by talking to it.
That's my take on it. If I'm wrong I'm wrong and according to the thread I'm wrong. Guess I learned something new.


----------



## Breck (Jul 1, 2003)

B Peterson said:


> Well...I didn't read this as a controlled break. I read this as a dog that had lost focus on a bird as it was in the air and the handler refocused the dog by talking to it.


. I thought something similar, like he maybe tried to prevent a head swing. Lots of tricks out there.


----------



## BBnumber1 (Apr 5, 2006)

I have been following this and I have a question. Several people have said that this is a controlled break based on the rules. This is the rule that I see:




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


In the case described, no mention was made about the dog creeping or moving forward. It seems to me that under this portion of the rules, talking to the dog, if the the dog has not moved, is not a controlled break. It is an offense, which is not specifically spelled out in the rule book, as minor, moderate, or severe. It is mentioned here with no specific level of severity, although the next sentence addresses hand signals as a 'penalty', and not requiring dismissal. Based on these sections, I would consider talking to the dog, absent motion by the dog, as an infraction by the handler, probably comparable to a controlled break, but not a controlled break.




> *During the period from the moment when the handler signals readiness for the birds to be thrown until the dog’s number is called, the handler of the working or honoring dog shall remain silent.* Also, in all marking tests during such period, the handler’s hands shall remain quietly in close proximity to his body. A handler who projects his hand during such period, whether for the purpose of assisting his dog to locate a fall or otherwise, should be considered to have used a threatening gesture, and his dog penalized accordingly.




Is there another section of the rules that I missed, that does not include a reference to the dog moving?


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

David 

Good catch. In the Hunt Test Rulebook (which I received during my recent seminar), there are specifically mentioned HANDLER Faults. I like the fact that the HT Rule Book has dog and handler faults (and I like the idea that you need to take a seminar about the Rule Book before you can judge). Talking to the working dog as the guns go off in the HT Rule Book is a "Serious" fault - elimination. 

So maybe by analogy - since the FT Rule Book forbids talking to your dogs - saying sit mandates elimination. I don't know. 

Send a question to the Judges Corner. 

Ted


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

From the time I ran my first minor stake (1985) till now, judges have used there own common (or uncommon) sense to handle situations such as this in minor stakes. For Pete's sake. If the dog is sitting rock steady and a nervous handler, through habit or otherwise slips up and says a quiet "sit"... To a dog that is clearly already sitting and making no moves to go anywhere, just judge the damn dog and enjoy the weather already. 

We already have too many nitpickers in the game, especially in the minor stakes, who can ruin a good day in a heartbeat. 

The first time I made such a blunder as a young handler, after the dog left the line I sheepishly looked around at the judges and asked "did you hear that?" A grizzled old veteran judge peered at me over his glasses and said "yep. Don't let it happen again". 

Lesson learned.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

paul young said:


> john fallon said:
> 
> 
> > The BOOK *instruct* the judges to treat a handlers talking to the dog between the time he signals for the birds and the time he is given his number as the handler believing that the dog was going to break....and to treat said talking as a controlled break.
> ...


----------



## 24116 (May 8, 2004)

So it's OK in the Q and Derby to talk to the dog as the birds are going down?


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

B Peterson said:


> So it's OK in the Q and Derby to talk to the dog as the birds are going down?


 It's not OK, it's just not a failure.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

huntinman said:


> From the time I ran my first minor stake (1985) till now, judges have used there own common (or uncommon) sense to handle situations such as this in minor stakes. For Pete's sake. If the dog is sitting rock steady and a nervous handler, through habit or otherwise slips up and says a quiet "sit"... To a dog that is clearly already sitting and making no moves to go anywhere, just judge the damn dog and enjoy the weather already.
> 
> We already have too many nitpickers in the game, especially in the minor stakes, who can ruin a good day in a heartbeat.
> 
> ...


Mine was worse, and to this day I admire the two that judged this nervous newbie that day and coached me through it. Judges like that encourage new blood and show newbies that the sport isn't as cold blooded as it can seem.


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

Charles C. said:


> My interpretation is that in minor stakes talking to your dog before your number is called is a controlled break. All else being equal, I might use it to separate 2 dogs, but I would never drop a dog from 1st or 2nd to a JAM where the talking was limited and didn't actually involve an all out break.


Here is what the rulebook says:



> (9) _The Judges should agree in advance _as to the extent of movement which shall be considered “creeping,’’ short of breaking, and whether working dogs so offend-ing shall be ordered brought to heel before being sent to retrieve. Also, in the minor stakes, where “controlled’’ breaks are permissible, the Judges should reach an agreement about the degree they will consider a “controlled’’ break in contrast to one which will eliminate the dog from further competition; also, they should be in agreement about the severity of the penalties to assess for various degrees of “controlled’’ breaks.


Once I got a 2nd in a derby after a controlled break in the 2nd series. We probably won, and I was half hoping to walk away with the Blue. We got RED. So I'm thinking the judges hurt us for the controlled break. That's probably how I would handle it. I would not move a dog from 1st or 2nd down to JAM unless there was very very little separation between dogs on marking. I certainly would not drop the dog completely.


----------



## waycool (Jan 23, 2014)

lpgar said:


> *in judging it is about the dogs....and their work. Perfect work should always be rewarded. The rule books has plenty of latitude for judges to allow this. *


^^^^ this !!!!


----------



## waycool (Jan 23, 2014)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> Fact is, let them get in my grill and get it off their chest. If a judge can't handle that, you probably shouldn't judge...


Adage... If you want a lot of friends in Field Trials... Don't WIN and Don't JUDGE.


