# Lines v. Marks - A Rule Book Analysis



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

This post is in response to Marvin's insistence that I defend my position concerning lines v. marks with the Rule Book.


At the outset, I find it interesting that Marvin, who worships at the altar of placement, should discount the authors of the Manual, who "represent more than 300 years in field trial competition, close to 1,000 points as field trial judges (including many National Champions, well over 100 titled field trial dogs ...." Introduction to Manual

I also find it interesting that Marvin should insist on my citing portions to support my position - when I have done so, throughout the discussions on this topic, and he and others have not.

Anyway, I am happy to refer to the Rule Book (RB). Text from the RB is highlighted in Blue. All references are the Red version of the RB (Amended to September 2006).

For some reason, the server will not allow me to post the text in one bite, so I will have to do this in pieces.

I would appreciate it if you waited until I have submitted all pieces before responding.

Ted


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

*First*, let’s start with marking.

*n derby stakes, the ability to mark is all important ... Page 47.*_

Please note that the term "mark," not line is mentioned.

In fact, in my review of the RB, I find that "line" is mentioned in two contexts: handling on a blind retrieve, and conspicuously intensive lining. The word "line" is not used in conjunction with the evaluation of "marking." 

Moreover, the RB penalizes *"conspicuously intensive lining"* efforts.
Page 32.

*Accurate marking is of primary importance. A dog which marks the fall of a bird, uses the wind, follows a strong cripple, and will take directions from his handler, is of great value. Page 39.*

Again, note that "marks," not lines are mentioned.
Also note that the RB specifically mentions "uses the wind." Although many have downgraded dogs for "wind saves," the RB tells us that dogs should be lauded for "using the wind." 

Also note that the RB tells us that a *"good nose"* is a quality to be sought in a retriever. Page 49
_


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

*Second*, let’s talk about what abilities are to be considered in the Derby Stake.

*Natural abilities are of great importance in all stakes, whereas abilities acquired through training are of less importance in the Qualifying stake than in those carrying championship points, and are of comparatively minor importance in the Derby stake. Page 47.*

Obviously, in the Derby, we are focused on *natural* abilities.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

*Third,* let’s consider what specific trained abilities are of "*comparatively minor importance in the Derby Stake*?"

*The other group of attributes to be considered by Judges includes those abilities that dogs acquire through training. The importance of these acquired abilities varies in different stakes, for example: A ‘reasonable’ degree of steadiness and general obedience are the requirements in Derby stakes. A greater degree of steadiness and some degree of the other qualities are expected in the Qualifying Stake. Page 52.*

The RB tells us that only a few trained qualities are expected in the Derby: (a) a reasonable degree of steadiness; and (b) general obedience. 

This position is corroborated by the fact that in the Derby:
*(a) Controlled breaks are permissible, Page 44*
*(b) You can bring your dog to and off line with a lead, Page 27*
*(c) Handling in the Derby requires elimination, Page 55*

Points a-c above reflect the fact that a ‘reasonable’ degree of steadiness and general obedience are the [training] requirements in 
Derby stakes.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

*Fourth,* let’s address the efforts of you and others to use *courage* as a surrogate for lining. 

The RB defines "*courage*"as: 

*"a trait which cannot be tested at every trial. It may be displayed by a willingness to face, and without hesistation, rough cover, cold or rough water, ice, mud or other similar conditions which make the going rather tough, and of doing it repeatedly." Page 49 (italics in original)*

Please note that the RB implies that courage cannot be tested at every 
trial - something that would not be the case if mere water entries demonstrated courage.

In fact, the RB refers to cold or rough water as situation where courage may be displayed. Mere water is not enough. The water must be rough or cold. Neither rough or cold water was described in the hypothetical. 

Also note that the RB emphasizes the need to display courage repeatedly. Again, no evidence of repeated courage or lack of courage in the hypothetical.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

*Fifth*, let’s address the efforts of you and others to use phrase "*disturbing too much cover*" as a surrogate for lining.

The RB defines as a *moderate fault*:

*Disturbing too much cover either by not going to the area or leaving it.* Page 55. (Emphasis added)

I added emphasis because "disturbing too much cover" is only a fault - under the RB - when it occurs as a dog is not going to the AOF or is leaving the AOF.

The RB goes not say that "disturbing too much cover" on route to a mark is a fault. 

Please note that none of the three dogs failed to reach the AOF or once there, left it. 
Therefore, by necessity this fault is not implicated in the hypothetical presented.

In addition, where was too much cover disturbed? Maybe you think dog 1 disturbed too much cover. But, if you mapped out his path, are you sure that he traveled more distance on the ground that dog 3, who set up an extended, if tight hunt?


Perhaps, like Doug Main, you wish to refer to the section on handling on a mark - even though there was no handling in the hypothetical, in an effort to escape the above analysis of the moderate fault listed.

Let's consider that argument.

That section states:

*Dogs which disturb cover unnecessarily, clearly well out of the area of the fall either by not going directly to that area or by leaving it, even though they eventually find the bird without finding it, should be penalized more severely than those handled quickly and obediently to it. Page 49*

Note that the RB uses the word "*eventually*." This implies a hunt of long duration and distance. In fact, all who compete know this as the "gorilla hunt," sometimes marked on judging sheets as "SOB" (stumbled on bird).

Even if you believe that the language in this section - which involves handling - applies to a situation like the hypothetical, which did not involve handling, please note:

None of the dogs were "clearly well out of the area of the fall."
None of the dogs had a run (please note that I did not use the word hunt) of such a duration of time and space that the word "eventually" should apply
Other than dog 3 on the memory bird, in my opinion, none of the dogs had a hunt. They ran to the bird on different lines and once in the AOF, promptly picked up the bird.


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

Good thoughts. As a derby judge, then, would fighting factors and taking a straighter line to a mark be a positive, versus a dog who did not fight the factors but still marked the bird, even if you should not necessarily penalize a dog who did not?


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

*In summary,* I would say to you and whoever else disagrees with my position:

1) I have given you my Rule Book analysis, chapter and verse. If you don’t like it, show me where the Rule Book supports your position. And please don't paraphrase from the Rule Book. Quote it, so that everyone can make their own decision as to whether your interpretation is correct.

2) Show me where the Rule Book tells us as judges that we are to reward lining over marking, particularly in the Derby.

I am waiting for specifics.

Have at. 

Ted


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

DoubleHaul said:


> Good thoughts. As a derby judge, then, would fighting factors and taking a straighter line to a mark be a positive, versus a dog who did not fight the factors but still marked the bird, even if you should not necessarily penalize a dog who did not?


When you speak of "fighting factors" - in my opinion, you are speaking about "trained abilities" 

A dog that fights factors is more likely to run straight than a dog that does not. Running straight - or lining - is a trained ability. 

In the Derby, we are focused on "natural ability" - specifically, marking.

I see nothing in the Rule Book that would lead me to conclude that there is sufficient information, based on the diagrams alone, which were posted earlier to award placements between the three dogs noted.

Some people have said in that thread that they would like to take dog 3 home because he ran straight despite wind and cover, and set up an intelligent hunt. Well, so would I. But, the question is not which dog I want on my truck. The question is which dog deserved 1, 2, or 3. 

My points are:

1) There is insufficient information upon which to make a decision;
2) Those who argue for placements based on:
 a) line
 b) courage
 c) disturbing too much cover
are not basing their decisions on the Rule Book, but rather on what they want the outcome to be.

Ted


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

Ted Shih said:


> When you speak of "fighting factors" - in my opinion, you are speaking about "trained abilities"
> 
> A dog that fights factors is more likely to run straight than a dog that does not. Running straight - or lining - is a trained ability.


I don't disagree, although for some dogs it comes more naturally than others.

I am just curious about the thought process of a FT judge. I am a hunt test guy, but I go watch a lot of FTs as a fan and, other than the obvious ones, I often have a very hard time understanding how a FT judge can rank the dogs--especially in a Derby.

If I set up a test where the mark is on the other side of say some cover and two dogs run. One fades around the cover but goes back to the bird, obviously having marked the bird. The other plunges through the cover and does the same thing. For me, it is easy: they both pass.

But for you, not so easy, since you have to order them. In that case (and I acknowledge that it is not the hypo on the other thread) would you give the nod to the dog who goes through the cover? Or, in your opinion, is going through the cover completely irrelevant, since it must have been taught, so you have to look at something else to rank the dogs?

Believe me, I am not trying to start anything. I am genuinely interested in the thought process of a FT judge.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> When you speak of "fighting factors" - in my opinion, you are speaking about "trained abilities"
> 
> A dog that fights factors is more likely to run straight than a dog that does not. Running straight - or lining - is a trained ability.
> 
> ...





> When you speak of "fighting factors" - in my opinion, you are speaking about "trained abilities"


Not true. Factors always exist. How the dog handles them is the trained aspect. Regardless if the dog is trained or not, the dog must deal with them in order to make the retrieve. This I believe actually supports your interpretation of the rulebook. 

/Paul


----------



## born2retrieve (Nov 18, 2007)

DoubleHaul said:


> I don't disagree, although for some dogs it comes more naturally than others.
> 
> I am just curious about the thought process of a FT judge. I am a hunt test guy, but I go watch a lot of FTs as a fan and, other than the obvious ones, I often have a very hard time understanding how a FT judge can rank the dogs--especially in a Derby.
> 
> ...


From what I read from Ted's Post it would be a tie. I would pick the dog that drove the cover. So I would be wrong according to rule book.


----------



## Patrick Johndrow (Jan 19, 2003)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> Not true. Factors always exist. How the dog handles them is the trained aspect. Regardless if the dog is trained or not, the dog must deal with them in order to make the retrieve. This I believe actually supports your interpretation of the rulebook.
> 
> /Paul



But as a trainer of dogs you know these things.

Winter Shack Nasties Regards.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

born2retrieve said:


> From what I read from Ted's Post it would be a tie. I would pick the dog that drove the cover. So I would be wrong according to rule book.


I would say both dogs showed a mark, which is what I care about in the Derby.

I would also say that you have insufficient information on which to make placements.

And remember, we are only talking about the Derby. 

Frankly, when you get to the Open, you will be happy that your dog got the bird, regardless of whether it took the cover. 

Also, remember that I was challenged to defend my position with the Rule Book.

I am still waiting for someone to defend lines, as opposed to marks, using the Rule Book.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> Not true. Factors always exist. How the dog handles them is the trained aspect. Regardless if the dog is trained or not, the dog must deal with them in order to make the retrieve. This I believe actually supports your interpretation of the rulebook.
> 
> /Paul


I think you are trying to cut the meat too thin.

When people talk about "fighting" factors in this context, they are really saying the dog ran straight.

I could argue that the dog that ran around the water "handled" the factors of water and wind because is successfully navigated the factors and still found a bird ... but that does not address the argument posed by the "line" camp. When they say that a dog "fought" or "handled" the factors, they mean the dog ran straight.


----------



## Goldenboy (Jun 16, 2004)

Ted Shih said:


> *Fifth*, let’s address the efforts of you and others to use phrase "*disturbing too much cover*" as a surrogate for lining.





Ted Shih said:


> The RB defines as a *moderate fault*:
> 
> *Disturbing too much cover either by not going to the area or leaving it.* Page 55. (Emphasis added)
> 
> ...




I have nothing to add, I just wanted to take up space with a lot of words and BIG TYPE.


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

I too quoted from P26 of the current RB in one of the other threads, 

" Accurate marking is of primary importance. A dog
which marks the fall of a bird, uses the wind, follows a
strong cripple, and will take direction from his handler
is of great value.

in support of judging marks as distinct from judging lines. I would place emphasis (if I knew how) on the portion that says "uses the wind". If a dog uses the wind, it is vitually impossible for a dog to run a staight line to the bird. Further I would point out, as Ted has done, that the RB makes no mention of judging lines & the RB does not infer any additional merit upon dogs that run straight lines. I will also repeat what I said about "wind saves", "wind-aided", etc. marks that some have judged less valuable than a dog who retrieves a mark by running a straighter line - IMO (using the RB as the guide) a dog's work should not be judged down by that dog's use of the wind when according to the RB it is of "great value". It is of great value, IMO, because its use, as a retrieving tactic or style, helps provide the greatest potential for a successful retrieve. Underlying this use of the wind is likely intelligence and a high degree of prey drive, also of value in dogs we should consider. Further, I can find no support for judging lines from the RB. But there has to be balance. A dog needs to demonstrate evidence he knows where the bird is & that he is taking a direct course to it.

