# "DOG" Release from Judges, Master HT



## Bud Bass (Dec 22, 2007)

I've debated over asking this, long time since I've been here.

Judging Masters on Friday, I am a new master judge, only 2 points, my co-judge was a long time judge but has never run masters herself (before rule change). Handler signaled ready and judge said "dog" quietly. Dog immediately broke for the retrieve without a signal or release or send from the handler. Break deffination in book* "It is generally understood that a break occurs when a dog makes a movement, that, in the opionion of the Judges, indicates a deliberate intent to retrieve without having been ordered to do so*, and cannot be brought under control by the handler." Both judges agreed that the dog broke and the dog was given a 0. There was no signal, command or movement from the handler, no word, no attempt to settle the dog before sending, etc. Dog was off and running on the "dog" release from the judge. The handler did send the dog, by saying its name, after the dog had already left the line. At the end of the serries, we were told there was a issue to discuss. Many of the gallary and other handlers as well as the handler who was running her dog said the rule was being interperated wrong. I argued that the rule book was explecit and that the judges were not the ones who should be sending the dog. Their interpertation was suppoted by input from many very experienced handlers and 8 point + judges who were also running their dogs. Basicly saying the dog was released by the judge with the "dog" command, and that some handlers use silent send signals, etc. I did not buy the argument but we both relented and allowed the dog to stay in the test. This point was not discussed in the handlers meeting prior to the test. The handler was experienced and knows the rules, she never said that she sent the dog after the judges released by saying "dog". I did not buy the argument but we both relented and allowed the dog to stay in the test. Should this dog have been dropped at that time?


----------



## Bubba (Jan 3, 2003)

Nope.

The judges released the dog and he is at that point free to ship the dog using whatever cue that fits the moment. Dog broke but not till after the judges said it was OK.

That said, if it were my dog I would have (and have many times) done everything in my power to make sure that she didn't get the bird and that I bad girled her furry little butt all the way back to the truck. 

Never underestimate the power of the intermittent reward regards

Bubba


----------



## Larry Thompson1 (Apr 19, 2011)

I'm no judge but have lots of expeience as a handler and I say that the dog in question should have been dropped for breaking. I would expect this if one of my dogs had done this. That is why I train with someone saying dog or a number. This seems to me to be plainly spelled out in the rule. But what do I know I'm not a judge.:razz:


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

The tie goes to the dog/handler. 

You can not judge intent or how a person handles...there is no rule that says the dog/handler must wait x number of seconds before sending, the dog/handler were released by the judge.

FOM


----------



## MIDTNGRNHEAD (Jun 17, 2004)

No. Give the dog the benefit of the doubt. Their hearing is much better than ours. If the handler heard you, don't you think the dog also heard you. If this is a serious issue with the dog, it will crop again before the last series.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

I have had my dog go on his number from time to time. As a handler i treat like a break, I say "SIT", re-heel him and send him. In each case the judges cut me a break by assuming the dog was confused by voice of the judge, and as I had been released by the judge; 1) who knows how I signal my dog to retrieve, and 2) by rule I was allowed to speak to my dog after being released by the judge.

Your interpretation may be technically correct, but like I said, most judges will cut the handler a break (no pun intended) with a dog that goes on his number.

John


----------



## Larry Thompson1 (Apr 19, 2011)

Wow I thought I would be correct in my evaluation of this question but I again was wrong. If I am to believe that a dog and handler are released to pick up the bird by the judge. At that instant the dog took of for the bird is that dog infact at that split second of being released also being released by the handler to make that retrieve. I think I am fast but holy cow, judge says dog, dog goes before I can even proscess the word dog, and am supposed to release the dog after the judge releases me to send the dog without atleast a second to do this? Wow you guys are the fastest I've ever heard of. I gatta learn how to do this. Is there a training book for this?:razz:


----------



## Sue Kiefer (Mar 4, 2006)

The handler signals when ready, the judge signal the gunners the birds go down, the judge releases the team by "dog" ( #23) the dog IS free to go.
If my bonehead dog goes on "Dog" I make book on that as something to work on and continue the test.
Tie does go to the runner.
It is nerve racking but it happens.
Sue


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

ltrollin said:


> Wow I thought I would be correct in my evaluation of this question but I again was wrong. If I am to believe that a dog and handler are released to pick up the bird by the judge. At that instant the dog took of for the bird is that dog infact at that split second of being released also being released by the handler to make that retrieve. I think I am fast but holy cow, judge says dog, dog goes before I can even proscess the word dog, and am supposed to release the dog after the judge releases me to send the dog without atleast a second to do this? Wow you guys are the fastest I've ever heard of. I gatta learn how to do this. Is there a training book for this?:razz:


I'm not saying you are wrong, only saying that it is customary for judges to cut the handler a bit of a break by saying tie goes to the dog. The dog obviously was steady on line while all birds were thrown, guns were shot, duck calls or what-have-you, and the few second delay before the judge calls "dog", I'm sure there is a lot more test to worry about out in the field rather than trying to determine if and how a dog was sent by his handler in the spit second after he was released by the judge.

John


----------



## Mike Tome (Jul 22, 2004)

I think we all really know what happened... but as others have pointed out once the judge releases the dog, it is free to go in whatever fashion the team has worked out.

On very short marks I'm positive the judges cannot hear my release as I'll use voice inflection as a cue for distance.


----------



## Larry Thompson1 (Apr 19, 2011)

I'm with ya john. But still looking for that training book on quik of the line.


----------



## Geiss (May 5, 2010)

Question related to this after remembering the 2005 SRS that I watched online a few weeks back...

I believe the rule book says no touching the dog while he is staying steady, but is there any requirement on the handler kneeling vs sitting vs standing by the dog? Can't recall...

Reason I ask this is that in one scene, Chris Akin (think it was Chris) is kneeling next to his dog and firing at the marks dropping - the kneeling and putting yourself physically closer to the dog could be adding some extra "pressure" for lack of better words for the dog to be steady, couldnt it?


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

Once the judge releases the dog there is no break. PERIOD! Judge said dog, dog left, dog did not break.


----------



## Larry Thompson1 (Apr 19, 2011)

Badbullgator does this mean the judge releases the dog?


----------



## Eric Johnson (Dec 23, 2004)

Bud-

Your interpretation of the rule is correct but....the rule doesn't come into play in this case. 

The dog was already released by the judges so there's no issue of breaking. You, as the judge, can't possibly know how I handle my dog and you are scoring the dog, not my commands. In short, your control over the dog and handler ended once you released the dog on "dog" and your job became one of grading the dog's response to your test.

If you wanted to be absolutely certain of the dog's breaking or not, carry him to the next series (if he warranted it) and next time, delay your release by a second and see if he breaks. However, don't delay for an exceptionally long period or you'll be faulted for treating the dog unfairly.

Eric


----------



## Final Flight Retrievers (Jan 23, 2010)

Bud Bass said:


> I've debated over asking this, long time since I've been here.
> 
> Judging Masters on Friday, I am a new master judge, only 2 points, my co-judge was a long time judge but has never run masters herself (before rule change). Handler signaled ready and judge said "dog" quietly. Dog immediately broke for the retrieve without a signal or release or send from the handler.



Judge released dog...dog free to make retrieve.......dog is carried to next series........

but the real question is how did that team do the rest of the test.......you may get away with it once but with 3 series that usually brings out the dogs weakness...usually.....IMHO


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Wow a judging question. Haven't seen that in awhile. Interestingly we also have a judge who decided it would be easier to throw himself under the bus after the test LOL

First off, lets actually look at the book…..



> Chapter 3 section 10 - section 10. send to retrieve. Dogs shall be sent to retrieve by handlers only when released by the Judges, who shall then score each retrieve accordingly.
> Judges shall call the number of the dog ordered to retrieve rather than the name of the handler of the dog.
> 
> Guide for Dealing with Interpretational Issues – Page 46 - break. It is generally understood that a break occurs when a dog makes a movement, that, in the opinion of the Judges, indicates a deliberate intent to retrieve with- out having been ordered to do so, and cannot be brought under control by the handler.
> ...


Nowhere does the book state how a handler can handle his dog. Once the judge releases the dog, the team can do whatever it likes. You said dog, therefore its open game. By the way, the book does not allow you to say "dog" but rather you shall use the dogs number. You are inflicting your personal standard on how to handle a dog into the job before you. One of the hardest aspect of judging is to put your personal beliefs aside and judge by the book. The dog "broke" in your opinion because your standard is once released, you do XYZ to send the dog. You have no idea how this person in front of you handles his dog. You are in essence trying to judge something you can't possibly know, when you should be judging what you see in front of you. By rule the team was free to do what they wanted once you release them. 

I think as a judge your philosophy should change as well. This is not about finding ways to fail dogs, it should be about giving dogs every opportunity to prove they have demonstrated the skills to pass. Your job is to make sure without a doubt that the dog has failed the test before not calling them back. My personal philosophy over the years has been to keep calling them back and letting work. The dogs will make the decision for me. They will either redeem themselves or throw themselves out. Don't look for little reasons to fail dogs. 

I would also advice the club to pick their judges wisely. They have selected a young judge and paired it with someone who has obviously not trained a dog to this level, ran at this level, probably has no idea why dogs are behaving in their test they way they are and frankly not someone I would want to run under. Frankly a truly experienced judge would never have interprited this situation this way and the fact they have shows the lack of understanding. 

/Paul


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> ... By the way, the book does not allow you to say "dog" but rather you shall use the dogs number..
> 
> /Paul


good job /paul,
wondered who would point that out.
my training group uses random numbers all the time by the person 
"playing" judge when we release. for some reason they use 666
for my beasts numbers. don't know why ;-)


----------



## Carol Cassity (Aug 19, 2004)

badbullgator said:


> Once the judge releases the dog there is no break. PERIOD! Judge said dog, dog left, dog did not break.



X2 Tie goes to the runner


----------



## Carol Cassity (Aug 19, 2004)

Ken Bora said:


> good job /paul,
> wondered who would point that out.
> my training group uses random numbers all the time by the person
> "playing" judge when we release. for some reason they use 666
> for my beasts numbers. don't know why ;-)


When I am playing judge for our group - and we are working on steady. I'll tell the handler go on a even number and then call out 1-7-29-35-11-8-10-2-4- this way the dog does not just go on any number. Also, I keep the number stream going when the send so the dog does not associate the number stream with his cue to go.