----------



## waycool (Jan 23, 2014)

huntinman said:


> From the time I ran my first minor stake (1985) till now, judges have used there own common (or uncommon) sense to handle situations such as this in minor stakes. For Pete's sake. If the dog is sitting rock steady and a nervous handler, through habit or otherwise slips up and says a quiet "sit"... To a dog that is clearly already sitting and making no moves to go anywhere, *just judge the damn dog and enjoy the weather already*.
> 
> We already have too many nitpickers in the game, especially in the minor stakes, who can ruin a good day in a heartbeat.
> 
> ...


This is VERY good and good on you Bill ! The best part is in bold but all of it is worth reading IMO  I wish this forum had an "I agree" or "Like" button .. LOL 

In life, the times we give encouragement and positive influence on others are a faded memory to us.. but to the individual we helped or encouraged they can be invaluable and vivid. As Bill wonderfully described his vivid memory of that judge "yep. Don't let it happen again" I have many of those as well.. and hope I have done that enough for others in that respect.


----------



## Mike Peters-labguy23 (Feb 9, 2003)

huntinman said:


> From the time I ran my first minor stake (1985) till now, judges have used there own common (or uncommon) sense to handle situations such as this in minor stakes. For Pete's sake. If the dog is sitting rock steady and a nervous handler, through habit or otherwise slips up and says a quiet "sit"... To a dog that is clearly already sitting and making no moves to go anywhere, just judge the damn dog and enjoy the weather already.
> 
> We already have too many nitpickers in the game, especially in the minor stakes, who can ruin a good day in a heartbeat.
> 
> ...



Maybe this is wrong but I think I would do the same as Bill. I try to use as much common sense as possible when judging. I remember the first time I ran an AKC Qual I was so nervous I tapped my leg and may have said here as the marks were going off. My dog did great on the marks and one of the judges asked me after my dog was back if this was my first Field Trial and I told him it was. He then reminded me I could not tap my leg or talk as the birds were going down. I thanked him and earned a jam! If he would have dropped me without an explanation I might not have ever ran again.


----------



## Criquetpas (Sep 14, 2004)

The year was 1965, the place Madison Wisconsin, the guy 22 years old with a Golden he trained himself in city parks and golf course ponds and some gravel pits. This guy paid his $15. and entered a licensed derby. The first three series went great (don't know if I was winning) the last series was a water double . I told my dog to stay with a "obedience" left hand across the face stay, clipping the dogs nose with my little finger by accident. They gave me my number , she went out and pinned the marks. As I gave the last bird to the judge, he pulled me aside and said they were dropping me because I intimidated my dog when I nervously hit the dog with my finger on the stay command. The dog had been rock solid the entire trial. I walked away shaking my head wondering how I got involved in this silly field trial game! 

Many derbies have went by , with a number of dogs and we have done well over the years in the derby. I have judged so many derbies I really don't remember how many, the last one was judged last summer 2013. Everytime I judge a little voice goes off in my head (only one voice, not many haha) especially in the derby always give the benefit to the dog. There have been many disappointments over the years in all the stakes, derby through the all-age stakes, but, we have been lucky too with good breaks so I guess it averages out. Having said that I have never forgot the judges or the total lack of compassion of those two judges towards a newcomer in the game. Always give the benefit to the dog especially in the derby!


----------



## Renee P. (Dec 5, 2010)

I don't think it is fair to judge the Newbs differently than the experienced Am or the Pro. If you are going to DQ or penalize a Pro for a behavior, either handler error or error of the dog, then the same action should DQ the Newb.

If a handler says "sit" to discourage head swinging or whatever, you can't over look that in the Newb but penalize the pro.

So if the handler says "sit" to the dog but not necessarily to control a break, what is the penalty in the Derby? I guess this was Ted's original question.

There has to be a penalty, otherwise we will all be up there whispering to our dogs in hopes of an advantage.

That said, there are methods within the rules that allow the handler to focus the dog on a particular mark. I guess the old hands are going to be using these methods as this is what will fly in the upper stakes.


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

The old hands don't need those methods... They have a hundred others...


----------



## crackerd (Feb 21, 2003)

Ted, I _*see*_ what you did - threw *the $100 question* out there to douse bluehen's $100.00 entry fee brouhaha. Hail thee fellow, well played for the noblesse oblige!



Barry Ireland said:


> I always appreciated the judges allowing us to continue and I think in the younger stakes there needs to be a little help.


If you can't help me, don't hurt me. Don't think most folk running derby need any help in hurting _*themselves*_, either, when they come to the line - as has been amply documented in this thread.

As for WWFD - What Would Fallon Do? - think Marse John was judging one of the last derbies I ran, six or seven years ago, and his "solution" was to throw a couple of out-of-order fliers at us! In the derby! Bravo, John - that'll teach them anxiety-riddled dogs and their handlers to squirm around on their (our) sphincters to the brink of breaking - or _*being*_ broken...

MG


----------



## swliszka (Apr 17, 2011)

Okay - you got me. What is "out-of-order" ? Because your pro or training group trained in a certain fashion does not mean trials have to be run the way you train. The book does not say anything about that. Further the book also does not say the handler decides when the birds go down - hold your britches for that one. This is competition not standards. It is not trickery.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

swliszka said:


> Okay - you got me. What is "out-of-order" ? Because your pro or training group trained in a certain fashion does not mean trials have to be run the way you train. The book does not say anything about that. Further the book also does not say the handler decides when the birds go down - hold your britches for that one. This is competition not standards. It is not trickery.



So you think shooting a flyer as a memory bird is a good practice in the derby?