That said, it is, no doubt, pleasing to the eye to see a dog run 300+yds over varying terrain & fighting other factors that may exist by taking a near straight line course to a mark &, without even so much as a turn to one side or the other, retrieve the bird. And if a derby dog can do this repeatedly for 8 marks, that dog will likely be judged the winner (winners should be determined on the full body of work & not one series or one isolated trait that we like). Using a short example, to the contrary, I will point out I own a pretty nice marking dog of 3 yrs that is very impressive when he pins mark after mark, running near straight lines that his natural speed & intensity have given him. However, this good marking dog usually misses one or two marks per trial and until recently it has kept him from winning. Lots of minor stake placements, lots of finishes but not a blue ribbon until he began to learn how to approach a bird & put on an intelligent hunt.

So concluding, I'll not join that camp just yet that necessarily wants that straight running dog, give me instead a dog that consistently reaches the AOF & approaches the bird with the best opportunity to make a quick retrieve - one that uses the wind in addition to his eyes. I think I can have AA success with that kind of dog.


----------



## Richard Halstead (Apr 20, 2005)

Ted, 
I am trying to respect your knowledge of the rules, but you are missing the big point. In the derbyy marking is the primary factor. If a judge doesn't want to reward the dog that runs the shore put the marks where the wind is not an aid. Where the only possibility of finding the mark is by water. Then you have a test were all these factors you are quoting you can forget and go back to the premise "Marking is of Primary importance"


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Richard Halstead said:


> Ted,
> I am trying to respect your knowledge of the rules, but you are missing the big point. In the derbyy marking is the primary factor. If a judge doesn't want to reward the dog that runs the shore put the marks where the wind is not an aid. Where the only possibility of finding the mark is by water. Then you have a test were all these factors you are quoting you can forget and go back to the premise "Marking is of Primary importance"


Richard

I am only responding to the challenge presented by Marvin to defend my position concerning Jim's diagram - using the Rule Book. 

The question before me was not whether I think Judges can create tests where dogs cannot be rewarded by cheating. If asked, I would say absolutely.

The question before me was not whether I believe that over emphasis on lining is a function of poor test setting. If asked, I would again say absolutely.

Please don't take me to task for not answering questions that I was never asked.

If you want to criticize my response to Marvin - using the Rule Book, as he challenged me to do, please do so.

Ted


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

So now the Derby Judges after starting with thirty dogs have a conundrum , three dogs with eight solid Marks........Despite their "BEST"efforts they have come to the end of the usable time on Sunday without a clear winner. Do they now start Ignoring the RB.

john


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

john fallon said:


> So now the Derby Judges after starting with thirty dogs have a conundrum , three dogs with eight solid Marks........Despite their "BEST"efforts they have come to the end of the usable time on Sunday without a clear winner. Do they now start Ignoring the RB.
> 
> john


This is what fascinates me about this discussion. I had always assumed that in any level FT, that line was fair game and basically what decided things when multiple dogs picked up the birds. Based on Ted's 'brief' and the fact that nobody has called him out about the merits of his position, I see I was clearly mistaken.

How do you guys usually resolve this situation? I would love to see a page from your books. Either you have excellent notes or a great holistic sense for which dog was better.

It is so much different in the HT game. Despite occasional grousing from some folks, it is almost always obvious, even in Master, who deserves a pass and who does not and I am glad that we are not supposed even to try to decide relative merit.

This is going to make watching FTs much more interesting in the future--and I really want to pay particular attention to the Derby.


----------



## Vickie Lamb (Jan 6, 2003)

Granddaddy said:


> IThat said, it is, no doubt, pleasing to the eye to see a dog run 300+yds over varying terrain & fighting other factors that may exist by taking a near straight line course to a mark &, without even so much as a turn to one side or the other, retrieve the bird. And if a derby dog can do this repeatedly for 8 marks, that dog will likely be judged the winner (winners should be determined on the full body of work & not one series or one isolated trait that we like). Using a short example, to the contrary, I will point out I own a pretty nice marking dog of 3 yrs that is very impressive when he pins mark after mark, running near straight lines that his natural speed & intensity have given him. However, this good marking dog usually misses one or two marks per trial and until recently it has kept him from winning. Lots of minor stake placements, lots of finishes but not a blue ribbon until he began to learn how to approach a bird & put on an intelligent hunt.
> 
> So concluding, I'll not join that camp just yet that necessarily wants that straight running dog, give me instead a dog that consistently reaches the AOF & approaches the bird with the best opportunity to make a quick retrieve - one that uses the wind in addition to his eyes. I think I can have AA success with that kind of dog.


Good post. 

Also to add, with challenging tests, at the end of a trial, there should be mitigating factors on each dog's performance to place the dogs. Good note-taking is something I feel is important to the part-and-parcel process of judging...so is drawing sufficient pictures for each dog's work. 

I can think of a number of excellent marking dogs over the years that didn't as a habit run in straight lines to their birds. However, in the course they chose to run toward their birds, they did not hunt one blade of grass en route and then ended up right on top of said bird(s)... 

The argument can be, from a training standpoint, that a dog which runs straight is going to remain more focused on his/her destination and therefore improve chances of success. Some dogs can run straight and come up with their birds--they are good markers--other dogs can run straight and NOT come up with lots of birds except those they stumble on as they are running through an area...these aren't those natural markers, but rather have been trained to run straight or naturally run straight, but still don't have marking ability. 

Likewise, a dog that can keep that focus on his bird(s) and step on birds _despite choice of route_ obviously must possess a talent for marking birds.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

I think the "situation" he/she was refering to was the one that had the three dogs knotted up at the end and out of time on Sunday, with a RB that says among other things, what it says on page 45(13)

*Before arriving at their final placings the Judges should make a direct comparison series by series between all of their dogs under consideration for those placings. Such comparisons permit each judge to be certain that the dog placed first has given a relatively better performance throughout the stake than the second place dog etc. ....*

john


----------



## Richard Halstead (Apr 20, 2005)

If I were judging I would use the book to seperate the marks that were similar in quality. I f you consider the three marks equal. However, I don't think the dog with theblue line marked the left hand bird as well since he lined through the area and hunted across the dike road and more but the hunt was cropped of when the diagram was made. Then we have two others that marked the birds. I would reduce the the quality of the markby reducing the score ie. if you judged 1-10, A-F, I would penalise by reducing the score. That leaves the dog with the yellow lines. He cclearly marked the birds, I would pay no attention to not takin the cover. The cover was there to cause dogs that avoided the cover, but dog 2 had a mark on the bird.

Not seeing what the dogs actually did was dog 1 ever out of sight on the dike hunt? Two dogs marked the birds. As a judge you then adjust the places based on what you think. Every judge has things that they note as you marked SOB, barking, steady. If you had a dog that had a fault you couldn't control then as a judge you might ignore that fault or treat it more hashly.

So on the diagram #1 lined through the left hand mark and hunted back to the mark. Dog #1and #2 marked the birds, but #1 ran the shore on the right hand bird. In my opinion #2 wins for the day.


----------



## Bud Bass (Dec 22, 2007)

Over the past couple weeks we have had some very interesting discussions concerning marks and lines and scoring ft dogs. I have really learned a lot from it. I've been running labs for about 5-6 years now, mostly Ht and am a Master HT judge, however have run a few derby's and Q's and this last summer finelly ran my first Am. I plans are to run all AA this year. I have really learned a lot about the judging difference between Derby and AA, and i believe the criteria are very different and should be judged as such. It seems most derby's I have run have been judged on basicly the same skills as AA with the exception of no handling. On 2 down the shore, I have seen dogs eliminated for pinning the mark by running the shore to the bird, and others place for a simular run in a different test.

I do think the rule book is written giving the judges a lot of leeway in how they judge, and done so on purpose. From some of what Ted says, possibly a advanced Derby dog could be penalized for a high degree of training, as opposed to a less trained dog that does not bust the brush or swim as straight a line (cheats the shore). I believe that the better trained dog showing simular instincts, should score better then the lesser trained dog. However, in the 3 dog scenario that is refered to often, I think the #3 dog, who ran the straightest line slightly upwind of the memory bird, did a outstanding 2nd place job. In a AA, I would mostlikely juddge that dog the winner, but not in the derby. 

It will be ultimaly up the the judges to sort out what they feel are most important and place the dogs where they believe they will belong. Unless the rules are tightened up to where there is no or much less room for leeway by the judges, I think we will always have people who judge differently then others, and they all may have reputations for being excellent judges. Bud


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

Ted, IMO you *may *be trying too hard to *NOT* judge the line the dog takes. 

To some extent the path that the dog takes to the mark, shows how well it knew where the mark was. 

Would you be saying the same thing if there were NO factors on those two marks? In other words the marks were downwind, and it was a flat featureless field. 

None of these dogs failed any of these marks. 



> Ability to “mark’’ does not necessarily imply “pinpointing
> the fall.’’ A dog that misses the “fall’’ on the
> first cast, but recognizes the depth of the “area of the
> fall,’’ stays in it, then quickly and systematically “hunts-
> ...


Dog 3 had a considerable hunt on the memory bird. To me it was outside of the area of the fall, it was up on and across the road. (We don't know what was beyond the edge of the paper that may or may not have kept him in the area. Maybe it was just the presence of a standout gunner.) Regardless, this dog did recover the bird. 

Dog #1 to me showed it was lost on the way to the memory bird when it went beyond the road. (I don't know if the big lake on the other side of the road kept him in the area until he saw the gunner and then he approached the bird from down wind recovered.) Whatever, he was lost for a bit and recovered. 

To me, dog marked the birds in a closer area than did either dogs 3 or 1.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Doug

I think you and Richard are stretching, not me.

I don't think you can read into the diagram that dog 1 was lost.
Nor do I think you can conclude that he was setting up a hunt.
I think you and Richard are arguing that to support the placements that you want.

As a judge, how do you decide when a dog is "hunting" as opposed to simply making its way to the bird?

I look for:
- Tail crack
- Nose down
- Slowing down
- Circling an area

I see no signs of this for dogs 1 or 2. Therefore, no hunt.
I see signs of this for dog 3. Therefore, hunt.

However, the Rule Book states

*Ability to mark does not necessarily pinpointin the fall. A dog that misses the fall, but recognizes the depth of the area of the fall, stays in it and systematically hunts it out, has done both a creditable and intelligent job of marking. Such work should not be appreciably outscored by the dog that finds or pinpoints the mark on his first cast.* 

Dog 3 had a hunt. However, it was systematic and intelligent. It does not get "appreciably" outscored by dogs 1 and 2.

I think you, Richard and others are too eager to make a commitment based on the diagrams.

I don't think we have enough data to make placements. This hypothetical, like all hypotheticals, is artificial.

All things are never the same except _________ (line, speed, etc. pick what you want)

There are always differences, it is the interaction of those differences that determine in a particular judges' opinion what a dog's place is.

Based on:
- Each dog's previous work
- Each dog's style

I could place any of these three dogs - first or last.

My point is that if the line is all you consider ... which is what I believe you, Richard, and others are doing ... you are not following the Rule Book.

A corrollary to that point is that I believe - based on my own personal experience of running derbies with Zowie, Mootsie, Buffy, Mozzie and others - that in the Derby placements are based almost solely on line without consideration to the nuances of judging a "mark."

I think you, Richard, and others are trying to characterize my opinions with a narrowness that is not justified by my posts.