----------



## lablover (Dec 17, 2003)

The dog, and the handler, win the tie. Give the team the benefit of the doubt, and you can bet they will return to your test.


----------



## sinned (Feb 14, 2009)

first off, i want to say thank you for having the courage to bring this up and talk about it. we ALL can learn from your recent experience. as long as we are civil and sportsmanlike, we all benefit from the discussion. i wish more people would have the stones to speak up.

you or your co-judge's points are irrelevant relevant to the situation. you were assigned the duty of judging as you were determined to be qualified by the intent of the rules. no 2 ways about it. 

i am a little surprised that you got talked at by other competitors and other alleged judges: intimidation of the officials is not only unsportsmanlike but is prohibited in the rules as well. shame on them for behaving that way especially if they are judges and should know the rules better. 

intimidation on the contestant's or gallery's part is a disciplinable offense. its in the other book. i would not let the gallery or other handlers intimidate you during, or after the fact. good call or bad call by the judges, its unsportsmanlike on their part. if you made a 'questionable decision', too bad. if there is a REAL case of judges misconduct, then i believe the proper way, or prefered way is to raise the issue with the hunt test committee or chair and let them sort it out. 

i would go the other way: you as the judge made a determination of the dog's working ability as a master level hunting dog. the standard is assumed to be established in part as part of setting up the test and per the expectations outlined in the STANDARD of the HT regulations. 

you judged the dog's working ability, as the dog was PRESENTED by the handler. by your description, the dog-handler team did not demonstrate satisfactory work to the published MH standard, implied, expressed or otherwise. that is the point. there is no gray area in meeting a standard. either you do or you don't. you can't be a 'little bit pregnant.

i think a question that you have to ask yourself is did you apply your interpretation of the standard fairly and consistently for all competitors and not just this dog/handler? my question is purposefully rhetorical. 

where does the concept of 'tie goes to the runner' come from? that may be a polite courtesy we have created for ourselves but i do not believe that its in the rules. if it is, someone point it out please so i can learn. 

i also want to ask: at any point, was this or any other contestant's aspirations to qualify for the NMH stated as part of the discussions? 

lastly, somewhere in the rulebook i believe that there is a statement that essentially addresses this generically- regardless of the outcome, the judges decisions are final. i can not cite chapter and verse, but i am pretty sure its there. at least that is how it was discussed at the judges/handlers seminar i went to. 

so for better or for worse, you made a judgement call at the time. right or wrong, that was your determination that you made. stick to it. 

dennis


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

to branch off team, this is why we all need every now and then, a big group so you can plop a spair person in a chair and have a fake judge. Carol I like your keep saying numbers thing, BUT do not think I am smart enough to figger out odd or even while watching my dog and 'membering where the birds are. KInd of simple I am at times.

.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

sinned said:


> first off, i want to say thank you for having the courage to bring this up and talk about it. we ALL can learn from your recent experience. as long as we are civil and sportsmanlike, we all benefit from the discussion. i wish more people would have the stones to speak up.
> 
> you or your co-judge's points are irrelevant relevant to the situation. you were assigned the duty of judging as you were determined to be qualified by the intent of the rules. no 2 ways about it.
> 
> ...


Wow. New to the game huh?

/Paul


----------



## road kill (Feb 15, 2009)

In my efforts to teach my dog to be quiet at the line, I no longer shout his name or the cammand for a blind.

In fact, in almost all cases now I whisper "elvis" or "back."

I would bet that on a couple of occasions at least 1 of the judges did not hear the command.

PROPS to the OP!!!


stan b


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

One of the biggest problems in the game today is judges not having enough experience between the pair of them to make fair decisions for the dogs/handlers. I agree with Paul 100%. 

I will however commend Bud and his co-judge for having the humility to relent under these circumstances and actually learn from the situation. If they had not done that, everyone involved would have remained upset and no one would have benefitted. Also, thanks to Bud for bringing the topic to the forum. He did not have to "out" himself, but he did. I think this a great example of "learning on the job". Thanks for sharing it.


----------



## Mike Boyle (May 3, 2010)

Quick and maybe silly question.....

Is the dogs call name "Dog"? Because that could get confusing! I've heard of people naming their dogs some pretty odd things. I've seen a dog named D.O.G. pronounced: Dee-Oh-Gee.

Either way, I'm glad I wasn't in your shoes that day! Definitely tough spot.


----------



## Carol Cassity (Aug 19, 2004)

Ken Bora said:


> to branch off team, this is why we all need every now and then, a big group so you can plop a spair person in a chair and have a fake judge. Carol I like your keep saying numbers thing, BUT do not think I am smart enough to figger out odd or even while watching my dog and 'membering where the birds are. KInd of simple I am at times.
> 
> .


Yea - sometimes it is kind of funny - whoever is playing judge will go "1-5-17-29-2-4-6-those are even numbers, 8-10-12- you can send anytime now- 14". 

Multi tasking while on the line regards


----------



## GulfCoast (Sep 24, 2007)

No brainer: The judges released the dog. Tie goes to the dog.  Make note in book, watch that in next series. Time for rebird yet????


----------



## Squirm88 (Oct 30, 2008)

badbullgator said:


> Once the judge releases the dog there is no break. PERIOD! Judge said dog, dog left, dog did not break.


X3. I also agree with Corey. This seems to be a pretty well established norm and non issue in my opinion. A dog is released by the judges when they say "dog" or "#12" etc... A dog is free to go whenever it wants after that point and can therefore not break. 

This has happened to me a couple times as a handler of a dog that gets pretty high at tests and trials. When it happened judges have made no comment or issue at all. As a handler that is aware that the judges have released my dog, I do nothing either. I let my dog pick up the chickens and continue work like normal. If a handler were to call the dog back in or sit the dog after it has left, then that handler has given the judges something to judge.


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

sinned said:


> .... if there is a REAL case of judges misconduct, then i believe the proper way, or prefered way is to raise the issue with the hunt test committee or chair and let them sort it out.....
> dennis


I think they did O.K., waiting until end of series and saying they needed to talk. Ever called a committee meeting? Everything comes to a full stop, members are rounded up from all corners, often taking key folk away from other stakes causing them to stop as well while people are shifted about. an hour is lost and it is never good. all for the same result that they got they way they did it. But I also thank Bud for starting this thread. And for giving back. Good job friend.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Squirm88 said:


> X3. I also agree with Corey. This seems to be a pretty well established norm and non issue in my opinion. A dog is released by the judges when they say "dog" or "#12" etc... A dog is free to go whenever it wants after that point and can therefore not break.
> 
> This has happened to me a couple times as a handler of a dog that gets pretty high at tests and trials. When it happened judges have made no comment or issue at all.* As a handler that is aware that the judges have released my dog, I do nothing either. I let my dog pick up the chickens and continue work like normal. If a handler were to call the dog back in or sit the dog after it has left, then that handler has given the judges something to judge*.


I don't agree with that at all. As others have said, if a dog goes on his own after being released by the judges, it is not a break. And if It's not a break, then I am able to re-heel my dog as I wish without judges having anything to judge. I would rather nip the issue in the bud rather than let it slide and perhaps have a real break later on.

John


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

John Robinson said:


> I don't agree with that at all. As others have said, if a dog goes on his own after being released by the judges, it is not a break. And if It's not a break, then I am able to re-heel my dog as I wish without judges having anything to judge. I would rather nip the issue in the bud rather than let it slide and perhaps have a real break later on.
> 
> John


 
I generally agree with you here John unless......
a- there is an honor dog next to me.
b- it is a title run.
a- because it can be very unfair to the honor dog if I start a "Sit, here, heel" series of commands and the honor can and has (i felt so bad) think if it is not that dogs bird then it must be mine, and take off. 
b- because I have a tendency to be a selfish so and so now and then and WANT that title more than the ribbons leading up to it. Not saying right or wrong, just how I am.
　
.


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

A few here have made the statement that after the judge releases the dog, it is free to retrieve. I know that the field trial rule book is explicit on this subject...

"In all stakes, after the Judges have directed that a dog be ordered to retrieve, that dog is entitled to run in and retrieve and shall not be accused of breaking, or penalized for breaking, even though the Judges did not see or hear the handler send the dog."

I can not find similar language in the Hunt Test Rule book.

Can someone please point it out for me if it is there?

Anyone else believe that, in the absence of such language in the rule book, the OP made the correct call and applied the rule as written?


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

I learned something from this thread.

If I was the handler in this situation, and I KNEW for a fact, that my dog went on the JUDGES release,, I would have said "no Here" and leashed the dog, thanked the Judges.

But

I would have done that, not because I's a hero and enforced some standard I had, but rather ,I would have most definatly thought my dog *BROKE* because* I* dint send her.
and a break in* master* constitutes a failer.

Guess my dog hasnt broke as many times as I thunked she did.


Gooser


----------



## Mistyriver (May 19, 2005)

MooseGooser said:


> I learned something from this thread.
> 
> If I was the handler in this situation, and I KNEW for a fact, that my dog went on the JUDGES release,, I would have said "no Here" and leashed the dog, thanked the Judges.
> 
> ...




Gooser,

I would have probably done the same thing. Just my standard of training. If my dog goes before I release her then it would have been a No Here also. I guess the only person who really knows if the dog broke in this case mentioned is the Handler and if he/she let his/her dog go, then I am going to assume this will bite him or her in the butt some day.


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

captn Jack asked the good question!

Where does it say that (dog can go after judges release, and BEFORE the handlers) in a HT rule book?



Gooser


----------



## sinned (Feb 14, 2009)

ken-

yes, i have been part of one of these tribunals. they are not pleasant or very productive. that is not what i meant. 

if you have an issue i think the proper thing to do is take it up with one of the officials. the hunt test secretary or chairperson. THEY have to take it up with the judge. i think that no matter how innocent or well intentioned you might be approaching a judge, you could be considered harassing and unsportsmanlike.

my point is a conduct thing. even though they waited until after the series, other competitors and people from the gallery questioning the judges is not a good plan. can you see how a judge could interpret that as threatening or harassing? 

From the section 

*Judges’ Authority.* The Judges and the Hunting Test Committee are in total control of the mechanics within the framework of the Regulations. The Judges, _and the Judges alone_, determine and design the tests to be given.


----------



## Eric Johnson (Dec 23, 2004)

captainjack said:


> Can someone please point it out for me if it is there?
> 
> Anyone else believe that, in the absence of such language in the rule book, the OP made the correct call and applied the rule as written?


Chapter 3, Section 10 is pretty clear.