----------



## swliszka (Apr 17, 2011)

Ted don't shoot from the hip as the "great sage" you did not invent this game. I have had that happen to me in licensed derbies. It does not make it right or wrong but it happens. Next!


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

swliszka said:


> Ted don't shoot from the hip as the "great sage" you did not invent this game. I have had that happen to me in licensed derbies. It does not make it right or wrong but it happens. Next!



You never answered the question. 

I would like to know: a) what you think; and b) what your name is, so I can make an informed decision about whether to enter if you are judging.


----------



## swliszka (Apr 17, 2011)

My name is posted I do not hide. Second you seem to have difficulty accepting the fact that in different regions , terrain , judges , and over time things are done differently. I look forward to running under you. I am proud to say I have run under many national open/amateur judges and learned a lot. I have marshaled no less than 50 licensed stakes. It makes me dangerous w/some knowledge but in every trial I have learned something new. Have you? Lastly, I have even had before the $100 derby two flyers shot in the first series. Maybe we have to do the Canadian thing and have all dead birds. I train both ways.


----------



## RookieTrainer (Mar 11, 2011)

Doesn't the term "out-of-order" simply refer to the fact that the flyer is not the go bird? It doesn't imply that anything is wrong with it.


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

RookieTrainer said:


> Doesn't the term "out-of-order" simply refer to the fact that the flyer is not the go bird? It doesn't imply that anything is wrong with it.


Maybe Ted is thinking of the courtroom...
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=l9pEqEy80RA


----------



## crackerd (Feb 21, 2003)

RookieTrainer said:


> Doesn't the term "out-of-order" simply refer to the fact that the flyer is not the go bird? It doesn't imply that anything is wrong with it.


Doesn't imply that anything is "right" with it, either, whether in the courtroom or the "other" judge's chair. But who loves you, Marse John? Was a fun old test and think I even got a 1/2 point and a little inscribed silver spit cup out of it from Mr. Fallon's "largesse."

And besides, responding here lets me tender (_*tenderly*_ tender) yet another invitation to come down and train with us Saturday, John. We've asked so many times already that I'm surprised _*Jimmy*_ Fallon hasn't heard and shown up in your place...

MG


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

swliszka said:


> My name is posted I do not hide. Second you seem to have difficulty accepting the fact that in different regions , terrain , judges , and over time things are done differently. I look forward to running under you. I am proud to say I have run under many national open/amateur judges and learned a lot. I have marshaled no less than 50 licensed stakes. It makes me dangerous w/some knowledge but in every trial I have learned something new. Have you? Lastly, I have even had before the $100 derby two flyers shot in the first series. Maybe we have to do the Canadian thing and have all dead birds. I train both ways.



You have a hard time answering questions.

First, what is your name? What state do you live in? I would like to do my due diligence, look in the AKC log and see your judging history.

Second, you never have said what your position is on flyers shot first in the derby. Just because some one has done something somewhere does make it right. Instead of saying it's been done elsewhere (duh), take a stand. Tell us whether you think it's a good practice. 

Third, I have seen all kinds of tests over the years. Some good, some bad, some mediocre. The good ideas I kept. The bad ideas I discarded.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

huntinman said:


> Maybe Ted is thinking of the courtroom...
> http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=l9pEqEy80RA



Maybe you should read my posts. I never used the words out of order.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

RookieTrainer said:


> Doesn't the term "out-of-order" simply refer to the fact that the flyer is not the go bird? It doesn't imply that anything is wrong with it.



Ok, Steve. Are you saying that you think shooting a flyer first in the derby double is a good practice?


----------



## RookieTrainer (Mar 11, 2011)

No, I don't think it is a good practice in my limited experience. First, it seems to me to be a fairly cheap way to turn a triple, for example, into a double and a blind for those dogs that live for live birds and get fixated on the flyer and the multiple shots. Second, my dog is one of those dogs.

It seems to me there are probably better ways to get separation than that, all other things being equal.

For my edification, do you think an out-of-order flyer is something that should really never be done? Or are there some circumstances where it might be acceptable and perhaps even necessary?


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

If I were running a double in a trial, and the longer/ more difficult bird to get to was the flier, I think I might kiss the judges ;-)

john


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> So you think shooting a flyer as a memory bird is a good practice in the derby?


With some dogs, the flyer is NEVER the memory bird.  Doesn't matter what order it is shot.


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> Ok, Steve. Are you saying that you think shooting a flyer first in the derby double is a good practice?


I'm not Steve, but there are so many other good ways to set up tests for the Derby I don't know why someone would do it. Unique or different is not always a good thing, in my experience.

There was an EXCELLENT article in Retriever news about a year ago by Dennis Voigt and Judy Rasmussen about setting Derby tests and judging them. -Paul


----------



## RookieTrainer (Mar 11, 2011)

Doug Main said:


> With some dogs, the flyer is NEVER the memory bird.  Doesn't matter what order it is shot.


Amen, and amen.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

While not wishing to get into a philosophical discussion I have no problem with memory bird fliers and out of order fliers.