Ted


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

I think that judging "marking" involves a great deal of subtlety. And that awareness of that subtley tells more about marking than lines.

For example, as a judge, do you watch

- A dog's return and note whether it is turning its head towards an unretrieved bird?
- Do you note how the dog aligns itself on the mat for the next bird?
- Do you note ear set, breathing, etc. - the signs that a dog knows where it is going?

All are indications of a mark.

Or consider this ... something I learned judging with Vickie Lamb - when a dog pops through cover (or some other hazard) on the way to a mark, do you note whether the dog's first cast (turn) is towards or away from the mark? 

What would you say if:

Dog 1 came back and set up on the mat to take the water. Dog 1's handler moved the dog to the right. Dog 1, a good team player, went with his handler .... even though it was off line ... took the line as directed, then corrected to get the bird, whose position it knew?

Dog 2 came back fuzzy and the handler worked on the dog to get lock, then kicked it off, Dog 2 was accelerating and looked like it was headed to the next state when it got wind of the bird, then nearly broke in half turning towards it?

None of these subtleties were noted in the diagram.

I would venture to guess not many first time judges are aware of, let alone consider such subtleties. And yet, that is often what you get in the Derby - newcomers as judges. And so, they judge in the manner that we train - by assessing line. It is understandable. It is also wrong.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

akblackdawg said:


> It seems most derby's I have run have been judged on basicly the same skills as AA with the exception of no handling. On 2 down the shore, I have seen dogs eliminated for pinning the mark by running the shore to the bird,


I believe that this comes when people are unable to replace their training hat with their judges hat. What you reward when training is not necessarily what you reward when competing.

I find that this is particularly true in the Derby, where more often than not, the most inexperienced judges in the trial are placed with the least appealing grounds and water - a recipe for disaster.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Ted

“Slicing the meat the too thin……” great saying, I’m gonna use that, I like it. 
My point was that a well placed mark means that all dogs in the test will have to fight the factor to succeed. If a dog can succeed at getting the mark without fighting the factors, well then that’s the judges problem in designing that mark. 

Lets face it, we hear “natural ability” as if that means “no training.” No FT or HT dog ever succeeds in picking up a mark without a ton of training. No dog is born with the “natural ability” to pick up any of the marks in a derby as a single let alone a double. There is always some element of training involved. With that being said, I believe you have presented an extremely strong case, and I would agree with what you are saying in principle.
Reality is this. If you have two dogs that both “pin the mark,” in today’s field trials the dog that took the straight line wins. That’s why in today’s derby those dogs have enough training that by the time they age out they are running Quals. I have a client that ran her 10 month old dog in last falls derby and is now wanting to run her dog in this springs derby. Over the course of the winter we have wrapped up T work, pattern field and we’re now running cold land blinds. Like last fall I’ve had to work with her on what the goal should be and what we will deem success. Most of the dogs in the spring derby have been on pro trucks that spent the winter in southern California doing a ton of water work. We have been froze up and been too cold to do a lot of water work so reality is, even if Radar completes all series, he won’t win. The dogs that spent all winter training to go straight through water will place over her. That’s the fact of life and reality. 

I do really appreciate that you work hard to know, understand and follow the rules. I do the same as a HT judge. Yet neither of us can argue that today’s FT’s “depict a normal days hunt.” Heck today’s HT don’t represent that. Since the game has evolved too a point where that portion of the book is no longer valid, who’s to say the sections you quoted aren’t likewise no longer valid and should be adhered too?

 /Paul


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

Doug Main said:


> Dog #1 to me showed it was lost on the way to the memory bird when it went beyond the road. (I don't know if the big lake on the other side of the road kept him in the area until he saw the gunner and then he approached the bird from down wind recovered.) Whatever, he was lost for a bit and recovered.
> 
> To me, dog marked the birds in a closer area than did either dogs 3 or 1.


Doug,

It's certainly easy to make that assumption from merely seeing a diagram. But isn't it only an assumption that exists outside the directive to only use marking as a determinant?

I suppose the reason this keeps me interested in the judgment of dog #1 is that it looks like many marks would have been run as my first Lab would have done them. If the diagram were to fairly reflect her performance, it would include a note that says something like "This dog flew uninterrupted to the spot of the fall - cheating everything in sight!" In other words, she was one of the best marking dogs I ever stood beside, but I didn't know at the time how to de-cheat her.

She never won a Derby. But, after we spent a few months training at D.L.'s, she won a Qual. She didn't mark any better because she already marked very well. But she sure went straighter, especially on water.

I'd love to see video of the dogs in the diagram, but we don't have that to go on.

As to Ted's point about "lines vs marking", I absolutely agree with his take on how the RB directs judgment on the issue.

Evan


----------



## Richard Halstead (Apr 20, 2005)

Ted Shih said:


> I think you and Richard are arguing that to support the placements that you want.



Like I said before that rule book you keep quoting does not treat the derby well. As Vicki Worthington quoted in Section 10 that marking is of primary importance. With only two birds in a test the AOF is smaller than it would be in other stakes with more birds. Dog #3 clearly lined through the AOF went across the dike road and started hunting. If you think not than you give a more generous AOF. The lines on the paper are a map of what the dog has done. I already gave my reasons for placements. I have judged before the manual when we only had the rules.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> Reality is this. If you have two dogs that both “pin the mark,” in today’s field trials the dog that took the straight line wins.


Note that the Manual says that this is wrong. 



Gun_Dog2002 said:


> Yet neither of us can argue that today’s FT’s “depict a normal days hunt.” Heck today’s HT don’t represent that. Since the game has evolved too a point where that portion of the book is no longer valid, who’s to say the sections you quoted aren’t likewise no longer valid and should be adhered too?


This is simply sophistry.

If your point is that the judges can do whatever they want as a practical matter - well we both know that they often do. That doesn't make it right.

If your point is that we no longer can claim that FT are a day's hunt, and therefore judges can unilaterally ignore whatever portion of the Rule Book they choose, that would mean that judges could award placements to a dog that broke or attacked another handler or dog.
I mean, who decides what rules should be followed? That is the path of anarchy.

I think that the reason that lines have become so important is:

1) Our derby judges, by and large, are inexperienced. Therefore, they judge what they know. They know lines, they judge lines. Consider Scott Spaulding's comments in another thread. He understands lines ... they are simple and straightforward. In time, he will recognize more subtle - and I would argue more telling signs of marking. But, not now, he is too new.

2) Our judges, by and large, do not train their own dogs. They do not set up their own tests. They train with a pro and watch as their pro sets up tests that often are extreme in order to teach principles - key among them - lining. Is it any wonder that when these people judge they set up training tests and judge them in the fashion that their pro would correct the dogs?

3) Many people are not sufficiently familiar with the Rule Book. You see it here where people bandy about "disturbing too much cover", "courage" without knowing what the Rule Book says about either. The Rule Book really is an amazing piece of work. It is worth studying.

4) Marking is a very complex subject. The more you study it, the more you suspect, but the less you know. There are many clues that the dogs give you about their marking ability ... but you have to be very attentive to see them, and relatively experienced to recognize them. Of course, if you are new to the sport and judge the Derby, what do you really know of these things?

The reason that I have devoted so much time and energy to this subject in the past few days is because I believe that in the ten years that I have been competing in this sport, the judging has deteriorated significantly.

There are many reasons for this, but one of the primary reasons - in my opinion - is how we worship the line, at the price of respecting the mark.

Ted


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Richard Halstead said:


> Dog #3 clearly lined through the AOF went across the dike road and started hunting. If you think not than you give a more generous AOF. The lines on the paper are a map of what the dog has done..


I think you are mixing up your dogs.

Dog 1 is the one that cheated the water on the go bird. If you mean to say that Dog 1 set up a hunt on either bird, I respectfully disagree.

As for dog 3, that is the dog that took the straightest line, got upwind of the bird and set up an intelligent hunt.

I have said it before and will say it again, I believe that there is insufficient data to award placements. You obviously disagree.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Evan said:


> Doug,
> 
> I suppose the reason this keeps me interested in the judgment of dog #1 is that it looks like many marks would have been run as my first Lab would have done them. If the diagram were to fairly reflect her performance, it would include a note that says something like "This dog flew uninterrupted to the spot of the fall - cheating everything in sight!"


When I looked at the diagram that Jim posted:

My first reaction was ... these dogs are pretty tightly placed
My second reaction was ... dog 1 is a dark hearted, water cheating __ who can really mark
My third reaction was ... dog 3 is well trained and determined
My fourth reaction was ... was dog 2 going to check down before it caught scent
And my fifth reaction is ... no way to place based on information provided


----------



## Patrick Johndrow (Jan 19, 2003)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> Reality is this. If you have two dogs that both “pin the mark,” in today’s field trials the dog that took the straight line wins.
> /Paul


100% absolutely correct…the rules don’t support it but because some trainer said “the dog with the straightest lines wins” in a video a few years back the entire FT community has held it as gospel. 

The FT game is full of “unwritten rules” and those rules change between regions, clubs and down to the individual. 


My contention for years has been if the AKC or FT community really cared about the game as a COMPETION one or both would do something about the rules and judging.


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

Evan said:


> Doug,
> 
> It's certainly easy to make that assumption from merely seeing a diagram. But isn't it only an assumption that exists outside the directive to only use marking as a determinant?
> 
> ...


My 1st dog was the greatest water cheater that ever lived. I didn't know there was anything wrong with it. 

However, dog 1 did more than just cheat!!!!! After the cheat, it went on across the road (away from the mark) and into the cover on the other side of the road before it turned toward the gun and the mark. It was lost!!! Had there not been a lake on across and the gunner standing in plain sight. Who knows where it would have ended up! JMHO


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

Thank You Ted for the time you spent on this.

As a lowly HT'r I have been beat up badly in discussions just like this, because I too, looked at the dog that ran the straightest to the mark, as the dog that was the best marker, discounting the dog that may take a looping, or non direct path. Both dogs MARKED the bird well, ONE dog just ran straight, But Both dogs MARKED well!

Thank you again for the explaination as it applies to the FT rule book.
I think others can look at their respective rule books and see simalarities.

Gooser


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

Doug Main said:


> However, dog 1 did more than just cheat!!!!! After the cheat, it went on across the road (away from the mark) and into the cover on the other side of the road before it turned toward the gun and the mark. It was lost!!! Had there not been a lake on across and the gunner standing in plain sight. Who knows where it would have ended up! JMHO


Darn it, Doug! I wish you wouldn't keep making me defend dog #1's ugly but accurate work. I just don't see evidence in the diagram to conclude that he was lost. He may have been, but I think we would have to make too many assumptions to end up with that as a real conclusion. I hate his lines! They're grotesque. But they look like the ones I used to have to look at before I learned how to train.










It just looks to me like the dog could have been running like Charlie Morgan's jackrabbit story - uninterrupted all the way to each fall. If the dog was lost, don't you think there would be something about his route to show a break down en route...a hunt, or a loop...something more than just crummy routes? 

You may be right. I just don't see it in the drawing.

Evan


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Patrick Johndrow said:


> 100% absolutely correct…the rules don’t support it but because some trainer said “the dog with the straightest lines wins” in a video a few years back the entire FT community has held it as gospel.
> 
> The FT game is full of “unwritten rules” and those rules change between regions, clubs and down to the individual.
> 
> ...


That has been my stated position since I first started posting here.
Back then it was only being whispered behind closed doors.
I'm glad it's at least now being talked about openly.

A step in the right direction regards

john


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> For example, as a judge, do you watch
> 
> - A dog's return and note whether it is turning its head towards an unretrieved bird?
> - Do you note how the dog aligns itself on the mat for the next bird?
> ...


My poorest marking dog could count. She was very high powered lining SOB. She would often return looking over her shoulder towards the other bird spin around liking like she knew exactly were it was. In derby where, the gunners were standing out, she would lock on the other gunner. She was off like a bullet and was just like a bullet. If something threw her slightly off line, that was where she was heading there was no recovery. She could count; but she couldn't mark! If you retired a gun, it was like the bird was gone. 