"Section 10. Send to Retrieve. Dogs shall be sent to
retrieve by handlers only when released by the Judges,
who shall then score each retrieve accordingly.

Judges shall call the number of the dog ordered to
retrieve rather than the name of the handler of the dog."


----------



## birdboy (Feb 9, 2009)

I think what it boils down to is, how honest of a person is the handler? No one knows your dog like you do, and you know good and well when you dog breaks. To argue a technicality like that is unsportsman like, in my opinion. I know we all want passes, points and ribbons; but at the end of the day, did you really earn it? Hunt tests are a team sport. The dog and handler are a team, not the dog and hadler and judges.


----------



## sinned (Feb 14, 2009)

glenn-

Chapter 3 of the HT. my book page 21. the rules say:

"*Section 10. Send to Retrieve. *Dogs shall be sent to retrieve by handlers only when released by the Judges, who shall then score each retrieve accordingly.

Judges shall call the number of the dog ordered to retrieve rather than the name of the handler of the dog."

a previous post referred to the requirement of the judges using the dogs number and other sections that use that language. i think others have pointed out that it is the _handler_ who sends the dog.

EDIT: Eric beat me to it. 

dennis


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

How do we know that the handler didn't send the dog?


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

After re-reading the OP. I have a couple of more opinions to throw out there.

1. There was no tie. The handler called the dog's name after the dog left to retrieve upon the judges release.

2. If you buy the argument that the dog did not break because this handler releases the dog with some type of mental telepathy, then the dog was handle on the mark when the handler gave a verbal command after the dog left the line to retrieve. You can not have it both ways.

3. If you know in your heart that your dog broke, then take your medicine and go train your dog. Don't try to get to the next series by saying that you have a two part release, the 1st part silent and then the 2nd part calling the dog's name after the dog is already in motion (Not syaing that happened in this case, just saying in general).


----------



## Bud Bass (Dec 22, 2007)

Thank you all for your input here. I am learning a lot, which is what my intent was in putting it on here. I left that day confused because many at the test I respected and they were telling us that we were wrong. Thank you Paul for your reply, it makes good sense, and you brought up some good and thoughtful points. I did and still do believe that it was a break. The rules state specifically "until ordered to do so", refering to making the retrieve. The judge can not and should not be giving orders to the dog, the judge was adressing the handler. This was the 2nd series and the same thing happened in the first with the same dog, just a little quicker. Many of you point out we should have given the handler a little slack and let it go, maybe you are correct there. I had forgotten or not placed importance on the difference between "dog" and the dogs number. It's been a long time since I was at a test where they actually called the number rather then "dog". I do believe if we had used the dogs number, the dog may not have taken off quite so quickly, if at all. Many of the participants there were field trialers, and I think the rule for field trials refered to by Captian Jack could be confusing things considerably. I really don't have much to say about those who are saying "tie goes to the runner". There was no tie. Clearly the dog went on "dog" and was not sent by the handler. The handler did send the dog quickly after he broke, but the dog was clearly over the line and running. This was strictly a issue of rule interpertation, and like I said, the rules state "until ordered to do so". How many of you agree that the judge's should handle your dog. But yes, we relented, and let it go this time, maybe we were being too strict on the rules, and allowing the dog to take himself out later. We did learn a lot here, and I feel a lot better about the test now, after reading your comments, then I did Friday night, second guessing if we were right or not.


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

captainjack said:


> A few here have made the statement that after the judge releases the dog, it is free to retrieve. I know that the field trial rule book is explicit on this subject...
> 
> "In all stakes, after the Judges have directed that a dog be ordered to retrieve, that dog is entitled to run in and retrieve and shall not be accused of breaking, or penalized for breaking, even though the Judges did not see or hear the handler send the dog."
> 
> ...


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

FOM said:


> How do we know that the handler didn't send the dog?


We know this because the OP said that the handler made no motion, sounds, etc..., the judge called dog, the dog left the line to retrieve, and then the handler called the dogs name.

If the handler had not called the dog's name, the argument would be more valid.

We also know that the AKC HT rules committee did not adopt the same language that the FT folks did that would settle this disagreement. The latest FT rule book was revised 2009, the HT rule book was revised in November 2010. They must have had a reason not to include it.


----------



## tim bonnema (Jul 3, 2010)

IMHO 
Did the dog break? Yea
Do most judges give tie to the dog? Yea.
Was your interpretation wrong? Something to take up with AKC.
I do not think you should have let the gallery sway you, If in question talk to the Marshall and hunt committee
If it was my dog I can not say what I would have done except if dog takes off I would keep mouth shut.If dropped I know why and what to work on.

I like it when the judge uses "DOG" mine is named Taz, close to many numbers.


----------



## Squirm88 (Oct 30, 2008)

John Robinson said:


> I don't agree with that at all. As others have said, if a dog goes on his own after being released by the judges, it is not a break. And if It's not a break, then I am able to re-heel my dog as I wish without judges having anything to judge. I would rather nip the issue in the bud rather than let it slide and perhaps have a real break later on.
> 
> John


John,

I agree that from a training stand point it is best to nip this issue in the bud. I do not disagree that it is beneficial to have high standards and always maintain them. I also understand you may want to call Fido back in, so he doesn't break on the honor you'll be doing next.

In our situation Fido takes off on the retrieve as soon judges call "dog". Handler immediately gives a subtle "no here", by which point Fido like most fast dogs is 10 feet from the line. Dog returns to heel and is resent by handler on the same mark it was going to before. I'm pretty sure you just gave the judges something to judge. 

I can see where a judge can judge it as a recast or as confusion. Perhaps a judge can incorrectly call it a creep or a controlled break. My point is that it could possibly affect your trainability score, where as letting the dog pick up the mark should not affect your score.

To the OP, perhaps my understanding of this rule is also tainted by the field trial rules. I apologize if I am incorrect as to how this rule applies to hunt tests. Like I said earlier this is how the rules have been applied in the couple hunt tests I have ran in my area.


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

Has anyone ever been to a Seminar?  This was always a point of emphasis at every seminar I've attended.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

MooseGooser said:


> captn Jack asked the good question!
> 
> Where does it say that (dog can go after judges release, and BEFORE the handlers) in a HT rule book?
> 
> ...


I don't think it says it. Someone posted the rule toward the begining of the thread and it said the dog couldn't go until it was directed to retrieve by the handler. Some are looking at using field trial language, where it doesn't matter what, the dog is free to retrieve after the judges give a number, even if the handler doesn't send him. Other's are saying that judges may not have any idea how a certain handler sends his dog, so they may be lenient in giving the handler the benefit of doubt even if they didn't see the handler send his dog in an obvious way.

As for those of you that would just pick up their dog, thank the judges and walk away, that's fine, but I would put it in the judges hand by re-heeling my dog, lining him up and sending him. If the judges want to call it a break, they can stop me and let me know we're dismissed. I don't want to waste anybody's time, but on borderline calls I let the judges judge while I run my dog.

John


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

Doug Main said:


> Has anyone ever been to a Seminar?  This was always a point of emphasis at every seminar I've attended.


Doug, I have not been to a HT test seminar in about 20 years... what is the consensus on this issue?


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

to live to play in the next series you beter yell,"Sit, here" or "Sit, here, heel" 'cause "NO! HERE!" will get you tossed by most.


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

Doug Main said:


> Has anyone ever been to a Seminar?  This was always a point of emphasis at every seminar I've attended.


I've only been to one seminar and it was not mentioned at all.

You say it was a point of emphasis, but you didn't say what was was emphasized. Did the dog in question break according to what was emphasized at the seminars you have attended?


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

What Lainee said.

The judge calling dog is not a further test of steadyness, but rather a judge indicating they have seen enough evidence of steadyness. 

By calling dog, you're indicating the dog was steady enough, in your opinion, to be released to retrieve. If the dog goes on "dog", or its number, then so be it.

We all know this handler/dog probably has an issue with breaking. That's the handler's problem, not the judges. Let him/her deal with it or pay for it down the road. This dog was steady enough that the judge released it. Shouldn't drop the dog for that. (i wanted to say "can't" drop the dog, but that's obviously not true lol )

SM


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Squirm88 said:


> John,
> 
> I agree that from a training stand point it is best to nip this issue in the bud. I do not disagree that it is beneficial to have high standards and always maintain them. I also understand you may want to call Fido back in, so he doesn't break on the honor you'll be doing next.
> 
> ...



David, I just run field trials now. In field trials there are Serious, Moderate and Minor Faults, we don't have a trainability score per se. I watch my dog like a hawk as I'm lining him up and the birds are going down, so I am pretty quick with a "SIT" if he breaks on his number, usually within a stride and a half. Hunt tests might be different with the trainability score, but no field trial judge is going to score you down for sitting and re-heeling your dog as I described. Now they may, or may not make note of a big creep. BTW that is another area where a handler has to make a judgement call on whether to re-heel his dog and send from the mat. You want to instill dicipline, but hate to take focus away from the go-bird and potentially effect that mark.

John


----------



## Rick_C (Dec 12, 2007)

"This was the 2nd series and the same thing happened in the first with the same dog, just a little quicker."

So, if the same dog did the same thing in the 1st series, and you called them back, why did you want to drop them in the 2nd series for doing the same thing?

If you feel so strongly that you were acting within the rules, and that the handler did not release the dog, why did you not drop the dog in the first?


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

captainjack said:


> I've only been to one seminar and it was not mentioned at all.
> 
> You say it was a point of emphasis, but you didn't say what was was emphasized. Did the dog in question break according to what was emphasized at the seminars you have attended?


No, it was not a break.

It's hard to believe it wasn't mentioned. Who was the rep?


----------



## Squirm88 (Oct 30, 2008)

John Robinson said:


> David, I just run field trials now. In field trials there are Serious, Moderate and Minor Faults, we don't have a trainability score per se. I watch my dog like a hawk as I'm lining him up and the birds are going down, so I am pretty quick with a "SIT" if he breaks on his number, usually within a stride and a half. Hunt tests might be different with the trainability score, but no field trial judge is going to score you down for sitting and re-heeling your dog as I described. Now they may, or may not make note of a big creep. BTW that is another area where a handler has to make a judgement call on whether to re-heel his dog and send from the mat. You want to instill dicipline, but hate to take focus away from the go-bird and potentially effect that mark.
> 
> John


John I completely agree with what you said. In the end the handler should know their dog and what course of action is best.

From my limited minor stakes experience a dog that does this consistently will be hurting himself more than how the judges may score it.