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

john fallon said:


> If I were running a double in a trial, and the longer/ more difficult bird to get to was the flier, I think I might kiss the judges ;-)
> 
> john


Would you still feel that way if the flier was retired and you were the 50th dog to run? Or if it was a hen pheasant on a rainy, muggy day with no wind shot into goldenrod? Remember, in your example this is a difficult bird to even get to.......Be careful what you ask for!-Paul


----------



## Criquetpas (Sep 14, 2004)

I think as a derby judge you have to consider the entry. You may have a small entry with perhaps a 100 points among the dogs. Some derbies are large with young derby dogs. Lets face it a solid derby career is about 6 months or less from 18 to 24 months old. The grounds are important, sometimes you get whatever is left over from the all-age stakes, unless the derby is on Friday. Then consider the logistics, time management if there are many derby dogs run by the pros, who are running the open. This is all before even thinking about setting up tests. I think the first series should be a very doable set of land marks. We used to run a single, then run a derby double with the guns hidden behind holding blinds, not so legal now. I think you should not protect winners and run four series , two land, two water. Advoid extremely cheating marks or stay in the water for great lengths. It is said among many old timers, a long water mark will get you all the answers you need. Don't know if I agree with it. Marking is primary, with less on training attributes. Be generous with your call-backs and those that finish the stake without handling should be considered for JAMS.

I have not in my memory "started out" as a judge doing a flyer memory bird in a double in a derby. Later series yes, not first series. Have I run them as a handler, sure. We have run six series , one trial with all singles, three series using the open water marks as a double,etc. Try not to as judge.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Criquetpas said:


> [I_]I think as a derby judge you have to consider the entry. You may have a small entry with perhaps a 100 points among the dogs. Some derbies are large with young derby dogs. Lets face it a solid derby career is about 6 months or less from 18 to 24 months old. The grounds are important, sometimes you get whatever is left over from the all-age stakes, unless the derby is on Friday. Then consider the logistics, time management if there are many derby dogs run by the pros, who are running the open. This is all before even thinking about setting up tests. I think the first series should be a very doable set of land marks. We used to run a single, then run a derby double with the guns hidden behind holding blinds, not so legal now. I think you should not protect winners and run four series , two land, two water. Advoid extremely cheating marks or stay in the water for great lengths. It is said among many old timers, a long water mark will get you all the answers you need. Don't know if I agree with it. Marking is primary, with less on training attributes. Be generous with your call-backs and those that finish the stake without handling should be considered for JAMS._[/I]
> I have not in my memory "started out" as a judge doing a flyer memory bird in a double in a derby. Later series yes, not first series. Have I run them as a handler, sure. We have run six series , one trial with all singles, three series using the open water marks as a double,etc. Try not to as judge.


New judges would be wise to print this out and refer to it from time to time, especially just before they judge a derby.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

RookieTrainer said:


> No, I don't think it is a good practice in my limited experience. First, it seems to me to be a fairly cheap way to turn a triple, for example, into a double and a blind for those dogs that live for live birds and get fixated on the flyer and the multiple shots. Second, my dog is one of those dogs.
> 
> It seems to me there are probably better ways to get separation than that, all other things being equal.
> 
> For my edification, do you think an out-of-order flyer is something that should really never be done? Or are there some circumstances where it might be acceptable and perhaps even necessary?



I prefer flyers shot last because I think it keeps the mechanics simpler and cuts down costs. For example, in the AA stakes, if you have a triple and shoot the flyer first, then if you have a bad throw afterwards, you have to shoot a flyer all over again - and the dog on the re-run will never leave the flyer. But, I might shoot the flyer third in a quad with a dink bird as the go bird to give the other guns a chance to retire. 

I think that when you shoot a flyer before a dead bird - or as we commonly call it "out of order" - it can scramble a dog's brains somewhat. That's why I would be reluctant to shoot a flyer before a dead bird in the minor stakes, especially the derby. I like to keep my marks as uncluttered as possible and give the babies a chance to see the guns, see the birds, and mark. Because that's what the derby is about. It is also why I don't like shooting breaking birds in the minor stakes - or any stakes for that matter - because I am most interested in seeing the dogs' marking skills.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

paul young said:


> Would you still feel that way if the flier was retired and you were the 50th dog to run? Or if it was a hen pheasant on a rainy, muggy day with no wind shot into goldenrod? Remember, in your example this is a difficult bird to even get to.......Be careful what you ask for!-Paul


Yep,unless I had to run through the scent cone of the last bird down to do it.... I'd Primary select and be well on my way there before too much memory of the mark was extinguished......

john


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Where are these derbies with only doubles being held? 

/Paul


----------



## swliszka (Apr 17, 2011)

Ted one last time. My name is S. W. Liszka. I am like you in the Judge's Directory. I currently have one 5 year old B+ dog (hot/cold) and one baby test tube dog same father as my best two deceased older dogs (Ace's High III) w/ 3 different bitches. I trained my own dogs (CONTRARIAN) and step down to no man in field or life. I respect my adversaries and judges who I and my dogs have not done well under. This is a competitive game sometimes filled w/short-timers but the old hands know what I say. Further it is to advance the knowledge of the newbies we should help. One of my mentors just died yesterday and I just got word. He taught me back in 1979 thereabout "you judge the dog not the man!" Bob , this is for you. Lastly , criquetpas #69 -agree..Ted #71 ..derby dog marks..agree.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

swliszka said:


> Ted one last time. My name is S. W. Liszka. I am like you in the Judge's Directory. I currently have one 5 year old B+ dog (hot/cold) and one baby test tube dog same father as my best two deceased older dogs (Ace's High III) w/ 3 different bitches. I trained my own dogs (CONTRARIAN) and step down to no man in field or life. I respect my adversaries and judges who I and my dogs have not done well under. This is a competitive game sometimes filled w/short-timers but the old hands know what I say. Further it is to advance the knowledge of the newbies we should help. One of my mentors just died yesterday and I just got word. He taught me back in 1979 thereabout "you judge the dog not the man!" Bob , this is for you. Lastly , criquetpas #69 -agree..Ted #71 ..derby dog marks..agree.


your last name is Liszka? Wow. and here I thought Shih was a funny name...