My best marking dog, comes to the line never looking over her shoulder toward the next mark. She is content with the bird she has. Not until you take that bird from her and ask her where her bird is do you have any indication whether or not she remembers the next bird. I can tell, but I doubt even the most experienced judge would be able to tell. 

While those things you identified above may be indicators, they aren't any good unless it is followed (or not) up by the dog where the dog ends up going. ;-)


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

Evan said:


> Darn it, Doug! I wish you wouldn't keep making me defend dog #1's ugly but accurate work. I just don't see evidence in the diagram to conclude that he was lost. He may have been, but I think we would have to make too many assumptions to end up with that as a real conclusion. I hate his lines! They're grotesque. But they look like the ones I used to have to look at before I learned how to train.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Just how lost do you think a DERBY dog is going to get with gunners sitting out there in white?


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Doug Main said:


> While those things you identified above may be indicators, they aren't any good unless it is followed (or not) up by the dog where the dog ends up going.


Never said that they were any more than indicators.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Doug Main said:


> After the cheat, it went on across the road (away from the mark) and into the cover on the other side of the road before it turned toward the gun and the mark. It was lost!!! Had there not been a lake on across and the gunner standing in plain sight. Who knows where it would have ended up!


I think you are making a lot of unjustified assumptions.

I don't know what impact the water behind made on the dog.

As for the impact of the gun, if we didn't want to leave a point of reference for Derby dogs, we would retire the gun. Even if Dog 1 used the gun as a reference, big deal

How do you know that the other dogs didn't as well

I see no indication of a hunt by Dog 1

It ran directly - if not in a straight line - to the bird

And you have yet to show me in the Rule Book, where judge are instructed to judge lines, not marks

Ted


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Danny said:


> I think Ted definetly has something here. Either the rule book needs to be revised or "Derby" marks need to be a lot harder to seperate the dogs.


When you run a derby under Mitch Patterson or Vickie Lamb, who are the best derby judges I have ever seen, you will find that a double can provide plenty of separation without the need to look at lines.

I don't think we need to change the Rules. I think we need to improve our judging.

Ted


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

Doug Main said:


> Just how lost do you think a DERBY dog is going to get with gunners sitting out there in white?


Unfortunately, I've seen lots of good dogs hunt as if they were hopelessly lost, visible guns and all. I'm not just talking about Derby dogs, either.

But, Doug, in fairness, I really don't see any clear indicator that any dog was lost here. And, as Ted pointed out, there really is no way to tell from the drawing that any dog used the visible gun as a reference. We can suspect it from the drawing, but not really conclude it.

Mercy, I almost sound like a lawyer!









Evan


----------



## Richard Halstead (Apr 20, 2005)

I was under assumption that the dogs were equal to this point and this was the final series make those assumptions and you can't weasel out and say I don't have enough information. I have judged a derby in the past were the top dogs were tied and ran another series. We set up a marking test where hopefully no dogs would be eliminated. As it was one dog hunted short and the other went right to the bird. Now with these assumptions place the dogs.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Evan said:


> But, Doug, in fairness, I really don't see any clear indicator that any dog was lost here. And, as Ted pointed out, there really is no way to tell from the drawing that any dog used the visible gun as a reference. We can suspect it from the drawing, but not really conclude it.


If we didn't want the gun to be used as a reference, we would retire it.

The fact of the matter is that we do want the gun as a reference, which is why we don't retire it.

Assuming that the dog used the gun as it was intended to be - a reference - why are we condemning it rather than praising it?

I just don't get it.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Richard Halstead said:


> I was under assumption that the dogs were equal to this point and this was the final series make those assumptions and you can't weasel out and say I don't have enough information. I have judged a derby in the past were the top dogs were tied and ran another series. We set up a marking test where hopefully no dogs would be eliminated. As it was one dog hunted short and the other went right to the bird. Now with these assumptions place the dogs.


Artificial question with

1) Invalid assumptions (everything equal but last series)
2) Insufficient data about last series

You - and everyone else - can assume all they want, and draw the conclusions you want

But, I won't


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

> .............however a dog which consistantly, i.e.during an entire stake marks his birds in a closer area, *hence more accuratly* than another dog, should be judged accordingly.


There you have it right from the RB

You can't successfully argue that a dog that goes on a straight line directly to the bird " consistantly" has not fulfilled the above criteria.

...and that ain't ******* logic regards
john


----------



## GulfCoast (Sep 24, 2007)

Ted Shih said:


> As a judge, how do you decide when a dog is "hunting" as opposed to simply making its way to the bird?
> 
> I look for:
> - Tail crack
> ...


Pardon my ignorance, but what do you mean by "tail crack?"


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

GulfCoast said:


> Pardon my ignorance, but what do you mean by "tail crack?"


Typically, when a dog has decided that he is in the area of the fall and is about to start a hunt, his tail will come sharply up and begin to whip back and forth. That is "tail crack."


----------



## Richard Halstead (Apr 20, 2005)

Ted Shih said:


> If your point is that we no longer can claim that FT are a day's hunt, and therefore judges can unilaterally ignore whatever portion of the Rule Book they choose, that would mean that judges could award placements to a dog that broke or attacked another handler or dog.
> I mean, who decides what rules should be followed?



No your blessed rule book has rules for this as well as everything else. What I have said for 2 days now is that judges manual good for all-age stakes doesn't do much for the Derby where marking is the factor not trained abilities.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

john fallon said:


> There you have it right from the RB
> 
> You can't successfully argue that a dog that goes on a straight line directly to the bird " consistantly" has not fulfilled the above criteria.
> 
> ...


Don't know if it is ******* logic

Do know that you have quoted out of context

The Rule Book states as follows:

*Ability to “mark’’ does not necessarily imply “pinpointing*
*the fall.’’ A dog that misses the “fall’’ on the*
*first cast, but recognizes the depth of the “area of the*
*fall,’’ stays in it, then quickly and systematically “hunts-*
*it-out,’’ has done both a creditable and an intelligent job*
*of marking. Such work should not be appreciably outscored*
*by the dog that “finds’’ or “pinpoints’’ on his first*
*cast. However, a dog which consistently, i.e., during an*
*entire stake, marks his birds in a closer area, hence,*
*more accurately than another dog, should be judged*
*accordingly*

The Rule Book is discussing the difference between a dog that steps on the bird without a hunt (as Dogs 1 and 2 have done) and a dog that sets up a systematic hunt as Dog 3 has done.

No distinction whatsoever between 1 and 2.
No appreciable distinction between 1, 2, or 3.

Therefore, no basis for placements, ******* logic or not.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Richard Halstead said:


> No your blessed rule book has rules for this as well as everything else. What I have said for 2 days now is that judges manual good for all-age stakes doesn't do much for the Derby where marking is the factor not trained abilities.


Richard

I have no idea what you are trying to say.

I didn't know it was "my" Rule Book. I thought everyone who agrees to judge, also agree to follow the "Sport's" Rule Book.

As for the Manual, I have mentioned it not at all in this thread.

As for the Rule Book, I have mentioned it chapter and verse in this thread - and you have not.

Ted


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> If we didn't want the gun to be used as a reference, we would retire it.
> 
> The fact of the matter is that we do want the gun as a reference, which is why we don't retire it.
> 
> ...


Me neither. That's why I find your analysis the most reasonable. Wouldn't you hate to have to judge a one-series Derby?

Evan


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

Ted Shih said:


> I also find it interesting that Marvin should insist on my citing portions to support my position - Ted


Excuse my lateness - had to prepare a presentation to our City Council next week. 

Any way - The shortest distance between 2 points is a straight line, i.e. the dog that performs in that manner wins the "Disturb the least amount of cover award".

Page 25 - 9-06 edition of RB - 1) The purpose of a Non Slip Retriever trial is to determine the relative merits of Retrievers in the field. 
2) The function of a Non Slip Retriever is to seek & retrieve "fallen" game when ordered to do so. He should sit quietly on the line or in the blind, walk at heel, or assume any station designated by his handler until sent to retrieve. When ordered, a dog should retrieve quickly & briskly without unduly disturbing too much ground, & should deliver tenderly to hand.

Page 30 - 22) The Judges must judge the dogs for (a) their natural abilities including their memory, intelligence, attention, nose, courage, perseverance & style & their abilities acquired through training, including steadiness, control, response to direction & delivery.

From the Supplement - page 41 - last paragraph - Ingenuity on the part of Judges should be encouraged, not only in planning customary tests, but also in devising some which are unusual & quite different from those customarily used at field trials. However, all such unusual tests should conform to "conditions met in an ordinary day's shoot," & they should not require complicated instructions about the desired method of completing the test. 

From Evaluation of Dog Work - page 46 - Judging can never be precise: it is not an exact science, merely an art, & simply because there are so many shades of gray between black & white. At the risk of over simplification, it might be stated that the primary purpose of a retriever is to get the birds to hand as quickly as possible in a pleasing, obedient manner & all faults stem from a deviation from this.

It is recommended that a judge should have clearly in mind, & for each test, precisely what type of performance he expects, since such work will merit a high rating in his records. -------------------

Therefore, much of a Judge's responsibility is to determine how much weight he shall give to certain types of exceptional performance & how much penalty to assess because of various individual faults. -----

End of Rule quotes ----

I'm not going to try to put words in someone else's mouth as I do not understand their thought (or lack thereof) process. But I do believe we insult the efforts of judges when we say that some manual outweighs the collective efforts of those who put together the original Rule Book & it's various amendments. Many of us have read this Judges Manual & applaud the effort that went into formation of this primer. But it is not a world ending piece on dog work. Many knowledgeable trainers have criticized the Derby section. 

IMO - if a dog deliberately avoids cover that they should have taken on their way to a bird they are going to get an OWWWWEEEY. Over the years I have had several Derby dogs - 1st placing one in 1965 & the last in 2004, with several others along the way - so I am aware of the different requirements. I'll leave for now, hoping I haven't exceeded posting capacity.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Interesting that you twist a portion of the Rules that states that a *dog should not unduly disturb too much ground* into the conclusion that *the dog that disturbs the least amount of cover wins*.

Using that analysis

Dog 2 wins
Dog 1 is second
Dog 3 is third

Is that how you voted?

No. 

Obviously, you do not follow your novel theory. 

Why does that not surprise me?


----------



## Richard Halstead (Apr 20, 2005)

Ted Shih said:


> The Rule Book is discussing the difference between a dog that steps on the bird without a hunt (as Dogs 1 and 2 have done) and a dog that sets up a systematic hunt as Dog 3 has done.
> 
> No distinction whatsoever between 1 and 2.
> No appreciable distinction between 1, 2, or 3.


I see that we have a difference in the AOF for these marks. I feel that the dog lines past the bird and didn't have a good mark since that initial line to the memory bird carried it well past the bird across the road to the very corner of the diagram. To me the dog went further well past the AOF for that bird before it hunted back towards the gun where it winded the bird.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Richard Halstead said:


> I see that we have a difference in the AOF for these marks. I feel that the dog lines past the bird and didn't have a good mark since that initial line to the memory bird carried it well past the bird across the road to the very corner of the diagram. To me the dog went further well past the AOF for that bird before it hunted back towards the gun where it winded the bird.


To me, the AOF in this situation is essentially irrelevant.
I worry about AOF when a dog hunts - as dog 3 did.
In my opinion, Dog 1 did not hunt.
You and Doug obviously disagree.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

The dog that gets to the bird on a straight line on its first cast hence "more accuratly" than a dog missing the bird or one taking a more roundabout route--- that has done so for the entire trial, hence ''consistently", is covered by "However....." exception incorporated in that passage that you have so kindly provided


john


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

Richard Halstead said:


> I see that we have a difference in the AOF for these marks. I feel that the dog lines past the bird and didn't have a good mark since that initial line to the memory bird carried it well past the bird across the road to the very corner of the diagram. To me the dog went further well past the AOF for that bird before it hunted back towards the gun where it winded the bird.