----------



## savage25xtreme (Dec 4, 2009)

Doug Main said:


> No, it was not a break.
> 
> It's hard to believe it wasn't mentioned. Who was the rep?


I was at a HT judging seminar this weekend and it was not mentioned. I just emailed 2 friends both with over 25 years of experience they both said it was not a break, at least on paper.


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

I've seen too many dogs accidentally sent by judges, who yell their release at handlers, on one particular occasion it was demanding enough to make me break a few steps . The judges know they released and sent the dog. Now I know the OP say it was a soft command, but... dog hearing is much better, tone travels, might've been a case of confusion. Good for the judges for adapting. If the ruling stood it would be considered one of those nit-picky rule interpretations that are often times used not to test dogs but to cut them. Those type of rulings never sit well with anyone. We are testing hunting dogs to a standard, no dog has to be completely prefect every-time, mistakes can be made, as long as they are not patterns. It's the job of the judges to determine habit, if it concerns them, they'll make a note and test the dog for it later . Wait a little longer to release the dog in the next series, ask the handler to re-heel the dog before release, put a breaking bird into the next series, throw the marks then run a blind before retrieving. There are many ways to honestly fail-pass a questionable dog on steadiness and control, without having to make such cut-throat decisions. 5-10 mins more in the next series to avoid hours worth of participant grumbling, and leaving a bad taste in everyone's mouth. Good Job Judges!!!


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

Heres what Gundog posted as to the rules earlier.

Chapter 3 section 10 - section 10. send to retrieve. *Dogs shall be sent to retrieve by handlers only when released by the Judges, who shall then score each retrieve accordingly.*
Judges shall call the number of the dog ordered to retrieve rather than the name of the handler of the dog.

Guide for Dealing with Interpretational Issues – Page 46 - break. It is generally understood that a break occurs when a dog makes a movement, that, in the opinion of the Judges, indicates a deliberate intent to retrieve with- out having been ordered to do so, and cannot be brought under control by the handler.

Serious Dog Faults – Page 59 - 1. Breaking – by either the working or the honoring dog is a mandatory elimination at Master (as there is no controlled break at Master).


It says released by handlers . doesnt it??

The original question stated specifically the both judges agreed that dog went before the HANDLER sent it.

so,,,
dog broke 

dog is out!


Gooser


----------



## Brad B (Apr 29, 2004)

FOM said:


> The tie goes to the dog/handler.
> 
> You can not judge intent or how a person handles...there is no rule that says the dog/handler must wait x number of seconds before sending, the dog/handler were released by the judge.
> 
> FOM


My thoughts as well. Smart handler should have just stood there and not tried to say the dogs name at all.


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

Dog didn't break. I don't think it has anything to do with the "honesty" of the handler etc. Rules are rules. I wouldn't even note it in my judges book.

If you wanted to get technical, how do you know the handler doesn't send his dog on "dog". Judges called his name and dog went.


----------



## Rick_C (Dec 12, 2007)

MooseGooser said:


> Heres what Gundog posted as to the rules earlier.
> 
> Chapter 3 section 10 - section 10. send to retrieve. *Dogs shall be sent to retrieve by handlers only when released by the Judges, who shall then score each retrieve accordingly.*
> Judges shall call the number of the dog ordered to retrieve rather than the name of the handler of the dog.
> ...


This is why it would be so great to have AKC reps as posters...So we could get the real answer.

I've only been in the game for 3 or 4 years but every single person that I've ever heard talk about this issue has said that once the dog is released by the judges, there cannot be a break. Until today on RTF that is.


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

MooseGooser said:


> Heres what Gundog posted as to the rules earlier.
> 
> Chapter 3 section 10 - section 10. send to retrieve. *Dogs shall be sent to retrieve by handlers only when released by the Judges, who shall then score each retrieve accordingly.*
> Judges shall call the number of the dog ordered to retrieve rather than the name of the handler of the dog.
> ...


No, it says RELEASED by judge, SENT by handler. Your engineer side is showing...


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

Shayne Mehringer said:


> ....The judge calling dog is not a further test of steadyness, but rather a judge indicating they have seen enough evidence of steadyness.
> 
> By calling dog, you're indicating the dog was steady enough, in your opinion, to be released to retrieve.......
> 
> SM


that is very well put. anything after that is on the handler to do with it what they may, or may not choose 


.


----------



## sinned (Feb 14, 2009)

huntinman said:


> No, it says RELEASED by judge, SENT by handler. Your engineer side is showing...


my engineer mind reads it as the *handler* is released by the judges to send the dog on the retrieve.


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

sinned said:


> my engineer mind reads it as the *handler* is released by the judges to send the dog on the retrieve.


Either way, released is the key word.


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

Dogs shall be sent to retriever by handlers only when released by judges ...............

So,, the way I read it is:

The HANDLER sends the dog when the Judge tells him its ok.

If the Judge tells the handler its OK,, but the dog goes before the HANDLER sends it,, then part of the requirement is missing...... RIGHT???

The dog went before it was commanded to.

the derned dog broke!!!

Look gawl dern it!! I am very experienced with breakin dogs!!:razz:
Dont go tellin me now after all this time and pant ****T%%# I've done,, that my dog wasnt breakin!!

Seriously,, You guys are gonna force me back into councilin!!


Gooser


----------



## blindfaith (Feb 5, 2006)

Shayne and Doug said it well but I'll add my two cents. Absolutely the dog does NOT get called on a break and it's been mentioned at a number of seminars which I have attended. If a judge wants to really test this issue, he/she can do what my co-judge and I did in a master. Since the rules do not say that the first words out of the judges mouth release the dog..we decided that I would say " nice shot" after the last bird hit the ground and then say " dog" to release the dog to retrieve. Some handlers worried, no dog broke and it was a realistic scenario. Best guess...the dog in the original post would probably have went on " nice shot" and have been dropped. Just to avoid some of the comments that often occur, I whispered the words as opposed to yelling them loudly which often occurs when hunting at home! Also we can joke about " mental telepathy" but it is impossible to know with certainty that a very soft verbal command was not given or a subtle hand gesture, hence the way the rule is interpreted. Same applies when running a blind...in theory you could judge the dog fairly well without even seeing the handler ( and again I'm not suggesting that as a strategy). I'm also sure that Bill Autrey ( Louisiana pro) has sent a number of dogs and the judges did not hear the send command even though it was given.
Just my thoughts...presented with a little trepidation but I'm feeling 10 foot tall today.
Bill Butikas


----------



## John Lash (Sep 19, 2006)

MooseGooser said:


> Dogs shall be sent to retriever by handlers only when released by judges ...............
> 
> So,, the way I read it is:
> 
> ...


Hmmm, maybe instead of counciling you might could be an honest to goodness AKC rep. Or an interpeter at least.

I don't know anything about hunt tests but it looks like what was written over the last few pages supports the "dog broke" idea according to the rules as they are written.

Looks like there's a carryover from the field trial rules where it's OK to go on your number, even though that's not what is written in the hunt test rules.


----------



## Breck (Jul 1, 2003)

Once a judge releases the dog story over. Go get 'um.
However, in this case i think the problem was the judges using the word "dog" to release the dog.
Judges that don't use the dogs number to call the dog to line and release the dog are missing an opportunity to verify they have the right page open in their book. Could be judging the wrong dog.


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

OH JEEZE Breck.

I dont give a dern what the Judge says.
I dont think my dog gives dingle what page the judge gots his book on!!:razz:
If a dog leaves before a handler tells it to,,,,,, the dog broke!!

Ya gonna apply this interpretation on the Honor dog?

It (honor dog) hears the same "dog" or "good Shot" or "Lucky number 7"
or "BBBBBBBBBOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOYAAAAAAAAAAAA"!!!!!

the dog cant move till the handler tells it to

Is this the outerlimits??


Gooser showin his age!:razz:

Gooser


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

John Lash said:


> Hmmm, maybe instead of counciling you might could be an honest to goodness AKC rep. Or an interpeter at least.
> 
> I don't know anything about hunt tests but it looks like what was written over the last few pages supports the "dog broke" idea according to the rules as they are written.
> 
> Looks like there's a carryover from the field trial rules where it's OK to go on your number, even though that's not what is written in the hunt test rules.


Except for the fact you are asking the judges to make a determination on whether dog was sent after he was released. In the OP's case it sounds like the dog wasn't sent, hence the handler saying his name after the dog had left the line and was on his way to the bird, so by the letter of the HT law he probably broke. My point is that the dog was apparently steady all through the duck calls, shots being fired, birds in the air and falling to the ground, then a few second delay after the last bird went down before the judge calls dog (should be a number), are you really going to drop a dog because you think (you can't be sure there isn't some subtle command that dog and handler use to communicate on the send) the dog went on "dog"? I believe in enforcing rules, and maybe I do have a more FT sensibility, but I sure wouldn't.


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

but gooser,
that hole time that honor dog handler is allowed to be softly wispering how he better be keeping his nappy but glued to the mat or he will be sorry. It's grapes vs. rasins.


.


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

seriously!!

Next time I run a hunt test,, and the Judge releases me,, and my dern fool dog doesnt move,, I'm a gonna step out in front of her and throw my hands up and ask her "WHAT YA WAITIN ON?????"

I'm gonna have to rent a Judge to go with me huntin,, to say "dog"
or "Number" or "ya missed ,,,,ya yack".... now?????

??????????????????

Gooser


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

Ken Bora said:


> but gooser,
> that hole time that honor dog handler is allowed to be softly wispering how he better be keeping his nappy but glued to the mat or he will be sorry. It's grapes vs. rasins.
> 
> 
> .


But just a minute ago,, it was OK fer him to go on a JUDGES noise!!!!

????????????????????

I'm lost!!!

Gooser


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

ltrollin said:


> Badbullgator does this mean the judge releases the dog?


 
No, not as in the judge sends the dog. The judge releases the handler to release the dog. How that handler has trained his dog to go from the line is not my issue as a judge. For all I know the dog left on a signal that I didn't see or hear. Under the rules the only time I can call this instance a break is when I have dictated that he be steady and that is only up to the point that I call dog. 
FWIW- I have seen dogs sent in so many ways, people wisper, filck their hand, shout so loud that you want to go..... once you have been released it is up to you.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

MooseGooser said:


> OH JEEZE Breck.
> 
> I dont give a dern what the Judge says.
> I dont think my dog gives dingle what page the judge gots his book on!!:razz:
> ...