/Paul


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

john fallon said:


> Yep, I'd Primary select and be well on my way there before too much memory of the mark was extinguished......
> 
> john


Yep. And that's why the dead bird would be at least 2/3 of the way out, tight to and upwind of the route to the flyer with 3 gunners and multiple shots.....enjoy!

Of course, I'm talking about an Amateur or Open with time against us.


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> Where are these derbies with only doubles being held?
> 
> /Paul


Pretty common in Region 1, Paul. However, I ran one with a water triple (boat bird memory bird, no less) back in the late 90's!-Paul


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

paul young said:


> Yep. And that's why the dead bird would be at least 2/3 of the way out, tight to and upwind of the route to the flyer with 3 gunners and multiple shots.....enjoy!
> 
> Of course, I'm talking about an Amateur or Open with time against us.


Mixed bag? Why not. I'll lbet they would also be pinched

Those judges might have to look elsewhere for their kiss....

john


----------



## swliszka (Apr 17, 2011)

Mohawk Valley..Liszka means "fox" in Polish and some other Slavic languages. Paul please don't mention boat marks because they will think I did it! Wow until July 2013 - I was too busy working to realize how much fun there was on this site. Winter has got to stop.


----------



## blake_mhoona (Mar 19, 2012)

ran an out of order flyer double with my derby dog while training with some Q and open dogs and talk about a let down. seeing the Q and open dogs do good i thought there was nothing to it. then my derby dog steps up and all kinds of hell breaks loose. won't be trying that again for a while.


----------



## blind ambition (Oct 8, 2006)

Ted Shih said:


> Here's a hypothetical. Derby. Last series. Dog has run nearly perfect three series. *On last bird down in fourth series. Dogs eyes flick --handler is in training mode. Quietly says "sit"*, Handler realizes mistake. Judge gives dog a number. Dog is sent for the go bird. As dog is returning judge asks handler if he wants to continue and pick up memory bird. Handler says of course and sends dog for memory bird. Absolutely perfect fourth series.
> 
> Handler realizes judges do not know rules regarding controlled break in a minor stake and are treating this as an automatic disqualification.
> 
> ...


I am kind of feeling sorry for the judges here, in the face of the handler and some of the gallery pressing the case for Judges not knowing the rules re: Controlled Break.
First underlined comment handler states they were in training mode over the _eye flick_, perhaps this was evidence of dog preparing to leave for mark or perhaps it was something the handler knew from training was dog taking concentration from mark (head swing)
Second underline indicates that the judge or judges thought that the "sit" might have been an aid to marking and violated the no speaking while birds are being shot rule, not an effort to control a break, they did not appear to need anyone showing them the rule book.

Without wishing to show any mistrust of the handler's version of events, I have to side with the judges' view on the infraction as they are the ones scrutinizing the work at line. I can only base my thinking on the OP, nothing written here shows any misunderstanding of the rules on the part of the judges, the only mention of "Controlled Break" appears to have come from the affected handler. While I do agree with the philosophy of helping new persons learn the ropes in retriever sports, judged owe this encouragement to every new(ish) entrant including those within scoring distance of this team.

My name is Michael Rigby, my judging experience is limited to Hunt Tests in Canada.


----------



## Wayne Nutt (Jan 10, 2010)

I'm sitting here and about to have stroke with all this talk about out of order flyers in a
Derby.


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

john fallon said:


> Mixed bag? Why not. I'll lbet they would also be pinched
> 
> Those judges might have to look elsewhere for their kiss....
> 
> john


Definitely Not pinched. no help from the judges! LOL!


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

> Here's a hypothetical. Derby. Last series. Dog has run nearly perfect three series. On last bird down in fourth series. Dogs eyes flick --handler is in training mode. Quietly says "sit", Handler realizes mistake. Judge gives dog a number. Dog is sent for the go bird. As dog is returning judge asks handler if he wants to continue and pick up memory bird. Handler says of course and sends dog for memory bird. Absolutely perfect fourth series.
> 
> Handler realizes judges do not know rules regarding controlled break in a minor stake and are treating this as an automatic disqualification.
> 
> ...





> In the Derby marking is all important......


The dog runs a nearly perfect set of marks which by their own addmission put the dog in 1st or 2nd place...... 

In spite of the above, the judges place at least 2 dogs ahead of a better marking dog and give the RJ to another ...

What did the phrase mean to them?

What does it mean to you folks commenting here on the RTF ?

john


----------



## Breck (Jul 1, 2003)

Wayne Nutt said:


> I'm sitting here and about to have stroke with all this talk about out of order flyers in a
> Derby.


.
Yea well you better stock up on drugs that cover more than just stroke. lol


----------



## blake_mhoona (Mar 19, 2012)

Wayne Nutt said:


> I'm sitting here and about to have stroke with all this talk about out of order flyers in a
> Derby.


dont fret wayne. i've run a few in your area and you are pretty much safe. i ran one out of order flyer while training that was my only experience. out of all the ones i've run in texas circuit (6 of 7) i've never had a bad experience from judges.

now the experience of stepping to the line is a little more scarier. and so quick when you think about it. hours (or days) fretting and first series line time is like 3-4 minutes

which event are you running? maybe i'll be there and us newbie ams can stick together!


----------



## Wayne Nutt (Jan 10, 2010)

South Texas RC Mar 15. I'm taking a paper sack with me. Anyone remember the Ain'ts?