Ted Shih said:


> To me, the AOF in this situation is essentially irrelevant.
> I worry about AOF when a dog hunts - as dog 3 did.
> In my opinion, Dog 1 did not hunt.
> You and Doug obviously disagree.


No I agree with Richard.

Although I think 3 did a better job than 1 because 1 unnecessarily disturbed cover nowhere near any fall area where I felt the dog had no business being. The cover that 3 disturbed was just outside the fall area.

Although, I think 1 & 3 are very close.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

john fallon said:


> The dog that gets to the bird on a straight line on its first cast hence "more accuratly" than a dog missing the bird or one taking a more roundabout route--- that has done so for the entire trial, hence ''consistently", is covered by "However....." exception incorporated in that passage that you have so kindly provided
> john


The distinction is between a dog that hunts and a dog that does not.
The distinciton is not between two dogs that do not hunt.

If you want to twist the words to fit your argument, fine.
I have no desire to go there with you.

You and Marvin can create new rules to your heart's delight

His new rule is: *The dog that disturbs the least amount of cover wins.*

Your new rule is: *The dog that runs straightest wins*.

Curious that you took the position that all three dogs were back and no decision could be made without a fourth series and now you want to change that with your new rule.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Doug Main said:


> No I agree with Richard.
> 
> Although, I think 1 & 3 are very close.


I meant the you and Richard both disagreed with me on the same basis
The two of you see a hunt for Dog 1. I see none.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Re-read my post I am still looking at all four series.
john


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

john fallon said:


> Re-read my post I am still looking at all four series.
> john


With any number of assumptions about what occurred in the other series.


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> I meant the you and Richard both disagreed with me on the same basis
> The two of you see a hunt for Dog 1. I see none.


IMO Dog 1 "unnecessarily" disturbed cover by not going directly to the fall area of the memory bird. 

I don't think it really matters whether the dog "hunted" out there or was just there because it was lost.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

I took no greater liberty with assumptions than the passage of the "Rules" that I quoted did.

john


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Doug Main said:


> IMO Dog 1 "unnecessarily" disturbed cover by not going directly to the fall area of the memory bird.


I understand

I think you are reaching to find an unnecessary disturbance of cover (which by the way comes from language on handling on a mark)


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

> Interesting that you twist a portion of the Rules that states that a *dog should not unduly disturb too much ground* into the conclusion that *the dog that disturbs the least amount of cover wins*.


 
Thats not what Marvin said



> Any way - The shortest distance between 2 points is a straight line, i.e. the dog that performs in that manner wins the "Disturb the least amount of cover award".


 So that dog scores high in that catagory when figuring in total performance.

Although marks are very important they are not the only factor when deciding a winner,,,,I would imagine,,,,thats what Marvin is saying. 

I don't know really because I am not a judge and have never judged a FT so therefore I would not be able to deturmine a the best job according to the rules.

But I think thats What marvin was getting at.

Pete


----------



## Richard Halstead (Apr 20, 2005)

Ted Shih said:


> To me, the AOF in this situation is essentially irrelevant.
> I worry about AOF when a dog hunts - as dog 3 did.



If you don't consider the area of fall then every dog that brought back the bird all have the same quality of mark. Even those that didn't have a mark that is an intelligent hunt. There have been numerous judges and diagrams in the RFTN that are concerned with area of fall. Many of these judges wory about area of fall affecting how high they score the mark.

When I judged I would rate the dogs on how well they marked. AOF was a large factor in rating marking and if they went out of the area the score was reduced. I always had the same dog winning as my co judge.


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> I understand
> 
> I think you are reaching to find an unnecessary disturbance of cover (which by the way comes from language on handling on a mark)


Yes it does come from the language on handling on a mark. However, that language was the same when handling on a mark in the derby was not a failure. I think meaning of unnecessarily disturbing the cover is consistent throughout the rules. Now the penalty for a handle is different in a derby.

See this section also:


> What precisely constitutes the “area of the ‘fall’ ”
> defies accurate definition; yet, at the outset of every
> test, each Judge must arbitrarily define its hypothetical
> boundaries for himself, and for each bird in that test, *so
> ...


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Richard Halstead said:


> If you don't consider the area of fall then every dog that brought back the bird all have the same quality of mark. .


Richard

It would help if you read my responses before attacking them out of reflex.

If two dogs step on a mark and have not hunted, why would I care - for purposes of judging those two dogs what the AOF was.

I didn't say AOF doesn't exist

I did say that AOF is irrelevant - in my opinion - for distinguishing between dogs 1 and 2. Because in my opinion, neither hunted and both stepped on the bird.

I understand you think dog 1 hunted

I disagree with your assessment. Let's just leave it at that, shall we?


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Doug Main said:


> Yes it does come from the language on handling on a mark. However, that language was the same when handling on a mark in the derby was not a failure. I think meaning of unnecessarily disturbing the cover is consistent throughout the rules. Now the penalty for a handle is different in a derby.
> 
> See this section also:


We have reached the point of diminishing returns

I think your reach exceeds your grasp

No doubt you think the same of me

This is all driven by whether you think 
- Dog 1 hunted

I don't think Dog 1 did, you do.

Let's just agree to disagree


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

Pete said:


> Thats not what Marvin said
> 
> 
> So that dog scores high in that catagory when figuring in total performance.
> ...


PETE,

Mr. Shih is a high priced corporate lawyer who on occasion extolls on his exploits as a trial attorney, but apparently he does not have the ability to read a post & comprehend what has been said.

I don't know what you do but you picked out the meaning of what I had posted while Mr. Shih is "beating a Dead Horse" in an attempt to show the audience that he, & only he, is capable of separating the fly stuff from the black pepper. 

Unfortunately he does have a following so he is misleading them in their quest to gain a little 1st hand internet knowledge.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Marvin S said:


> Excuse my lateness - had to prepare a presentation to our City Council next week.
> 
> Any way - The shortest distance between 2 points is a straight line, i.e. the dog that performs in that manner wins the "Disturb the least amount of cover award".
> 
> ...


Dog 1 could have gone around the cover, thus not disturbing it like dog 3 who took a straight line. 

/paul


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Pete said:


> I don't know really because I am not a judge
> 
> Pete


You and Marvin have a more in common than you know.


/Paul


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Marvin S said:


> PETE,
> 
> Mr. Shih is a high priced corporate lawyer who on occasion extolls on his exploits as a trial attorney, but apparently he does not have the ability to read a post & comprehend what has been said.
> 
> ...



And according to your own process and philosophy on picking judges is way more qualified than even yourself. Technically speaking of course....

/Paul


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> When you run a derby under Mitch Patterson or Vickie Lamb, who are the best derby judges I have ever seen, you will find that a double can provide plenty of separation without the need to look at lines.
> 
> I don't think we need to change the Rules. I think we need to improve our judging.
> 
> Ted


I did get to run a qual under Mitch once. Frankly it was the most reasonable test i've seen in years.

/Paul


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> Note that the Manual says that this is wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ted, i agree. I tend to not be into sophistry a whole lot, but I guess I did go there on that comment. While its a stretch that people actually reason that way, clearly there are those who take great liberties when judging. 

/Paul


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

Very interesting discussion.

Methinks by the time you guys get it settled, the dog will be aged out! :twisted:

JS


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Pete*
> _I don't know really because I am not a judge
> 
> ...


 
Paul ,
you can't judge trials either
That means you ,I and Marvin are brothers


Marvin
I'm an english teacher majoring in spelling and sentence structure


Pete


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Pete said:


> Paul ,
> you can't judge trials either
> That means you ,I and Marvin are brothers
> 
> ...


Please, you'll give Marvin a heart attack....

/Paul


----------



## Jay Dufour (Jan 19, 2003)

In the eighties I judged a Derby with an experienced judge,and he had told me I should read the rule book the night before,which I did.I also carried it with me.Well,I turned out that 6 handled in the first series,at which time I folded the sheet.Come time for call backs and he asked me what I had.Oh no he said.....nobody goes by that part ! Fast forward twenty years and back in the game with two young dogs,spending ALL of my off time training them on lines to marks,because thats what I see placing in every trial.
I hope the new year at RTF keeps going with the fine discussions regarding these subjects....less the uglyness.


----------



## Vickie Lamb (Jan 6, 2003)

Another comment out quickly this morn...the wind is blowing 20-25 mph left to right on that test..._could be_ that wind is the mitigating factor on the "green line"...and nothing else.  ...


----------



## Lisa Van Loo (Jan 7, 2003)

Vickie Lamb said:


> I can think of a number of excellent marking dogs over the years that didn't as a habit run in straight lines to their birds. However, in the course they chose to run toward their birds, they did not hunt one blade of grass en route and then ended up right on top of said bird(s)...
> 
> The argument can be, from a training standpoint, that a dog which runs straight is going to remain more focused on his/her destination and therefore improve chances of success. Some dogs can run straight and come up with their birds--they are good markers--other dogs can run straight and NOT come up with lots of birds except those they stumble on as they are running through an area...these aren't those natural markers, but rather have been trained to run straight or naturally run straight, but still don't have marking ability.
> 
> Likewise, a dog that can keep that focus on his bird(s) and step on birds _despite choice of route_ obviously must possess a talent for marking birds.


I learned these lessons the very first time I judged a Derby. Yes, you can tell by a dog's body language the difference between the dog who runs straight and SOBs, the dog who runs crooked and *knows* precisely where that bird is, or the dog who runs crooked and is clueless. After four series, the judges are going to have a pretty good idea who the real marking dogs are, and usually there is one who has risen to the top. The difference between 3rd and 4th place, or 4th and RJ may be slim, but first place should be pretty obvious if the tests have been set up correctly.

Sad to see the trend of judging "wind saves" is taking hold. I learned long ago that a dog's eyes get him to the area, his nose gts him to the bird. True pinpoint marking is quite rare. 

Lisa


----------



## Jim Danis (Aug 15, 2008)

This has been a great read for me. I run HT's with my dog and will venture into the FT game once my new pup is ready. I didn't see the initial thread that this diagram was on and at first didn't know exactly what ya'll were speaking about. On page 4 or 5 when I finally saw the diagram a lot of this came into place. When I first saw the diagram one of the first things that popped out at me was the wind direction and the tracks that dog's 1 & 2 took to the marks. Vickie also made note of this just a few responses before mine. It looks like the wind could have been a factor in both dog's 1 & 2's tracks to the marks. By the diagram it also looks like they winded those birds. Does that mean that they were poor marks on the dogs part? When I read this thread it sounds like probably not. 

Being new I've read my HT rule books pretty thoroughly. I think I know them fairly well and I've even brought the book and sections to a judges attention when my dog was failed for one reason or another. All to no good. Many times I haven't gotten a good explanation for why my dog was failed. Especially when I respectfully point out that the rule book allows him to do what he did and he seems to have met the standard. The main answer I have received is that they felt he didn't meet the standard in THEIR eyes. What I have gotten from this thread is that according to Ted and the exact interpretation of the rule book there isn't a way to distinguish between the performance of the 3 dogs. Judging nowadays has degraded to the point to where new inexperienced judges are placing their own interpretations to the rules and coming up with faulty assumptions. From what little experience I have running my own dog and being judged and seeing the results and asking why for this or that I think this happens quite often. 
Regardless, reading this thread has been quite and education for me. My own interpretation of this may be very simplified or even completely wrong but the discussion as a whole has been a very good read. Topics such as this are the main reason I came here 5-6 months ago. Thanks to eveyone!!


----------



## Barry (Dec 11, 2007)

Page 46 of the RB also states: However, a dog which consistently,i.e. during as entire stake, marks his birds in a closer area, hence, more accurately than another dog, should be judged accordingly. All things are relative, and, conceivably, such differences in markings alone might be sufficient to determine the final placings in a particular stake.

Page 55 under minor faults #3 Reluctance to enter rough cover, water, ice, mud or other situations involving unpleasant "going" for the dog.