Gooser, if a dog is steady all through that, and doesn't budge an inch until you have released the dog handler team, how do you know if the handler sent him or not? Do the rules state how a handler must release his dog? All you know for sure is that the dog was steady, you the judge gave a number and the dog went. The rules don't say the handler has to command the dog verbally, the handler just has to send his dog. I'll admit I'm stretching it a bit here, but how much proof of steadyness do you as a judge need to see?

John


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

Ken Bora said:


> but gooser,
> that hole time that honor dog handler is allowed to be softly wispering how he better be keeping his nappy but glued to the mat or he will be sorry. It's grapes vs. rasins.
> 
> 
> .


BUTTTTTTT

Just a minute earlier we let him go when the judge farted!!~~ er said "farted" er said "Nice job Gooser" or "What the hell page is I's on"?:razz:

Do we use a HT as a tool to reward bad habits?

Gooser


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

John Daniels said:


> Just out of curiosity, what was the dogs call name?


I think it was Doug


----------



## Final Flight Retrievers (Jan 23, 2010)

Bud Bass said:


> Thank you all for your input here. I am learning a lot, which is what my intent was in putting it on here. I left that day confused because many at the test I respected and they were telling us that we were wrong. Thank you Paul for your reply, it makes good sense, and you brought up some good and thoughtful points. I did and still do believe that it was a break. The rules state specifically "until ordered to do so", refering to making the retrieve. The judge can not and should not be giving orders to the dog, the judge was adressing the handler. This was the 2nd series and the same thing happened in the first with the same dog, just a little quicker. Many of you point out we should have given the handler a little slack and let it go, maybe you are correct there. I had forgotten or not placed importance on the difference between "dog" and the dogs number. It's been a long time since I was at a test where they actually called the number rather then "dog". I do believe if we had used the dogs number, the dog may not have taken off quite so quickly, if at all. Many of the participants there were field trialers, and I think the rule for field trials refered to by Captian Jack could be confusing things considerably. I really don't have much to say about those who are saying "tie goes to the runner". There was no tie. Clearly the dog went on "dog" and was not sent by the handler. The handler did send the dog quickly after he broke, but the dog was clearly over the line and running. This was strictly a issue of rule interpertation, and like I said, the rules state "until ordered to do so". How many of you agree that the judge's should handle your dog. But yes, we relented, and let it go this time, maybe we were being too strict on the rules, and allowing the dog to take himself out later. We did learn a lot here, and I feel a lot better about the test now, after reading your comments, then I did Friday night, second guessing if we were right or not.


and now for the rest of the story...........should of included this in your opening statement..........NO one on this board including myself knows what really happened at the line except for YOU, your CO-JUDGE and the HANDLER.......you both made your decision.... now stand by your decision............shame on you for being bullied by the gallery...I wish I never clicked on this thread


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

MooseGooser said:


> BUTTTTTTT
> 
> Just a minute earlier we let him go when the judge farted!!~~ er said "farted" er said "Nice job Gooser" or "What the hell page is I's on"?:razz:
> 
> ...


It's up to you as the handler to let the bad habit slide. It will only hurt you in the long run. Like I said earlier, I would force the issue by sitting and re-heeling my dog if I felt he truly did go on his number. This might put me out of a hunt test if more judges were as strict in intrepreting the rule as you are, but I only run field trials now, so it's not a problem.
John


----------



## Breck (Jul 1, 2003)

Gooser, I know exactly what youz is sayin'. But, it is not a break if the dog didn't leave to retrieve before the judge released him. Nothing else matters. The reason for this is the judges have no idea what method the handler uses to release his dog. While we all know that most everyone puts a hand in and says "Gunner" and the damn dog that broke in the test is going to get an ass woopin in training next week, you still can't judge it a break if a dog leaves the line after the judges gives the word.
Dats dat.

As for an honor dog he is never given permission to retrieve anyway so he's done.



MooseGooser said:


> OH JEEZE Breck.
> 
> I dont give a dern what the Judge says.
> I dont think my dog gives dingle what page the judge gots his book on!!:razz:
> ...


----------



## MarkyMark (Jun 5, 2010)

*The handler did send the dog, by saying its name, after the dog had already left the line.*
So why did the handler say it's name???


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

How come,with the group i train with now, waits until somone in the group say a number befoe they send the dog,if it dont matter.

...??????????

I,m so lost!

What if the judge sittin behind you is usin a radio to call for the birds?

Bird 1.............. Bird 2.............. And 3!!!!!!

Thems numbers........


Gooser


----------



## Breck (Jul 1, 2003)

For the same reason a handler blows the whistle just before his dog is going to pop. 



MarkyMark said:


> *The handler did send the dog, by saying its name, after the dog had already left the line.*
> So why did the handler say it's name???


----------



## djansma (Aug 26, 2004)

as soon as I say a number or dog the dog is released you do not have to give a command to the dog just as you do not need to use a whistle or any voice commands 
and I agree tie goes to the Runner!!
David Jansma


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

MooseGooser said:


> But just a minute ago,, it was OK fer him to go on a JUDGES noise!!!!
> 
> ????????????????????
> 
> ...


you switched to honor dog topic, honor dog ain't scent or released, he is excuesed by the judges. You branched off. Focus Mike Focus


.


----------



## moonstonelabs (Mar 17, 2006)

You did the right thing by letting the dog continue. You released the dog....the dog was free to retrieve. My major problem with hunt tests and some FTs are judges that use the "letter of the law" vs "the spirit of the law". In this case the dog did not leave untill you, the judge , gave a release. In my mind you meet the spirit and intent of the rule.

Tests should have enough meat in them that such a minor issue as the dog leaving on "dog" should not make a difference on the outcome.

I have run when the judge forgot to give me a number or say dog...I had to turn around and look at the judge who then realized what had happened then gave me a nod to send my dog.

I am glad you raised the issue for better understanding. Most experience judges just laugh in a situation like yours and say something like "oh, his name is dog"

Bill


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

Breck said:


> For the same reason a handler blows the whistle just before his dog is going to pop.


 
Chunks a my arse is missin cause I did this!!

Gooser

I think the reason in training the people in the group will call a number, is to get the dog use to not going on anything else but the handlers voice.

Even AFTER a number is called, many in the group will make the dog wait a time longer.


If its not a big deal at a test or trial,, hows come time is being "wasted" working on this??

I think it IS a big deal'

If it wasnt,, then they would copy other venues that just tell you dog can send,, as soon as last bird is down! Judge doesnt release you,, and they test steadyness as the birds are being thrown....... Period.

Gooser


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

Ken Bora said:


> you switched to honor dog topic, honor dog ain't scent or released, he is excuesed by the judges. You branched off. Focus Mike Focus
> 
> 
> .


Dog still had to wait for me to tell it to move and "heel" with me back to the truck. It still heard the Judge tell the *working dog* "DOG" or what ever,, and will hear the judge tell "Honor dog is excused" 

If its OK to let the dog go the first time the Judge talks,, why wouldnt it be OK the second time??

Tryin hard to focus!

REALLLY!!!!!!

Gooser


----------



## BBnumber1 (Apr 5, 2006)

First, I have never run a HT before. Second, based on the descriptions, I THINK this dog broke, but the rules leave an interpretation available to the judge.

Here is a hypothetical:

_I train my dog so that once I take a small step back, the next word is his release._
_At a test, the birds go down, I take a step back (teilling the dog he is free to retrieve on the next command), and Judge says 'dog'. Dog is released by that command._

Highly unlikely, but a plausible way to train a dog to retrieve.....

oil on the fire, regards.....


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

MooseGooser said:


> Dog still had to wait for me to tell it to move and "heel" with me back to the truck. It still heard the Judge tell the *working dog* "DOG" or what ever,, and will hear the judge tell "Honor dog is excused"
> 
> If its OK to let the dog go the first time the Judge talks,, why wouldnt it be OK the second time??
> 
> ...


Gooser, now I'm thinking you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. In the first case the judge released the working dog. The working dog and handler are on their own at that point. The honor dog has to honor until the judge releases him. I believe if that judge said "you're excused" and the honor dog started walking offline toward the trucks, there wouldn't be any issue. As usual I am watching my dog like a hawk and as soon as I hear "you're excused" I quietly say "heel" and walk my dog off line.

My old dog Yoda never broke on an honor but he used to give me heart attacks. His habit on honor was to sit fine until the first bird went down, then he would calmly stand up, take a slow step forward on the next one and start to slowly walk into the test after the last bird down. This was usually after a particularly good job on the marks. The working dog was off and running and the judge would see my dog out there and hurridly say "you're excused"!, and I would heel him back and off line. From the jist of these post, FT judges are apparently way more lenient than HT judges. Yoda would have probably been dropped in a Master HT.

John


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

Doug Main said:


> No, it was not a break.
> 
> It's hard to believe it wasn't mentioned. Who was the rep?


Did any of the reps at the seminars you attended say why the HT rules committee chose not to clarify in the rule book as the FT folks did? 

I mean really, the FT folks got together and said we are going to take this call out of the hands of the judges. So they added sentence or two to the rule book.

The HT rule committee also says we are going to take this call out of the hands of the judges, but we are going the leave the rule book to say just the opposite of what we want. We are going to make this a point of emphasis at the seminars to not follow the rules.


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

per the rule book!

*6." If a handler is doing something unusual (for*
*example, giving a line to a dog before a bird is thrown)*
*that might indicate weak marking ability, do not hesitate*
*to advise him or her that the actions can adversely affect*​*the dog’s scores."*

So if a handler id doing something unusal to send his dod. Whisper,, clicker,, step back, sneeze what ever. Then I as a judge am going to use the rule above to let him know that his unusualness MY be affecting the outcome of his test.

I will tell him I need to understand or see ,how he is releasing his dog, so I know if he has met the requirement stated earlier.


Gppser


----------



## sinned (Feb 14, 2009)

why do people insist that the dog is released when the judge says 'dog?' what is the point of the handler then? No where in the rules does it say Judge directing the dog. just because many of you have experienced poor or inconsistent judging does not make it right. 

"Chap 4, Standards for Junior, senior and Master Hunting Tests

Section 5. When ordered to retrieve, a dog shall proceed quickly and eagerly on land or into the water to marked falls, or on the line given it by its *handler* on falls it has not seen. A dog shall not disturb too much ground or area and should respond quickly and obediently to any further directions its *handler* might give.