----------



## Cowtown (Oct 3, 2009)

huntinman said:


> Section 25 of the “STANDARD’’ provides that noisy or frequent restraining of a dog on-line by his handler, except in extraordinary circumstances, is sufficient cause to justify elimination of the dog from the stake. In less flagrant instances, the degree of the penalty should correspond to the extent and frequency of repetition of the infraction. Although such is not required, it is a considerate gesture by Judges, if they are in agreement, to notify handlers when their methods of restraint are incurring penalties for their dogs.
> 
> 
> I think the judges have some discretion based on what they saw and heard.


I did exactly this in a Sr hunt test with my dog. His butt came up and I very quietly said sit. Perfect dog work. Judges gave me a warning and let me keep playing. Said that if I would have said it loudly they would have dropped me.


----------



## blake_mhoona (Mar 19, 2012)

Wayne Nutt said:


> South Texas RC Mar 15. I'm taking a paper sack with me. Anyone remember the Ain'ts?


well maybe not i'll be at CARC. curious why you chose the one over 4.5 hours away vs 1.5 (PRTA in bonham)?


----------



## GaryJ (Jan 1, 2013)

Cowtown said:


> I did exactly this in a Sr hunt test with my dog. His butt came up and I very quietly said sit. Perfect dog work. Judges gave me a warning and let me keep playing. Said that if I would have said it loudly they would have dropped me.


My very first Senior Hunt test on the first series had an out of order flyer. Failed that one. I was told that it was rare at that level to have out of order flyers. On our 4th test it happened again. We were more prepared and we passed that one picking the flyer up last as the memory bird.


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

B Peterson said:


> Well...I didn't read this as a controlled break. I read this as a dog that had lost focus on a bird as it was in the air and the handler refocused the dog by talking to it.
> That's my take on it. If I'm wrong I'm wrong and according to the thread I'm wrong. Guess I learned something new.


Bruce is right. The description in the original post does not meet the definition of a break or an attempt to break so I don't believe all this talk about a "controlled break" is even relevant. I would guess the handler was inadvertently responding to a head-swing/eye-shift with a typical "sit" command. I think I would have said to the handler, after the dog picked up the birds, something like, "I thought I heard someone say something ... I don't think it was YOU but I'll listen better next time. ;-) "

Addressing some of the other comments regarding generosity with derby dogs/handers, I will say I did once drop a derby dog for what the handler thought should have been a "controlled break". The dog was 15 yards out in the water with the handler _screaming_, "HEEL" several times. Co-judge and I immediately looked at each other and nodded "no". The "control" was anything but "quickly" as required by the book.

The mistake we made was to let him pick up the birds (I like to let people get their moneys worth, too). Informed him of our decision after his dog picked up the second bird and he didn't really have a problem with it. After callbacks he asked us, through the marshall to reconsider. We did revisit our thought process and agreed we made the correct call and stood by it. He was a local guy and it wasn't a popular call with the gallery but even in the derby, there are limits to how far a judge should go before they must say too much.

JS


----------



## 24116 (May 8, 2004)

JS said:


> Bruce is right.


Wow...that doesn't happen very often


----------



## roseberry (Jun 22, 2010)

B Peterson said:


> Wow...that doesn't happen very often


bp, js is buttering you up for an invite to train in that nifty pond behind your house in the avatar!

rboudet, i bet you thought this thread was about me, didn't you?


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

blake_mhoona said:


> well maybe not i'll be at CARC. curious why you chose the one over 4.5 hours away vs 1.5 (PRTA in bonham)?


From where Wayne lives to Bonham is about 2 1/2 hours without traffic and if you driven around D/FW lately you know there's always traffic so make it closer to 3 hours. Maybe he does not like the judges or maybe he just wants to visit La Grange.;-)


----------



## Lpgar (Mar 31, 2005)

Driving 10 extra hours this summer to visit somewhere new....and avoid the judges of the weekend (actually clubs that think no derby is a good idea). That is one of the great things about this game.....gives us an excuse to visit new places and people on any given weekend.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

swliszka said:


> Mohawk Valley..Liszka means "fox" in Polish and some other Slavic languages. Paul please don't mention boat marks because they will think I did it! Wow until July 2013 - I was too busy working to realize how much fun there was on this site. Winter has got to stop.


Well now that we've cleared up the big mystery of the great winter of 2014, aka your name, perhaps Ted can now further debate derby judging with you....

/Paul


----------



## Labs a mundo (Mar 20, 2009)

Ted Shih said:


> Got this in a PM from a friend who wanted my opinion. Unfortunately her PM box was full.
> 
> So here it is. Comments?


Marking and style are a derby judges main consideration.
However.....if an inexperienced handler slipped up on line due to nerves I'd be inclined to cut slack.
If an experienced handler spoke softly to refocus their dog on a potential headswing, my tolerance to speaking to the dog while the guns were being shot would be less lenient.
We all had nerves in our early years and hopefully received a helpful lesson from judges.


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

Labs a mundo said:


> Marking and style are a derby judges main consideration.
> However.....if an inexperienced handler slipped up on line due to nerves I'd be inclined to cut slack.
> If an experienced handler spoke softly to refocus their dog on a potential headswing, my tolerance to speaking to the dog while the guns were being shot would be less lenient.
> We all had nerves in our early years and hopefully received a helpful lesson from judges.


I believe a judge may afford lenience to a derby DOG on a consistent and limited basis.

As far as the HANDLER, how can you justify preferential treatment to anyone; pro/amateur, tall/short, fat/skinny, old/young, etc.??? True, the derby is an entry level stake and we're here to have fun but knowing the rules of the game you're playing is pretty basic. This ain't T-ball. ;-)

JS


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

If someone says no/ sit, or whatever to a dog during the designated period of time in question , *the judges are required to assume that they thought the dog was breaking*. and said whatever to attempt to have the dog stay....
whether the was or was not actually breaking is irrelevant.