This is the basis for my judging the way I read the judges sheets in this thread. I think faults no matter how small still count in the overall scheme of things. In reality we are talking about missing and talking a piece of cover, probably about 7 ft difference in the true line, and tie base in my book. So the tie breaker would be the hunt. Sure not a big difference but difference enough to determine a winner.

I'm I missing something here? Doesn't this imply that all things being equal one could conceive that dog 2 in this particular series had a little bit better job then dog 3. And under what I have just stated according to the RB made my decision on a winner.

IMO dog 3 who split the difference between the two stations for what ever reason while going for the long bird and was pretty far behind the long gun station, in fact was pretty much out of, and on his way to a different area, winded the bird and came over and picked up the bird. If the wind had not been blowing according to this diagram and IMO he would have not come up with any bird, water, cover, angle's line's and the like being taken out of the equation.

Dog 2 IMO failed to take some cover got to the water and angled it real nice past the gun came up between the gun and the bird and was in a good position to either hunt the area or wind the bird in the area, which he did.

Dog 3 IMO did in essence take a nice line took all the cover ended up past the bird hunted deep and by the lines drawn on the paper a good hunt. Not a gorilla but yet a good hunt eventually coming back and getting the bird. In my estimation still a very good job but not quite as good as dog 2. 

I believe that Page 46 and the paragraph that I quoted justifies the giving of the placements as I have stated if I were in the judges boots at this particular trial. I believe lines do matter, but not to the extent that these two lines were that much different and that the hunt must be taken into consideration. 

Let's be clear just because a dog is a good marker does not mean that abilities acquired through training should not enter into the judging process only because lines are not mentioned as a particular ability to be judged. It seems that some on this thread would like to believe that lines should not be considered just because this happens to be a Derby. Besides the fact that a dog must posses the ability to mark, taught lining enhances marking ability. And this is why I think lines have become an integral part of the judging process. 

Sure there are flaws in the system, but the biggest one is reading to much into a rule and trying to debate what is meant and try and twist that meaning to suit one self. Sure the rules could be more precise about the do's and don'ts but then we would all the running under a standard. The present rule book is fine the way it is. If we were all to proceed under one expressed opinion and interpretation we would not need judges. 

Buy the way, under the following thread I would really feel something was wrong if my dog was with a pro for considerable amount of time say 7-15 mo. and still cheated the water ran around cover and in essence had not started to learn the first thing about lining. What a waste of money and time.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Barry 

At the beginning of this thread, I explain why the portion of the Rule Book upon which you rely is inapplicable

Ted


----------



## greg ye (Nov 28, 2007)

Ted,

Let me get this right. A dog that runs straight and fights factors exhibits a trained response 100% of the time? There would be no doubt, ever, that a straight running dog was "trained" and was not simply exhibiting natural ability or a natural response to stimuli? To assume a straight running young dog, sans the "goat," should not be rewarded to some degree for his effort is a little hard to take.

Least Lead Regards


----------



## scott spalding (Aug 27, 2005)

Ted Shih said:


> Note that the Manual says that this is wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Maybe us newbies should keep Teds # handy. Get off you're high horse Ted after all this is only a field trial. This is a game we choose to play judged by people that donate there time and for the most part do the best they can. Many times we find ourselves questioning the tests or results but that will allways be part of a game judged by two volunteer judges that passed a 100 question open book test. I ran quite a few tests in the last four years and I think I heard Ted in the gallery at allmost every one. The Akc requires one to pass a test to prove there experiance for judging Ted requires you think like Ted.
________
Fisting Double


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

greg ye said:


> Ted,
> 
> Let me get this right. A dog that runs straight and fights factors exhibits a trained response 100% of the time? There would be no doubt, ever, that a straight running dog was "trained" and was not simply exhibiting natural ability or a natural response to stimuli? To assume a straight running young dog, sans the "goat," should not be rewarded to some degree for his effort is a little hard to take.
> 
> Least Lead Regards


I have never seen any dog without training that would hold a perfectly straight line throught the kinds of factors seen in today's FT's at any level. In fact I'd like to see how many of the dogs that place in derby's today that are still pre T work.

/Paul


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

greg ye said:


> Ted,
> 
> Let me get this right. A dog that runs straight and fights factors exhibits a trained response 100% of the time? There would be no doubt, ever, that a straight running dog was "trained" and was not simply exhibiting natural ability or a natural response to stimuli? To assume a straight running young dog, sans the "goat," should not be rewarded to some degree for his effort is a little hard to take.
> 
> Least Lead Regards


Didn't say that Greg


----------



## greg ye (Nov 28, 2007)

"Damn the torpedos, full speed ahead!"


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

scott spalding said:


> This is a game we choose to play judged by people that donate there time and for the most part do the best they can... The Akc requires one to pass a test to prove there experiance for judging Ted requires you think like Ted.


Scott

If you want to take me to task for my reading of the Rule Book, feel free. This thread is about the Rule Book, not about criticizing those people who devote their time to judging.

If you were to look at my posts over the years, you would see that I do not place judges under the bus. You would also note that I usually comment to the fact that I think it is inappropriate to place people under the bus, when they have given up their time to judge. So, if you think I am pointing out anyone for criticism, you are wrong.

As for my opinions about judging, I have found that most competitors with whom I have spoken about the subject agree.

Sorry my comments upset you. 

Ted


----------



## Barry (Dec 11, 2007)

Ted Shih said:


> Barry
> 
> At the beginning of this thread, I explain why the portion of the Rule Book upon which you rely is inapplicable
> 
> Ted


Must have missed that portion. Want to run it by me again?

Are you saying that it is inapplicable only because it is not mentioned as lining per say? And that it doesn't say lining explicitly so it doesn't fall under the ability's acquired through training? 

In your opinion it would be OK to go as far out of one's way to retrieve a bird, as long as the end result was ending up at the bird. Because marking is of primary importance, no matter how you get there is OK? I think under minor faults also is going to far out of ones way on the return, or IMHO poor line on the way back with bird.

In your opinion is there any difference in the 3 dogs that did this test in question?


----------



## scott spalding (Aug 27, 2005)

Ted Shih said:


> Scott
> 
> If you want to take me to task for my reading of the Rule Book, feel free. This thread is about the Rule Book, not about criticizing those people who devote their time to judging.
> 
> ...


Ted you have elected to Judge what I do or do not Know. I have given you the respect of reading you're posts and taken from them what I think is valuable.
________
IOLITE VAPORIZER WEBSITE


----------



## Lpgar (Mar 31, 2005)

Wonders..

If We are judging trained attributes like walking at heel...sitting and watching the birds quietly....going when sent.....delivering the birds to line.... Why in marking are We not rewarding the Dogs that fight factors to get to their mark?


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Lpgar said:


> Wonders..
> 
> If We are judging trained attributes like walking at heel...sitting and watching the birds quietly....going when sent.....delivering the birds to line.... Why in marking are We not rewarding the Dogs that fight factors to get to their mark?


Because the Rule Book tells us that we are to focus on natural abilities, not trained abilities in the Derby.

Ted


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

scott spalding said:


> Ted you have elected to Judge what I do or do not Know. I have given you the respect of reading you're posts and taken from them what I think is valuable.


I have commented on what you have written. If my conclusions about your comments are wrong, I apologize.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> *Fourth,* let’s address the efforts of you and others to use *courage* as a surrogate for lining.
> 
> The RB defines "*courage*"as:
> 
> ...


Barry

This is what I wrote about "courage"

Ted


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Barry said:


> In your opinion it would be OK to go as far out of one's way to retrieve a bird, as long as the end result was ending up at the bird. Because marking is of primary importance, no matter how you get there is OK?


Never said that.

Did say that I didn't see any of the dogs go "far out of the way."

Did say I thought all three dogs had good marks.

Did say that I didn't see Dog 1 hunt.

Did say that I couldn't make placements based on information provided.

Ted


----------



## Barry (Dec 11, 2007)

Ted Shih said:


> Barry
> 
> This is what I wrote about "courage"
> 
> Ted




It states that "It may be displayed by a willingness to face and without hesitation, rough cover, (which was at this trial) cold or rough water, (which if the trial is a winter time trial chances are good the water is cold) ice, mud and similar conditions which make the going rather tough, and of doing it repeatedly.

I don't believe that the hypo said anything about adverse weather conditions except for the wind, to constitute the rough water or rough going. But I do believe that one can see conditions in a different manor. Rough being tough going for some and not so though for others. Wind is a rough condition for some and not for others. Because wind isn't mentioned in the RB under the 
courage provision mean it doesn't exist and should be dismissed as an obstacle or rough going? 

Natural Abilities are enhanced IMHO through the ability's of training. 
Avoidance or caving to any, or all of these obstacles can be judged as major faults. But it is all relative.


----------



## Barry (Dec 11, 2007)

Ted Shih said:


> Never said that.
> 
> Did say that I didn't see any of the dogs go "far out of the way."
> 
> ...


Your opinion certainly differs from mine. I am more interested to know why? 
Buy what you have stated you are unwilling to admit that there is seperation enough to be able to pick one over the other.


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

Barry said:


> Your opinion certainly differs from mine. I am more interested to know why?
> *Buy what you have stated you are unwilling to admit that there is seperation enough to be able to pick one over the other*.


Because the question was asked only on the basis of the marks themselves. We were instructed not to judge anything else; only the marks.

Evan


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> I have never seen any dog without training that would hold a perfectly straight line throught the kinds of factors seen in today's FT's at any level. In fact I'd like to see how many of the dogs that place in derby's today that are still pre T work.
> 
> /Paul


Sheesh, mine never ran until it was 10 months past finishing basics, and through transition.


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

The only one I allowed a client to run in a Derby prior to having handling skills was Lucy. She was 11 months, and just learning 3-handed casting. Blast her little hyde, she won it! Thankfully she didn't run any more of them until she was handling.

Evan


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

How much of a factor do you guys think those trained abilities play in the judge's job of comparing natural ability between derby dogs? 

Can you tell which dog has the best marking ability if one with lesser marking skills but better lining skills is running against it? Let's assume they both stepped on the bird and the only difference is one ran straighter than the other... 

Are there nuances such as ear position, tail "crack", etc... that will show you which one marked it and which one lined it?

OR is that why there are multiple series...


----------



## Barry (Dec 11, 2007)

Evan said:


> Because the question was asked only on the basis of the marks themselves. We were instructed not to judge anything else; only the marks.
> 
> Evan


And that's all well and good, I can still pick a winner out of the three as I'm sure you could. And it's no different than the one I had before. Sure it would be nice to have more to go on, but there isn't more. Based on the marks themselves the dogs still had to get there and come up with the bird. They still are judged on marking alone. I still come up with a winner with the rule book thrown out the window. Why can't Ted?

I think it's because marking to him has to many variables.Depth of fall, hunting short, pinpoint marking vs small hunt in the area which is all well and good. Make a decision. To me that all means Close, but no cigar. Who got the bird with less effort. Judge what you see.


----------



## Barry (Dec 11, 2007)

DarrinGreene said:


> How much of a factor do you guys think those trained abilities play in the judge's job of comparing natural ability between derby dogs?
> 
> Can you tell which dog has the best marking ability if one with lesser marking skills but better lining skills is running against it? Let's assume they both stepped on the bird and the only difference is one ran straighter than the other...
> 
> ...


Maybe the dog before he leaves the line should have to declare which direction and where the bird is, or which blade of grass it's under. That way we as judges will finally be able to make an informed decission. May not need a RB then.


----------



## greg ye (Nov 28, 2007)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> In fact I'd like to see how many of the dogs that place in derby's today that are still pre T work.
> 
> /Paul


Didn't place, but Gary Kavan's chessy pup, Bur Oak's Here's Winston, JAM'd at Sooner RC, Oct., 07, at the ripe age of 6 months. There must be other examples. Think he was taught "straight?"