A dog that pays no attention to many whistles and/or directions by its *handler* can be assumed to be weak in response, and unless in the opinion of the Judges there exist valid mitigating circumstances, the dog shall be graded low or receive a grade of “0” in Trainability. "

(Emphasis is mine)

If you want to cite the spirit of the law, its pretty clear what is expected of the dog and handler by reading ALL of the rules, not just selectively, creatively interpreting the sections that are convenient to your argument. 

"Judges are not required to rationalize their scores for handlers." 

The OP said that he and the other judge felt that the dog was not steady in both of the series they watched and disqualified him for not meeting the standard. Bottom line, this trumps all the half baked judge sends dog, break/no brake vacillations.


----------



## sinned (Feb 14, 2009)

captainjack said:


> I mean really, the FT folks got together and said we are going to take this call out of the hands of the judges.


Glenn- there is a process and committee that decides and votes on these matters. it is not a vote amongst the general population. iirc, from the seminar that i atttended this spring, there is a rep on the committee from each time zone plus 2 others plus the rep from AKC. handlers lobby the committee to put issues on the table.


----------



## Cthomas (Sep 21, 2003)

The dog did not break.

A few years back it happened at one of Wis Am's Hunt Tests in Wisconsin. The AKC rep was asked. He said it was not a break.

AKC has also said this at several judges seminars I have taken. Like it or not that is the convention. Judges release the dog. After that, how can we, as judges, know how the handler releases the dog? They do it all sorts of different ways. Should we make a list and post them in the regs as to accepted release commands? What if the handler whispers the command and you never hear it? Do the regs say "should or shall" about release commands and their volume? Judge what you see. 

As to Judges saying "dog". 
Try sitting in the sun, heat, cold, rain or high wind for two days at a Master test. There are lots of things going on all at once. It is easy to zone out from being exhausted, or become temporarily confused because your judges book pages are blowing all over heck, or sticking together from the rain, or whatever. It happens. Get over it. Maybe if youse guys and gals would double our pay. . . 

Chris


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

Rick_C said:


> This is why it would be so great to have AKC reps as posters...So we could get the real answer.
> 
> I've only been in the game for 3 or 4 years but every single person that I've ever heard talk about this issue has said that once the dog is released by the judges, there cannot be a break. Until today on RTF that is.


Who do you think the AKC reps are? They are just folks like you and me who know what they know. I promise you that AKC reps, or any other reps on any subject for that matter, are not all knowing. The rule book is where the answer lies.

And the HT rules are crystal clear. The only way folks can justify a no break decision is through emphasis at a judges seminar or trying to apply the FT rules to the HT game.

At a HT, the dog broke.

At a FT, the dog did not break.

This is black and white, ther is no room for interpretation.


----------



## John Lash (Sep 19, 2006)

captainjack said:


> Did any of the reps at the seminars you attended say why the HT rules committee chose not to clarify in the rule book as the FT folks did?
> 
> I mean really, the FT folks got together and said we are going to take this call out of the hands of the judges. So they added sentence or two to the rule book.
> 
> The HT rule committee also says we are going to take this call out of the hands of the judges, but we are going the leave the rule book to say just the opposite of what we want. We are going to make this a point of emphasis at the seminars to not follow the rules.


Well put, you said what I was thinking of saying, and worded it better than I would have.

People complain about "unwritten rules." 

I agree that no one knows how you send your dog so they shouldn't be penalized for going on their number. It's plainly spelled out in the FT rules, not so much in the HT rules at least as they're quoted here. It pretty much says the opposite of what they expect judges do.


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

MarkyMark said:


> *The handler did send the dog, by saying its name, after the dog had already left the line.*
> So why did the handler say it's name???


I asked this question on page 2 or 3. 7 pages later there is no answer. The reason there is no answer is that it doesn't support the argument that the dog did not break.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

captainjack said:


> I asked this question on page 2 or 3. 7 pages later there is no answer. The reason there is no answer is that it doesn't support the argument that the dog did not break.


So Glen, would you have dropped that dog?


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

John Daniels said:


> 6. Applies to doing something that would indicate weak marking ability. How would a whisper, clicker, or sneeze indicate weak marking ability? And what does it have to do with how the handler releases their dog?


No but the unusual way in which a handler sends his dog COULD affect how the judge asesses wether or not the handler sent the dog before it went.

THAT is a requirement per the rules!

We established that didnt we,, or are we reading past that??

Gooser


----------



## Good Dogs (Nov 1, 2005)

Judges released the dog. Dog got the bird. No problem.
You cannot know how the handler sends pup. You released, pup went.
Judge what you see, not what you "know."


----------



## sinned (Feb 14, 2009)

glenn-

last spring i raised the issue of poor revision disclosure in the latest HT rulebook. part of the discussion was who the committee was. all the committee regional members were high point HT judges and if i recall all were well known and well regarded. it was not just any tom, dick or harry.


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

moonstonelabs said:


> You did the right thing by letting the dog continue. *You released the dog....the dog was free to retrieve.* ...


This statement is not supported by HT rule. But many on here know that, so they use your next statment to justify the decision to allow the dog to continue. 



moonstonelabs said:


> ... My major problem with hunt tests and some FTs are judges that use the "letter of the law" vs "the spirit of the law". ...
> Bill


Yet we see dogs and handlers dismissed every single test for saying the first little peep before being released by the judges. What is the spirit of that rule? I've been told that it is related to intimidation. Yet if you say "good" or anything else in the kindest, gentlest voice...

BAM! Pack your bags and get out of my test!

The FT folks did the right thing. They thought it shouldn't be a break, so they took two seconds and fixed it.


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

John Robinson said:


> So Glen, would you have dropped that dog?


If the dog was rocking forward and maybe front feet moving before the handler said the dog's name, I'd probably give the dog and handler the benefit of the doubt (assuming my co-judge was in agreement). 

I'd probably let the handler know this. I have had judges let me know I was on thin ice for different reasons (mainly line manners in general) and I appreciated knowing that going to the next.

I'd zero the dog if it was worse in the 2nd.

Edit: But I might also pretend like I didn't hear a minor slip of the tongue in the 1st, and probably wouldn't send a dog to the exit for the handler not shouldering the gun in the 1st. The 2nd would be a different story.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

MooseGooser said:


> No but the unusual way in which a handler sends his dog COULD affect how the judge asesses wether or not the handler sent the dog before it went.
> 
> THAT is a requirement per the rules!
> 
> ...


Gooser why in the great scheme of things is it so important for you to access whether or how the handler sent the dog after you released him? You are really dancing on the head of a pin with this, when there is so much more to be concerned about. Believe me, if a certain dog is prone to breaking, it is going to happen sooner or later in a much more obvious manner.

John


----------



## John Kelder (Mar 10, 2006)

I count to 3 silently when judging before the dog is released . I don't care if your dog is skipping across the lilies in a shallow pond .or like a statue next to you .I have found it very unfair to keep a dog longer than another because of the dogs actions in a previous series or the current series . You are judging the dog to a standard .SO each and every dog shall be released in the same period of elapsed time to keep things equal to that standard .Or else it is not a standard .I have had discussions on this subject and many feel the need to see if that particular dog will break .What is fair about waiting 4 seconds for dog 45 and 1 second for dog 46 ?
And to the OP - I was in artillery for 4 years - if your dog left after I said your number , its because you sent the dog.Dogs butt cheeks in view heading for the bird proves it .Don't need to hear it for it to be true regards............


----------



## Breck (Jul 1, 2003)

Sinned
The reason everyone is "insisting" is because there is no way judges can tell what some handlers are or aren't doing on line when they send their dog. 
Some handlers are subtle, move very little, bend at the waist and speak to their dog in whispers. 
Even if you stand right behind them you can't hear a thing they're saying. 

PS
This is a tip for those of you that yell at your dog.


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

Nobody gonna rate this thread?

She's the most popular girl at the party!


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

Breck said:


> Sinned
> The reason everyone is "insisting" is because there is no way judges can tell what some handlers are or aren't doing on line when they send their dog.
> Some handlers are subtle, move very little, bend at the waist and speak to their dog in whispers.
> Even if you stand right behind them you can't hear a thing they're saying.
> ...


There is one way to tell. It is when the handler calls the dog's name after its on the way to the bird.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

captainjack said:


> There is one way to tell. It is when the handler calls the dog's name after its on the way to the bird.


It's like Yooda, have a nice trip.... That was pretty telling in the OP's situation. 

What is interesting to me is that though the rules are clearly different in hunt test, most polled here and at that HT's gallery, including many high point HT judges believe the FT interpretation takes precedent. I don't judge HT, but if I did, this is one rule that I would not be hard core about. I'd probably talk to the handler as you suggest and watch for it in the next series or two.

John


----------



## Rick_C (Dec 12, 2007)

MooseGooser said:


> OH JEEZE Breck.
> 
> I dont give a dern what the Judge says.
> I dont think my dog gives dingle what page the judge gots his book on!!:razz:
> ...


Apples and Oranges. The honor dog can't move/leave until released by the judges. In every test I've been in that was done by the judge saying "Honor dog is excused". 

And I can't remember ever being released on anything but "dog". I was surprised that the rule says the judges *shall* release the dog on his number.

(see that release word again Gooser :razz: )



Ken Bora said:


> but gooser,
> that hole time that honor dog handler is allowed to be softly wispering how he better be keeping his nappy but glued to the mat or he will be sorry. It's grapes vs. rasins.
> 
> 
> .


And this ^^^^^^^^



MooseGooser said:


> But just a minute ago,, it was OK fer him to go on a JUDGES noise!!!!
> 
> ????????????????????
> 
> ...


Again, you're comparing the *working* dog to an *honor* dog. Two different things happening.


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

John Robinson said:


> Gooser why in the great scheme of things is it so important for you to access whether or how the handler sent the dog after you released him? You are really dancing on the head of a pin with this, when there is so much more to be concerned about. Believe me, if a certain dog is prone to breaking, it is going to happen sooner or later in a much more obvious manner.
> 
> John


I dont think I'm dancing at all.

it WAs stated in the thread that the handler called the dogs name AFTER the dog left.
We all know what really happened. The dog broke.
The RULE has been stated as to the requirement. seems it being ignored to me 

It also in the rules the Judges decision is final. Seems THAT was ignored also.

What is the Mob menality about havin the other handlers get together and confront the judges on test grounds??

Look,,, here is how I see it.
I am going to send my dog in as much a black and white manner as I can. I dont want issues with either the Judges OR the *dog* wondering if *I* sent it or not.