So, since we are using hypotheticals, the narrative is an accurate depiction of what happened , this handler not only did not get any preferential treatment he got hosed .

john


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

john fallon said:


> If someone says no/ sit, or whatever to a dog during the designated period of time in question , *the judges are required to assume that they thought the dog was breaking*. and said whatever to attempt to have the dog stay....
> whether the was or was not actually breaking is irrelevant.


I 100% agree with this part. In a minor stakes this is a moderate fault. In all-age stakes it is a severe fault.




john fallon said:


> So, since we are using hypotheticals, the narrative is an accurate depiction of what happened , this handler not only did not get any preferential treatment *he got hosed* .
> 
> john


Totally disagree with this. This dog/handler committed a *moderate* fault. It would be preferential treatment to ignore it. We don't know what (if any) faults the other dogs/handlers had. But for that moderate fault the dog would have placed 1st or 2nd. I would hate to guess how many trials I would have won, but for that 1 moderate fault.


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

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

JS

You cannot have a "controlled break" without a break to control. Nothing this dog did indicates an intent to retrieve. The handler's fault was talking to the dog before the judge released him.


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

JS said:


> I believe a judge may afford lenience to a derby DOG on a consistent and limited basis.
> 
> As far as the HANDLER, how can you justify preferential treatment to anyone; pro/amateur, tall/short, fat/skinny, old/young, etc.??? True, the derby is an entry level stake and we're here to have fun but knowing the rules of the game you're playing is pretty basic. This ain't T-ball. ;-)
> 
> JS


I agree. In the derby you should be just as generous as you can be to all throughout. It would scare me to start thinking "X is new, so let's let that slide". It is a slippery slope, IMO.

I am usually totally clueless who the handler that goes with a dog number even is until the ribbons are given out and I kind of like it that way.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

DoubleHaul said:


> I agree. In the derby you should be just as generous as you can be to all throughout. It would scare me to start thinking "X is new, so let's let that slide". It is a slippery slope, IMO.
> 
> I am usually totally clueless who the handler that goes with a dog number even is until the ribbons are given out and I kind of like it that way.


I have encountered total, nervous newbies a few times, typically running their first derby. When I see how nervous they are I do my best to calm them down. Many times they have a very nice dog, but it is obvious they are lacking in the handling department and are making things way harder than they need to be. I am sensitive to the fact that we are in competition here and I don't want to give any kind of competitive advantage to one handler over another, but I also realize this particular dog and handler are not likely to even be around to the end at this trial, but if I make the handler's experience a positive one, he or she may stick with training and come back a better handler next time.


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

Its called analysis paralysis. Many judges have been afflicted with it. (and more than a few forum users)


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

JS said:


> John, you can't use a chosen PART of a paragraph to draw a conclusion. The paragraph begins with, "If a dog on line creeps or jumps forward short of breaking ...". This dog did neither so your quoted admonition does not apply.
> 
> JS
> 
> *You cannot have a "controlled break" without a break to control*. Nothing this dog did indicates an intent to retrieve. The handler's fault was talking to the dog before the judge released him.


How far are you going to go with this? 

What if the dog has broken its sit and is leaning forward when the handler says sit? Or Broke its sit and raised 1 front leg while leaning forward...?
Or was "creeping short of breaking" when the handler said here and the dog returned. No creep line had been indicated but if they followed the book they had decided where it was.
Had the handler done nothing the dog may have returned on it's own
In any of these cases would it have been a controlled break ? Or was it another case of the handler talking to the dog ?

john


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

John Robinson said:


> I have encountered total, nervous newbies a few times, typically running their first derby. When I see how nervous they are I do my best to calm them down. Many times they have a very nice dog, but it is obvious they are lacking in the handling department and are making things way harder than they need to be. I am sensitive to the fact that we are in competition here and I don't want to give any kind of competitive advantage to one handler over another, but I also realize this particular dog and handler are not likely to even be around to the end at this trial, but if I make the handler's experience a positive one, he or she may stick with training and come back a better handler next time.


Over the years i have watched a lot of mishandles, only once did I tell a handler to relax "this is not a timed event" as Pete Lane had done for me many years previous -



huntinman said:


> Its called analysis paralysis. Many judges have been afflicted with it. (and more than a few forum users)


  Over the years I don't know how many little (Derby) dogs I started & at some point in their career decided we were both wasting our time -
But in all cases you learn something - The one thing that is universal & doesn't seem to change is the inability of Trial Sponsoring clubs to pick 
judges for their Derby's that are qualified to be there -


----------



## blind ambition (Oct 8, 2006)

john fallon said:


> How far are you going to go with this?
> 
> What if the dog has broken its sit and is leaning forward when the handler says sit? Or Broke its sit and raised 1 front leg while leaning forward...?
> Or was "creeping short of breaking" when the handler said here and the dog returned. No creep line had been indicated but if they followed the book they had decided where it was.
> ...


TED wrote: "Here's a hypothetical. Derby. Last series. Dog has run nearly perfect three series. *On last bird down in fourth series. Dogs eyes flick* --handler is in training mode. Quietly says "sit", Handler realizes mistake. Judge gives dog a number. Dog is sent for the go bird. As dog is returning judge asks handler if he wants to continue and pick up memory bird. Handler says of course and sends dog for memory bird. Absolutely perfect fourth series.  