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Maybe it would be better just to do as I've been saying for the past 5 yeare, i.e. *change the rules to reflect the way the Derby is for the most part being judged now*...after all it is the 21st century.


john


----------



## T. Mac (Feb 2, 2004)

Barry said:


> And that's all well and good, I can still pick a winner out of the three as I'm sure you could. And it's no different than the one I had before. Sure it would be nice to have more to go on, but there isn't more. Based on the marks themselves the dogs still had to get there and come up with the bird. They still are judged on marking alone. I still come up with a winner with the rule book thrown out the window. Why can't Ted?
> 
> I think it's because marking to him has to many variables.Depth of fall, hunting short, pinpoint marking vs small hunt in the area which is all well and good. Make a decision. To me that all means Close, but no cigar. Who got the bird with less effort. Judge what you see.


 
I think what Ted is saying is that after 3 previous series of identical work, and with the results of this series as all that you have to differentiate between the 3 dogs, you do not have enough information to make that decision. And certainly not without making assumptions about each of the dog's work, especially dogs 1 and 3. While you and others seem to be partial to dog 3 based upon its straight lines, you assume that it was marking the fall and might not actually be marking the birdboy sitting up on the levee. And if it did mark the lateral position, it did not mark the depth that accurately. You assume that dog 1 winded the bird when this might not be the case and the dog just took what it thought was the fastest and most expedient route to the bird. Not to knock Jim's drawings as they are much better than the drawings I make judging hunt tests, but they are very short on notations as to what the judges "saw" that might make the selection easier. And there is always something that the judges sees with respect to each dogs work, other than just the lines to the bird, that they use in their decisions. 

It is easy to say that training shouldn't play a role, but it is hard to imagine a dog competing at any level of HT or FT work who hasn't had a little training. And to have 2-3 dogs competing for the blue ribbon in a ft one must believe that they have had several months of training; having completed their yard work and transition training; and have had hundreds of marks thrown for them. Many are probably working on the de-cheating stuff and angle entries depending on age. 

Based on this dogs quickly begin to associate gunners with the presence of birds in the field, learning to hunt off the guns. Any or all of the dogs in our scenario may have been hunting off the gun and not actually marking the fall of the memory bird. But then we could also assume that both dog 1 and 2 used the wind to find the bird, which is a positive trait and is to be rewarded. True, if dog 3 had front footed the memory bird, things could be seen differently, but it didn't. And if dog 2 didn't fishhook both birds,..., but it didn't. Again, there is no notations or implications presented to give us any idea of dogs focus, style, speed, attitude on the line, or any other indicator that they knew where the birds were other than their paths. And a straight line on a piece of paper does not necessarily indicate a mark and as much as a banana path does not indicate a lack of a mark.


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

Marvin S said:


> The shortest distance between 2 points is a straight line, i.e. the dog that performs in that manner wins the "Disturb the least amount of cover award".


Ted - How do you get the statement "The dog that disturbs the least amount of cover wins" from the above statement? 

You received a response in Post 71


pete said:


> that's not what Marvin said


 but you failed to respond. which is not unusual when you have no defense. 



Ted Shih said:


> post 96 - This thread is about the Rule Book


Yet in post 33


ted shih said:


> Note the manual says this is wrong.


& again in post 1 - 2nd paragraph -


ted shih said:


> Introduction to Manual





MS said:


> Page 30 - 22) The Judges must judge the dogs for (a) their natural abilities including their memory, intelligence, attention, nose, courage, perseverance & style & their abilities acquired through training, including steadiness, control, response to direction & delivery.
> 
> Therefore, much of a Judge's responsibility is to determine how much weight he shall give to certain types of exceptional performance & how much penalty to assess because of various individual faults. -----


This is a portion of the response I made to you, Mr Shih, in post 58 - if you read post 58 very carefully you will note there are no references that pertain to handling, whereas much of your defense contains excerpts that pertain to handling & on occasion the Judge's Manual which you believe you are the only one to have read. Yet you failed to respond.

If you want it all to be natural, do as Jim P said bring em to line on a rope & turn them loose. Otherwise note, steadiness, control, response to direction & delivery are all abilities acquired through training which are necessary in today's Derby environment. 

I can remember a performance by one of my derby dogs at the top of his game - 7 pins & a slight hunt on the money bird - which was much less than the winner, who ran all day right in front of me. After the trial the judge volunteered you'd have gotten some of the action had your dog not had that controlled break. 

By your reasoning, my dog should have won, as steadiness is an ability acquired through training. 



scott spalding said:


> Ted requires you think like Ted


You are misleading many future FT'ers, & you should be ashamed of yourself for your egocentic approach. You only hear the music you play. 

If you want a discussion answer those posts that are reasoned with your approach, which BTW is not always correct. I guess we would have to classify the ability to admit one was not correct as one acquired through training. You will do this sport more good than you are with your attack dog answers.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Marvin

I have posted a comprehensive explanation of why I believe that your position concerning lines v. marks is wrong.

I think my position is clear and well grounded.

I disagree with how you have stretched the meaning of the Rules. I have pointed out my points of disagreement. I have no desire to repeat them like a broken record when you refuse to address them.

I also find it cuirous that you find the need to attack me personally as often as you do.

I will let the readers of this thread make their own determination as to whose logic they find more compelling.

Ted


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

For the better part of a week, between this thread and it's "daddy," the thread on "Field Trial Judging" begun on 1/6/09, pretty much everything that _could_ have been said _has_ been said with regard to "The Mark," especially as it pertains to its impact on the Derby stake. What began as a discussion on whether or not seating gunners facing away from the direction that they throw is misleading the dog to every scintilla of minutiae regarding what should be judged as a mark has appeared on one of the two threads. I tried to keep up with the discussion but found myself almost physically tired reading the point/counterpoint back-and-forth, mostly on this one thread.

I've avoided participation until the last dozen or so posts made me come to realize something, for me anyway. From the first thread to this one, something has kept me on edge...something has felt "wrong" about the absolutes that seem to be the goal of these discussions. For the record, I support having the gunners/throwers face the way they throw; I also support having them face the running line through the whole test IF there is a sun/rain/wind situation that would affect the gunners/throwers negatively from a comfort level for the day. 

Relative to marks, anyone who knows me, either in person or from this board, knows what a fan I am of the rulebook. The rulebook makes no distinction about the level of difficulty that should be set up with an all-age mark or a minor stake mark. The AKC expects judges in either stake level to know what they are doing when they set up marks to test their respective fields in either stake level. Clubs should do their homework when they pick judges to judge at either level; that homework takes a lot of different forms that I won't go into here. I'm a fan of the FT Judge's Manual but only up to a point; it is NOT the rulebook and does not carry ANY weight with regard to rule interpretation. It is for reference and example ONLY, a purpose for which it is well designed.

Here's my point: IMHO (my opinion and my opinion _only_), any attempt to judge a Derby MARK without any consideration whatsoever for its other "moving parts," moving parts that the FT Rules _require_ be a part of the testing and evaluation of dogs, is pure folly. Any _serious_ attempt to further the education of the masses about judging "The Mark" by suggesting that it can be judged without any outside influences and that any single setup could result in the placement of a dog is folly; it _does_ make for some interesting debate and discussion as has been evidenced here, but it has also resulted in some contentious posts (not unexpected considering that this _is_ RTF...;-)). Judges should reasonably know what to expect when they set up a test with regard to what the dogs can be expected to do when influenced by the test's terrain, cover, wind, overall lighting and background, bird/thrower visibility, and bird placement. Line 'em up and watch what you have created affect the dog's ability to get the birds in the cleanest manner possible. 95 times out of 100, after 8 marks, a winner will be obvious after considering *all* the factors, from line manners to style to marking. While "marking is of primary importance," it is NOT of EXCLUSIVE importance. Again...._all_ of this is JMHO...

You'll know the winner when you _see_ it regards, 

kg


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

greg ye said:


> Didn't place, but Gary Kavan's chessy pup, Bur Oak's Here's Winston, JAM'd at Sooner RC, Oct., 07, at the ripe age of 6 months. There must be other examples. Think he was taught "straight?"


 
I think the key phrase was "didn't place...." 

I could enter every 6 month old dog that comes through here, but that doesn't mean its gonna place....and how straight were its lines...?

/Paul


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

Barry said:


> Maybe the dog before he leaves the line should have to declare which direction and where the bird is, or which blade of grass it's under. That way we as judges will finally be able to make an informed decission. May not need a RB then.


AH I get it, sort of like calling the pocket, regards,


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

Ted Shih said:


> Marvin
> 
> I have posted a comprehensive explanation of why I believe that your position concerning lines v. marks is wrong.
> 
> ...


    - Whose name was mentioned by whom in post 1?

Run for cover, regards!


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

K G said:


> For the better part of a week, between this thread and it's "daddy," the thread on "Field Trial Judging" begun on 1/6/09, pretty much everything that _could_ have been said _has_ been said with regard to "The Mark," especially as it pertains to its impact on the Derby stake. What began as a discussion on whether or not seating gunners facing away from the direction that they throw is misleading the dog to every scintilla of minutiae regarding what should be judged as a mark has appeared on one of the two threads. I tried to keep up with the discussion but found myself almost physically tired reading the point/counterpoint back-and-forth, mostly on this one thread.
> 
> I've avoided participation until the last dozen or so posts made me come to realize something, for me anyway. From the first thread to this one, something has kept me on edge...something has felt "wrong" about the absolutes that seem to be the goal of these discussions. For the record, I support having the gunners/throwers face the way they throw; I also support having them face the running line through the whole test IF there is a sun/rain/wind situation that would affect the gunners/throwers negatively from a comfort level for the day.
> 
> ...


Something's wrong here!!!!!!  Again we agree. Nice post & stated well, Keith.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Marvin S said:


> Whose name was mentioned by whom in post 1?


Only you would call post 1 a personal attack.


----------



## Patrick Johndrow (Jan 19, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> Only you would call post 1 a personal attack.


Common Ted…if we polled 100 people 99 of them would say your post was at worst a personal attack and at best calling Marvin out. 



I know we will keep this debate silly but keep it real too.


----------



## dale sweeney (Sep 25, 2007)

Most rules are open to interpretation.From my experience,I have learned that numerous people can read or witness something and get a different view of what was read or witnessed.I completely agree that to many inexperienced people are used to judge a derby.I believe that the rules were written with the thought in mind that the person judging would have the experience and knowledge to apply the rules.The game has become so large and complex and the dogs so good that it takes a lot of effort and thought to judge a derby. I put less weight on lines than a lot of people,but there is no getting arround the fact that lines are important.For example use of wind in finding a bird is important,but a dog is way off line and it is obvious that if the dog had not smelled the mark it would have been lost, that is not a good mark.If you have the terrain and water you can separate the dogs according to the literal written rule.


----------



## Jim Pickering (Sep 17, 2004)

Earlier today I was searching my mind for the words to correctly describe “Courage” as it relates to retrievers beyond the short sentence in the Rules.

Just as I was getting frustrated at not being able to come up with the right words, I received an email with a photo that says it so much better than I could every explained it.

It is said that a photo is worth a thousand words and that is certainly true in this case.

Note in the photo that the yellow Lab has avoided the water but has done so to seek out an even more difficult factor.

This yellow Lab is exhibiting he ultimate in courage.

This photo is making the rounds today on the internet so I apologize if you have seen it already. Just that it is soooo right for this thread in so many ways.


----------



## Patrick Johndrow (Jan 19, 2003)

Jim Pickering said:


>


This should be not confused with the term "tail crack"….this is “breaking off some tail” BOST and is radically different…a good judge will know the difference when he sees it. 


I would have liked to see the dog make the retrieve prior to mounting…but that’s just me...maybe others could comment.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Jim Pickering said:


> Earlier today I was searching my mind for the words to correctly describe “Courage” as it relates to retrievers beyond the short sentence in the Rules.
> 
> Just as I was getting frustrated at not being able to come up with the right words, I received an email with a photo that says it so much better than I could every explained it.
> 
> ...