I will never judge upper levels of ANY program!!
( prolly wont be asked either):razz:

Gooser

Just me!


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

captainjack said:


> I asked this question on page 2 or 3. 7 pages later there is no answer. The reason there is no answer is that it doesn't support the argument that the dog did not break.


 
I think I pretty clearly answered this a ways back. As a judge I can only judge your dog to be steady when my test dictates it and that is only up to the point I release you by calling dog. After that there is no requirement to be steady. The dog is required to be by your side (or remote sit if that is the test) until I release you by calling dog. I don't care if the dog leaves and the handler says the name as he is leaving, that is not a break in the rulebook. Did the dog break by his handlers training standards? I don't know, I don't train the dog.
Like Bob said, judge what you see, not what you don't know. What I see in that is a dog that sat until the judge told the handler he could release it. The dog did this. This much I know. that covers the rule. How the handler lets his dog go (or in this case maybe doesn't) is not the issue as far a a rulebook break goes.


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

Heres the rule again

Chapter 3 section 10 - section 10. send to retrieve. *Dogs shall be sent to retrieve by handlers only when released by the Judges, who shall then score each retrieve accordingly.*
Judges shall call the number of the dog ordered to retrieve rather than the name of the handler of the dog.

Guide for Dealing with Interpretational Issues – Page 46 - break. It is generally understood that a break occurs when a dog makes a movement, that, in the opinion of the Judges, indicates a deliberate intent to retrieve with- out having been ordered to do so, and cannot be brought under control by the handler.

Serious Dog Faults – Page 59 - 1. Breaking – by either the working or the honoring dog is a mandatory elimination at Master (as there is no controlled break at Master).


Again

I'm going to make it very clear to the dog AND the judge I sent the dog.

Its required by rule.


Gooser


----------



## rufsea (Jan 4, 2003)

As the judge,
1) Do I believe the dog broke? Probably
2) Can I be 100% sure the handler did not release him? No
3) Will he be called back? yes

As the handler,
1) My dog just broke, stop him, reheel, leash on, over to the honor.

Do you reward the dog after breaking, by letting him get the bird?


----------



## Rick_C (Dec 12, 2007)

MooseGooser said:


> per the rule book!
> 
> *6." If a handler is doing something unusual (for*
> *example, giving a line to a dog before a bird is thrown)*
> ...


As much as I think it would be fun to meet you in person, please let me know if you're judging any AKC Master tests in the future so I know what tests to skip.

You cannot be serious.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

MooseGooser said:


> Heres the rule again
> 
> Chapter 3 section 10 - section 10. send to retrieve. *Dogs shall be sent to retrieve by handlers only when released by the Judges, who shall then score each retrieve accordingly.*
> Judges shall call the number of the dog ordered to retrieve rather than the name of the handler of the dog.
> ...


OK, one last time and I quit, I'm usually not this stubborn, but making it clear to the dog and judge isn't required by rule. You just stated the rule and nowhere does it state how a handler must send his dog. It's up to the opinion of the judges, it sounds like you would be pretty hard core with your opinion, many on here would be more lenient in their opinion.

John


----------



## moonstonelabs (Mar 17, 2006)

I doubt that many judges have heard me release my dog as I use a soft send......so if you do not hear the handler say the dogs name it is a break????? What the heck. Aren't there more important things to concern yourself with as a judge than trying to decide if you heard me send my dog??????

Bill


----------



## Rick_C (Dec 12, 2007)

captainjack said:


> Who do you think the AKC reps are? They are just folks like you and me who know what they know. I promise you that AKC reps, or any other reps on any subject for that matter, are not all knowing. The rule book is where the answer lies.
> 
> And the HT rules are crystal clear. The only way folks can justify a no break decision is through emphasis at a judges seminar or trying to apply the FT rules to the HT game.
> 
> ...


Really? I didn't call them gods for crying out loud. My point was that it would be good to have a difinitive answer rather than arguing interpretations.



moonstonelabs said:


> I doubt that many judges have heard me release my dog as I use a soft send......so if you do not hear the handler say the dogs name it is a break????? What the heck. Aren't there more important things to concern yourself with as a judge than trying to decide if you heard me send my dog??????
> 
> Bill


With all due respect Bill, I think this thread is way past common sense being of any use


----------



## Labs a mundo (Mar 20, 2009)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> Wow a judging question. Haven't seen that in awhile. Interestingly we also have a judge who decided it would be easier to throw himself under the bus after the test LOL
> 
> First off, lets actually look at the book…..
> 
> ...


Well said Paul! Wisdom and a level headed thinking makes for good judging.


----------



## Montview (Dec 20, 2007)

Wow... I'm not even running senior level tests yet, but I was always taught that this is considered "breaking" just as much as a dog running prior to being sent. I guess that is probably for training purposes, though... to make sure you, as the handler, have control of the dog. It certainly appears, based on the rule-book, that this really is NOT a true break. Interesting! Great scenerio... thanks for sharing- Gotta love learning!


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

Rick_C said:


> As much as I think it would be fun to meet you in person, please let me know if you're judging any AKC Master tests in the future so I know what tests to skip.
> 
> You cannot be serious.


dont worry I wont be!
I'm NOT a Judge!
I have stated that Many times previously!

I do have an opinion !,,, worth just as much as yours!

I dont run HT anymore either. FT over my head.

So,, you is gonna have to meet me to find out ifn I IS REALLY a fun guy, some other way!!:razz:

There are a lot of assumptions here.

Gooser


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Under the Field Trial Rules, no break occurred



> In all stakes, after the Judges have directed that a dog be ordered to retrieve, that dog is entitled to run in and retrieve and shall not be accused of breaking, or penalized for breaking, even though the Judges did not see or hear the handler send the dog


.

Page 32


----------



## sinned (Feb 14, 2009)

Labs a mundo said:


> Well said Paul! Wisdom and a level headed thinking makes for good judging.


except that the whole premiss is faulty. please re-read the book. 

judges do not release the dog. the judge releases the HANDLER. the point that the rules do not specify how a dog is sent is correct. but what is specified is that the dog is obedient and follows the *handler's* command and direction. everyone seems to be missing that. 

as far as dogs judging themselves go- a poor handler paired with a well trained dog is going to succeed in your tests? i don't think so. 

i think that you owe Bud, his co-judge and the Wassila club an apology. where do you get off being critical and finding fault in everyone based on the few posts that Bud put up. everyone tries to do their best with what they have to work with. 

i hope that the folks at AKC see this and read your malicious comments and review it as to you being a judge. your comments regarding the club choice of judges and their judging are deplorable. your behavior does not demonstrate the AKC's purpose of furthering and encouraging the sport.


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

I was always taught the dog can't break after it has been released by the judge. 

I have judged Master tests for more than 12 years. I've been to at least 6 HT judges seminars. In the early seminars, the AKC gave everyone Retriever FT rule books for further reference on how to evaluate the dog work. 

Just look at the 8 Pt. Master judges that have posted on this thread. Overwhelmingly, they say it didn't break.

I just judged a Master test last weekend. There were a number of dogs that left when the handler was putting his hand up, but before he said the dog's name. Did they all break?

How about those that left for the 2nd bird before they were sent by the handler? Did they also break?


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

Ted posted the FT rule that addresses this issue.
Its very clear.

Here is what another venues sugestion is from its seminar.

'In almost all cases it is NOT recomended that the judge verbally call for the dog to be released to retrieve. There are several reasons why it is not good practice.

1. a vebal command from the Judge may be distracting to the retriever that is locked on a mark.
2 .The time delay may cause the retriever to loose the mark.
 Time delay could cause inconsistencies in the test.
3. The Judge may forget to call the dog.

Pretty clear what they want also.

Here is the AKC HT rule again:


Chapter 3 section 10 - section 10. send to retrieve. *Dogs shall be sent to retrieve* *by handlers only when released by the Judges, who shall then score each retrieve accordingly.*
Judges shall call the number of the dog ordered to retrieve rather than the name of the handler of the dog.

Guide for Dealing with Interpretational Issues – Page 46 - break. It is generally understood that a break occurs when a dog makes a movement, that, in the *opinion of the Judges*, indicates a* deliberate intent to retrieve with- out having been ordered to do so*, and cannot be brought under control by the handler.

Serious Dog Faults – Page 59 - 1. Breaking – by either the working or the honoring dog is a mandatory elimination at Master *(as there is no controlled break at Master).
*

Again,, just me,, but at an AKC HUNT TEST,, I'm gonna make derned sure that Judge heard me send my dog. and I think its a good idea that the dog heard me too,, BEFORE he leaves!!
NOT after he is sent.


Gooser


----------



## SamLab1 (Jul 24, 2003)

Doug Main said:


> I was always taught the dog can't break after it has been released by the judge.
> 
> I have judged Master tests for more than 12 years. I've been to at least 6 HT judges seminars. In the early seminars, the AKC gave everyone Retriever FT rule books for further reference on how to evaluate the dog work.
> 
> ...


When Bubba and Paul speak seriously as they did here ya'll should listen. All the 8 pt judges say no break. Those running "other venues" keep arguing or quoting regs from FT's or "other venues".....go figure!!


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

Mountain out of a mole hill....dear lord can the dog mark, does he have natural talent, trained skills and would I want to hunt with him?? That's more important than this trivial matter....common sense is not so common!


----------



## Bud Bass (Dec 22, 2007)

Ted Shih said:


> Under the Field Trial Rules, no break occurred
> 
> .
> 
> Page 32


Ted, you may be a very good attorney, but you have your cases mixed up here, we are trying a *hunt test* rule here, not a *field trial*. Thanks for helping to clear thing up. Bud


----------



## Bud Bass (Dec 22, 2007)

All I can say is how amaized and over whelmed I am that this is getting so much attention. Five pages of arguing tells me that the rule involved here is certainly not as clear cut as some would have us believe. Every body has a opinion, and is willing to share it, and it seems to be pretty evenly devided. Like Ted, there are a lot of people here confusing Field Trial rules with Hunt Test rules. Folks, they are 2 different animals, with 2 different sets of rules. Don't try and intermix them please, you will be doing AKC a huge dis-service if you do. Apparently the Hunt Tests have been run and controlled by Field Trial people for years, and a lot of verbal rules like this I suspect have been passed down though the years that are not supported by AKC and the rule book for Hunt Test. I do respectfully apologize to AKC and all hunt test participants for not sticking by my initial decision and allowing the "more knowledgeable" high point hunt test judges and others there to sway my opinion. I have learned a great deal here. Thank you all again. Bud


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

John Robinson said:


> Gooser, now I'm thinking you're just arguing for the sake of arguing.........
> 
> John


 
yup,
I think so as well.
Gooser was just having fun. 
We been "Punked" by gooser on this one guys.