John, I may be misinterpreting the underlined section above; however, I would expect dog to be focused on the last bird down and be ready to move if it were going to break, not flick its eyes to another bird...yes I am interpreting "flick" as to mean _off the last bird_ and I may be wrong. I wasn't at line and so only have the written account and the judges' comments to draw from. Nowhere in the account quoted above is there any mention of body movement and the judges read the situation as "talking to dog while birds are being thrown".

Could the judges have been more lenient and marked the situation in their books as "controlled break"? Perhaps, or perhaps not, it depends on everything their eyes ears and senses took in throughout the test _and_ most importantly to be fair to all competitors if they truly believed this was a C.B..


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

blind ambition said:


> TED wrote: "Here's a hypothetical. Derby. Last series. Dog has run nearly perfect three series. *On last bird down in fourth series. Dogs eyes flick* --handler is in training mode. Quietly says "sit", Handler realizes mistake. Judge gives dog a number. Dog is sent for the go bird. As dog is returning judge asks handler if he wants to continue and pick up memory bird. Handler says of course and sends dog for memory bird. Absolutely perfect fourth series.
> 
> John, I may be misinterpreting the underlined section above; however, I would expect dog to be focused on the last bird down and be ready to move if it were going to break, not flick its eyes to another bird...yes I am interpreting "flick" as to mean _off the last bird_ and I may be wrong. I wasn't at line and so only have the written account and the judges' comments to draw from. Nowhere in the account quoted above is there any mention of body movement and the judges read the situation as "talking to dog while birds are being thrown".
> 
> Could the judges have been more lenient and marked the situation in their books as "controlled break"? Perhaps, or perhaps not, it depends on everything their eyes ears and senses took in throughout the test _and_ most importantly to be fair to all competitors if they truly believed this was a C.B..


The dog got a JAM. Either the judges decided to ignore the rules about talking to the dog during the prohibited time frame, or in retrospect decided that it was in fact a CB.

john


----------



## blind ambition (Oct 8, 2006)

john fallon said:


> The dog got a JAM. Either the judges decided to ignore the rules about talking to the dog during the prohibited time frame, or in retrospect decided that it was in fact a CB.
> 
> john



Now you are onto something, like I said in my first post on this situation "I feel sorry for the judges". It appears there was a degree of gallery influence which placed the judges in a "catch 22" position regarding their awarding of ribbons. But happily we can all agree that the section in the rules covering breaking etc. is prefaced by a requirement for visible indication of forward movement on the part of the dog not an "eye flick".


----------



## Rick_C (Dec 12, 2007)

GaryJ said:


> My very first Senior Hunt test on the first series had an out of order flyer. Failed that one. I was told that it was rare at that level to have out of order flyers. On our 4th test it happened again. We were more prepared and we passed that one picking the flyer up last as the memory bird.


Same happened to me in the Senior test needed to get my boys title. I to that point, for various reasons, had not trained on out of order flyers. Before calling me to the line one of the judges turned and asked how I was doing today. I said "well, since he's never seen an out of order flyer, I'll have to let you know in a few minutes". Obviously the last thing I wanted to see in the first series of the test to title was something we'd never trained on. Particularly since my boy really likes his flyers. 

Fortunately the marks were well separated and he never flinched, acted like he'd done this every day, and went out and stepped on both marks and did title that day.


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

blind ambition said:


> Could the judges have been more lenient and marked the situation in their books as "controlled break"? Perhaps, or perhaps not, it depends on everything their eyes ears and senses took in throughout the test _and_ most importantly to be fair to all competitors if they truly believed this was a C.B..


That is why it is called judging and not score keeping.

Tim


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?93374-Breaking-Question

/Paul


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

In an AKC Derby where controlled breaks are allowed, should a dog whose marks are head and shoulders ahead of the field be placed lower if it has one? 

john


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

john fallon said:


> In an AKC Derby where controlled breaks are allowed, should a dog whose marks are head and shoulders ahead of the field be placed lower if it has one?
> 
> john


Allowed = a moderate fault vs ellimination.

you just don't pretend it didn't happen


----------



## Jason Brion (May 31, 2006)

john fallon said:


> If I were running a double in a trial, and the longer/ more difficult bird to get to was the flier, I think I might kiss the judges ;-)
> 
> john


Are you serious? I'm not sure if Ted has this in his book but it is CERTAINLY in mine!


----------



## Jason Brion (May 31, 2006)

BBnumber1 said:


> I have been following this and I have a question. Several people have said that this is a controlled break based on the rules. This is the rule that I see:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This is how I look at it as well. If it is all about the dogs then judge the dogs equally. I personally would be pissed off if I got a placement after doing something that would have cost someone else to lose a placement. There is a period of learning with this sport (and most I would imagine) and to send the wrong message from the beginning shouldn't be apart of it. What's next?


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Doug Main said:


> > Originally Posted by john fallon
> > In an AKC Derby where controlled breaks are allowed, *should a dog whose marks are head and shoulders ahead of the field *be placed lower if it has one?
> >
> > john
> ...


In the Derby, where you have been instructed that MARKING IS ALL IMPORTANT(?), and we are not talking about two dogs that are knoted up, we are talking about a dog whose marks are head and shoulders ahead of the field. What would* you *do ???

john


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

Jason Brion said:


> This is how I look at it as well. If it is all about the dogs then judge the dogs equally. *I personally would be pissed off if I got a placement after doing something that would have cost someone else to lose a placement*. There is a period of learning with this sport (and most I would imagine) and to send the wrong message from the beginning shouldn't be apart of it. What's next?


The remedy for that would be to put your dog on lead and go to the truck if it did something so wrong that you thought it might cost someone else a placement. Why wait? That would send a pretty good message.


----------



## Jason Brion (May 31, 2006)

Absolutely


----------