A judge could interpret this as a dog holding his lines as well.....


/Paul


----------



## kjrice (May 19, 2003)

Patrick Johndrow said:


> This should be not confused with the term "tail crack"….this is “breaking off some tail” BOST and is radically different…a good judge will know the difference when he sees it.
> 
> 
> I would have liked to see the dog make the retrieve prior to mounting…but that’s just me...maybe others could comment.


LMAOOOOOOOO!


----------



## Paul Rainbolt (Sep 8, 2003)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> A judge could interpret this as a dog holding his lines as well.....
> 
> 
> /Paul


As a judge I can honestly say this dog is holding his lines and is showing courage above and beyond the "RB"


----------



## Arturo (Jan 10, 2004)

Jim Pickering said:


> ...... This yellow Lab is exhibiting he ultimate in courage.........


I'm glad this thread took a break for a little GDG. You know the last thing that went through this dogs mind? That tigers front paw! 
I always wondered if those yellows were very smart or not! That one has removed all doubt.
I bet he ran around the water!
"I've got a tiger by the tail it's plain to see."


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

Isn't it ironic how much courage and stupidity have in common? 

Evan


----------



## Barry (Dec 11, 2007)

T. Mac said:


> > I think what Ted is saying is that after 3 previous series of identical work, and with the results of this series as all that you have to differentiate between the 3 dogs, you do not have enough information to make that decision.
> 
> 
> If that is truly what Ted is saying then I really don't get it. I could certainly make an informed decision on what was seen on the judges sheet.
> ...


----------



## Barry (Dec 11, 2007)

K G said:


> For the better part of a week, between this thread and it's "daddy," the thread on "Field Trial Judging" begun on 1/6/09, pretty much everything that _could_ have been said _has_ been said with regard to "The Mark," especially as it pertains to its impact on the Derby stake. What began as a discussion on whether or not seating gunners facing away from the direction that they throw is misleading the dog to every scintilla of minutiae regarding what should be judged as a mark has appeared on one of the two threads. I tried to keep up with the discussion but found myself almost physically tired reading the point/counterpoint back-and-forth, mostly on this one thread.
> 
> I've avoided participation until the last dozen or so posts made me come to realize something, for me anyway. From the first thread to this one, something has kept me on edge...something has felt "wrong" about the absolutes that seem to be the goal of these discussions. For the record, I support having the gunners/throwers face the way they throw; I also support having them face the running line through the whole test IF there is a sun/rain/wind situation that would affect the gunners/throwers negatively from a comfort level for the day.
> 
> ...


Great post, common sense still lives on. 

Why is it that some seem to think that this judging manual is the book of the gods. IMO it is simply a tool to be used in conjunction with your ability to set test and judge dog work. Just because the authors have a bazillion years of training and trialling experience between them doesn't make their words the Gospel. Don't for get you are supposed to have a mind of your own and be able to make informed decisions on your own. The manual also is the thoughts of many people who on any given weekend would not see I to I with one another. You can read all the books you want about judging that doesn't make you a good judge. The same for going to all a Joe Blow's training seminars. I doesn't necessarily make you a good trainer. Being able to implement some of what you learn helps in the process to get you where you need to be. One has to be able to decipher the info and use what he thinks will help and discard that which doesn't. Remember that the people that gave of there time and effort to write this manual did so with their ideas and their thinking of the way that things should be.

I have found the Rule Book to be of much more help in the decision making process. The rule book is the Holy Grail of our sport. Read it and understand don't twist it to say what you want it to say. It is the real deal.

And you will know the winner, when you see it.


----------



## Mark (Jun 13, 2003)

K G said:


> Line 'em up and watch what you have created affect the dog's ability to get the birds in the cleanest manner possible.
> You'll know the winner when you _see_ it regards,
> 
> kg




to get the birds in the cleanest manner possible.  This may not appear in the rule book verbatim but is the essence of a judge's placement decision in most trials.

I might personally add to get the birds in the cleanest and most appealing manner possible to my decision

Mark


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

It's amazing how far this has gotten drawn out. In this dialogue's current flow, it kind of reminds me of what old Chalie Morgan referred to as "I" judges. "I" like this, and "I" don't like that - judging dogs according to indivual preferences, and placing in spite of the RB, rather than because of it.

Of course the RB cannot be the absolute be-all/end-all. But, if we throw it out, the fabric of our sport will quickly unravel, don't you think?

I'm sure it's just my perspective, but I still think the original question threw the judging process almost completely out, and only asked for a determination based on one aspect of it. We all see and assume different things about what may or may not have happended in that diagram. But the question essentially asked for a determination based on only one part. 

Lots of acrimony here. I'm not sure it's all warranted.

Evan


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Mark said:


> to get the birds in the cleanest manner possible.  This may not appear in the rule book verbatim but is the essence of a judge's placement decision in most trials.
> 
> I might personally add to get the birds in the cleanest and most appealing manner possible to my decision
> 
> Mark


That's why I followed the words you quoted above with "..._a winner will be obvious after considering *all* the factors, from line manners to style to marking." _ Style is an important part of a dog's attitude about doing the job at hand, _especially_ in the Derby.




Evan said:


> It's amazing how far this has gotten drawn out. In this dialogue's current flow, it kind of reminds me of what old Chalie Morgan referred to as "I" judges. "I" like this, and "I" don't like that - judging dogs according to indivual preferences, and placing in spite of the RB, rather than because of it.
> 
> Of course the RB cannot be the absolute be-all/end-all. But, if we throw it out, the fabric of our sport will quickly unravel, don't you think?
> 
> ...


The *acrimony* is one of the reasons I think I was starting to get "bothered" and had to post. At the end of the day, I think we ALL believe that we ALL should do the best job possible when accepting the responsibility of testing, evaluating, and placing dogs on a weekend. I can personally say that I've never judged with ANYONE that I believed had any other agenda than to follow the Rules and do the best job possible by all the dogs and handlers.

Being informed and remaining unbiased is all we can do regards,

kg


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

This is my last post on this thread

First, as to the Rule Book

1. The Derby is focused on evaluation of natural abilities, not trained abilities.
2. Evaluation of what constitutes a mark encompasses far more than mere evaluation of how straight a dog runs
3. The terms "courage" and "unnecessarily disturbing ground" are defined and have very specific meanings

Second, as to my opinions
1. All three dogs had good marks
2. I do not believe that dog 1 had a hunt. I believe that dog 3 had a very smart hunt on the memory bird. I believe that of the dogs - from the diagram - dog 2 shows the highest likelihood of winding the bird (hard turn into the wind on both birds). Again, I think all three dogs had good marks.
3. I don't think that the diagrams and notations tell you enough about the quality of the marks.
4. I don't think that there was sufficient information provided to place the dogs
4. Depending on other factors (which in my experience are never all equal), such as 
- work in previous series
- style
Any of the three dogs depicted could have won depending on their previous work and overall style.

Ted


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

K G said:


> I think we ALL believe that we ALL should do the best job possible when accepting the responsibility of testing, evaluating, and placing dogs on a weekend. I can personally say that I've never judged with ANYONE that I believed had any other agenda than to follow the Rules and do the best job possible by all the dogs and handlers.
> 
> Being informed and remaining unbiased is all we can do regards,
> 
> kg


I know, Keith. I've had the privilege of running under you on several occasions, and your beliefs are evident. They were always good tests, and the results obvious. I don't ever recall disagreeing with your placements - win or lose.

Evan


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

You're too kind, Evan. I've made mistakes, no doubt about it...but I've tried to learn from them and not repeat them.

One of these days I'll tell the story about the Derby I judged where one of the contestants opined through the entire trial within earshot, on purpose, about everything that was wrong and that would go wrong with the tests my co-judge and I set up before they started and while they were running....and how none of his predictions came true, and his dog STILL ended up winning! :smile:

From bad tests to the greatest trial _ever_ regards, :wink:

kg


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

K G said:


> I've made mistakes, no doubt about it...but I've tried to learn from them and not repeat them.


Isn't that true about handling a dog, too  Let's hope all judges, myself included, can rememeber this - we are only human, we make mistakes, but we have to learn from them and become better at what ever our endevours (sp?) are....

FOM


----------



## Arturo (Jan 10, 2004)

Ted Shih said:


> This is my last post on this thread ........
> 
> Ted


Say it ain't so!
I'll believe it when I see it ... or don't see it.
I'll bet the dogs that _used the wind_ to find the bird would have also _used the wind_ if it had been blowing from the other direction ... if ya get my drift! It was a hypertheatrical situation. You have the lines. Which dog won? You have a rule book to use (that wasn't even part of this particular hypertheatrical situation). You are judgin' a Derby. Make a decision. It ain't rocket scientifery. **** or get off the pot!

JM .01


----------



## Vicki Worthington (Jul 9, 2004)

Ted, are you practicing for closing arguments, or just getting ready to cross-examine a witness(es)? LMAO! :razz::razz::razz:


----------



## T. Mac (Feb 2, 2004)

Barry said:


> I don't think it's me that is partial to dog 3 if you read my post I liked dog 2.
> ...
> 
> Don't have to assume, it was obvious from being down wind.
> ...


Barry,

Sorry for the miss statement on your preference, as this topic has spread over several threads and hundreds of posts. Please remember that I said that if I had to pick a dog from these three I'd also pick dog 2. I was only saying in the immediate post above that Ted was differing as he did not think he has enough information to make a selection, and that I agreed that he had that right as the differences between the 3 dogs were scant. I believe if he and I were judging, we'd probably be running another series. But then I don't think he or I would have set a test like that one knowing that we had (at least) 3 dogs in such tight contention after 3 series, and hence knowing their capabilities. 

I said at least three dogs as another item that may have been missed is that other dogs were involved in this other than the three presented. I believe in one of the threads Jim posts the names of the dogs in the ribbons and mentions that it was his dog that was dog #3 in this hypothetical and that it got RJ for the test; http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?t=34814 post #127. I do not remember if he identified the other 2 dogs or their placements. So are we looking at just the dogs competing for third place? And if so, is there some history as to what happened in the previous series that dropped them to third? Or were there 2 other dogs that smacked this test? If so, how were they seperated? Or were there really 5 dogs bunched and this test used to seperate all 5, but only 3 examples posted? 

Believe me I have studied the drawing many times. As my new pup is just about to start her derby career, this thread is of great interest. If you say you are sure that dog 1 winded the bird, I will ask you how high was the levee? If the levee was 3+ feet tall, then I doubt that the dog winded bird 2 as it would be in a scent shadow on the backside of the levee. Of course if judging or actually watching this test, we'd both have benefit on how other dogs did and where exactly the scent cone is located. But again the drawing doesn't show us. Or if it does for bird 2, then dog 1 hadn't made it to the scent cone before it made its turn for the bird. Look where dog 2 was when it entered the scent cone and draw that line on out and across the road. Looks to be the same path as dog 3 doesn't it? If we assume that dog 2 winded the bird, and dog 3 followed thae same line, did dog 3 wind the bird also? And if dog 1 doesn't come close to this line and we are saying that is the scent cone, how do we say that it winded the bird? And wouldn't it have been drawn into the gun station from the scent coming off their birds? 

Just some points to consider.

T. Mac


----------



## Patrick Johndrow (Jan 19, 2003)

Vicki Worthington said:


> Ted, are you practicing for closing arguments, or just getting ready to cross-examine a witness(es)? LMAO! :razz::razz::razz:


Vicki

Let’s not encourage (provoke) further retort…. 

Thank you


Johndrow Vineyard wine can now be purchase on line http://johndrowvineyard.com/shop.html


----------



## Guest (Jan 14, 2009)

Ted Shih said:


> Only you would call post 1 a personal attack.


Ted, 

The jury has decided on a verdict. I believe a "hush" would be appropriate in your case.

I appreciate folks who pick their battles. You are losing credibility as you go to war with anyone who disagrees with you.

But that's just my opinion, of course.


----------