.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

FOM said:


> Mountain out of a mole hill....dear lord can the dog mark, does he have natural talent, trained skills and would I want to hunt with him?? That's more important than this trivial matter....common sense is not so common!


I agree-pay attention to what goes on in the field I was told as I started judging. The dog will eventually fail himself if he is leaving early. Tie goes to the dog. There are a lot of judges that can't hear anyway so if you make it a point to drop someone, you bet have good hearing and be able to discern a soft send when you are in back of a handler's back. Why argue about it. There are a lot of rules that are open to interpretation in the Hunting Retriever test rules and regulations. The interpretation of long time judges is it is not a break.


----------



## TN_LAB (Jul 26, 2008)

Here is an interesting wrinkle for all you folks out there using the baseball analogy:

No where in the baseball rule book does it say "tie goes to the runner." 

There is a fair amount of reading between the lines that results in the common phrase, but it is not in the rule book.

Regarding the dog in the o.p. It should not have been dropped.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

TN_LAB said:


> Here is an interesting wrinkle for all you folks out there using the baseball analogy:
> 
> No where in the baseball rule book does it say "tie goes to the runner."
> 
> ...


But baseball has an official overlooking the play. One judge would have to be staring at the handler and not behind. The rules do not state the handler has to send the dog any specific way. This is not about points.


----------



## RF2 (May 6, 2008)

Too many left brains with little experience on this thread. 

No break.


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

badbullgator said:


> As a judge I can only judge your dog to be steady when my test dictates it and that is only up to the point I release you by calling dog. After that there is no requirement to be steady.


I follow BBG's interpretation. Once the dog is released by the judge, there is no requirement to be steady, so whether the handler said its name or not doesn't matter.

It may be fun to debate, but a couple of things I know for sure 1) if I am running in a HT, I am going to send my hard charging FT dog on those short HT marks so quietly there is no way the judge is going to hear it (in fact, more often than not, I have to handle on the first bird to keep him from running over it); and 2) if I saw a dog dropped for the scenario described, I would not run under that judge in the future and, if it were my club, I would do what I could not to have them back.


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

Bud Bass said:


> .... I do respectfully apologize to AKC and all hunt test participants for not sticking by my initial decision and allowing the "more knowledgeable" high point hunt test judges and others there to sway my opinion*. I have learned a great deal here*. Thank you all again. Bud


thank you for starting a great thread and for judging Bud.
what will you do next time? 
will you say a number or say dog?
will you drop the dog or carry it?
will you let the gallery make you change your call?
will you judge with moosegooser?
will you toss yourself under the rtf bus again?

no matter what your cool, and again, thank you


.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Bud Bass said:


> Ted, you may be a very good attorney, but you have your cases mixed up here, we are trying a *hunt test* rule here, not a *field trial*. Thanks for helping to clear thing up. Bud


Chill, Bud

I know it is a HT. That's why I wrote "Field Trial Rules"

So that people would not get confused

Next time you put your tongue in cheek, try not to bite it off


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

An actual judging/rulebook thread and a judge started it and isn't being thrown under the bus (too much), yee haw! I agree it wasn't a break and isn't normally treated as such around these parts. It isn't black and white in the rulebook, not listed specifically as a break, then don't treat it as one and judge the dogwork overall. If the dog does well, fine, it was just a blip. If the dog truly is OOC and not working with its handler, that'll show up later. I really like running under judges who don't look for reasons to fail a dog.


----------



## stonybrook (Nov 18, 2005)

Bud Bass said:


> I've debated over asking this, long time since I've been here.
> 
> Judging Masters on Friday, I am a new master judge, only 2 points, my co-judge was a long time judge but has never run masters herself (before rule change). Handler signaled ready and judge said "dog" quietly. Dog immediately broke for the retrieve without a signal or release or send from the handler. Break deffination in book* "It is generally understood that a break occurs when a dog makes a movement, that, in the opionion of the Judges, indicates a deliberate intent to retrieve without having been ordered to do so*, and cannot be brought under control by the handler." Both judges agreed that the dog broke and the dog was given a 0. There was no signal, command or movement from the handler, no word, no attempt to settle the dog before sending, etc. Dog was off and running on the "dog" release from the judge. The handler did send the dog, by saying its name, after the dog had already left the line. At the end of the serries, we were told there was a issue to discuss. Many of the gallary and other handlers as well as the handler who was running her dog said the rule was being interperated wrong. I argued that the rule book was explecit and that the judges were not the ones who should be sending the dog. Their interpertation was suppoted by input from many very experienced handlers and 8 point + judges who were also running their dogs. Basicly saying the dog was released by the judge with the "dog" command, and that some handlers use silent send signals, etc. I did not buy the argument but we both relented and allowed the dog to stay in the test. This point was not discussed in the handlers meeting prior to the test. The handler was experienced and knows the rules, she never said that she sent the dog after the judges released by saying "dog". I did not buy the argument but we both relented and allowed the dog to stay in the test. Should this dog have been dropped at that time?


Hey, Bud -

Jumping in here way late. Firstly, thank you very much for donating your time to judge. It is greatly appeciated. I am wondering if you could give us some idea of your experience. You stated that you have 2 judging points and that your co-judge did not run Masters. Did you run and title a dog in Master? Has your co-judge judged a lot of Master tests?

Just curious, not trying to pick at you or your co-judge. Just trying to get a read on the situation from the judges' chairs.

Travis


----------



## road kill (Feb 15, 2009)

Hypothetical question for those of you that think the dog broke.

You say "DOG" or "#7" and I send my dog with a whisper you don't hear.
Did he break then???


Just askin'......


*RK*


----------



## Mistyriver (May 19, 2005)

road kill said:


> Hypothetical question for those of you that think the dog broke.
> 
> You say "DOG" or "#7" and I send my dog with a whisper you don't hear.
> Did he break then???
> ...



Nope, and that there is why I say only the handler truly knows if his dog actually broke after the Judge release it and if it did break, it may be an issue that the handler will have to deal with in the future. There is nothing in the rule book that stipulates how I as a handler must release my dog.


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

Bud Bass said:


> All I can say is how amaized and over whelmed I am that this is getting so much attention. Five pages of arguing tells me that the rule involved here is certainly not as clear cut as some would have us believe. Every body has a opinion, and is willing to share it, and it seems to be pretty evenly devided. Like Ted, there are a lot of people here confusing Field Trial rules with Hunt Test rules. Folks, they are 2 different animals, with 2 different sets of rules. Don't try and intermix them please, you will be doing AKC a huge dis-service if you do. Apparently the Hunt Tests have been run and controlled by Field Trial people for years, and a lot of verbal rules like this I suspect have been passed down though the years that are not supported by AKC and the rule book for Hunt Test. I do respectfully apologize to AKC and all hunt test participants for not sticking by my initial decision and allowing the "more knowledgeable" high point hunt test judges and others there to sway my opinion. I have learned a great deal here. Thank you all again. Bud


I think you're reading what you want to read if you think it is evenly divided. The majority, including very experienced people, think it is not a break. I hope you and others who might judge did learn something here, but I suspect I know who'd go on my list not to run under, personally.


----------



## 2tall (Oct 11, 2006)

No one ever answered Rick C's question. The OP stated that the dog had done the same thing in the first series. Why was it ok then and not in the 2nd? What happened in the 3rd? Did the dog truly break and thereby fail himself or did he stomp it and earn his pass?


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

Rainmaker said:


> ....The majority, .... think it is not a break.....


 
just wizzed through all 154 posts again and that is how I read it.
maybe a new thread with a simple yes/no poll would be good???


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

road kill said:


> Hypothetical question for those of you that think the dog broke.
> 
> You say "DOG" or "#7" and I send my dog with a whisper you don't hear.
> Did he break then???
> ...


Again here is what the rule book says.

Guide for Dealing with Interpretational Issues – Page 46 - break. It is generally understood that a break occurs when a dog makes a movement, that, in the *opinion of the Judges*, indicates a* deliberate intent to retrieve with- out having been ordered to do so*, and cannot be brought under control by the handler.

You see, the book leaves the determination of a break up to the* OPINION OF THE JUDGES.*

That *OPINION* MAY be based on "a deliberate intent to retrieve with-out having been ordered to do so."

Thats what the rules say!!!

I dont know before a test what the judges think!!!

I only know what the rules say.
If there is a sectrete handshake,, or unwritten polocy that is involved, Thats a different issue.

So,,
ME personally.

I am going to make the the dog is sent in a way that BOTH the dog AND the judge hears it.

I dont want an issue with the judge saying to me you failed,, cause in my OPINION,, you didnt send your dog,, and he left before he was told to,, and that per the rules constitues a break!!

I'm not PERSONALLY going to take that chance and "whisper" the send to the dog. The judge and the dog are going to hear me.

It unwritten rule,may be different!! Maybe we can as a group get together and call the* judges* (2) out between the series, and get them to waiver their opinion! I dont know.

What I do know is what the rules SAY.

The FT rules are really clear on this issue.

The HRC rules are really clear on this issue.

The AKC HUNT TEST rules leave the determination of a 'BREAK"
up to the *OPINION *of a set (2) Judges.

Again 

JMHDAO I am NOT "punkin" anybody

Gooser


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

AND THE RED HEADED STEP CHILD STANDS UP AND OPENS HIS MOUTH AGAIN!!!!:razz:

Red headed regards:

Gooser


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

First I want to thank Bud for starting this thread with an honest appraisal of the situation he found himself in, and expressing his question and concern of whether he made the right call. Judging is very hard, mostly thankless work and I appreciate people who take on the task and take that task seriously. Clearly Bud takes it seriously.

My arguments and I think most others on here have dealt more with the abstract application of this particular hunt test rule, versus field trial rule and how I would apply the rule if I were judging some hypothetical dog that went on his number. I was less interested in your particular situation, so I apologize for that. In my heart I believe that dog broke for two reasons; 1) the handler said the dog's name in a lame reflex manner after the dog was on its way, and 2) this happened in two separate series. You sitting in the chair have an instant to decide how to deal with this, I and others here have had a full day and much debate to think of what we would do. 

After thinkg about it, I like Glen Guider's rational approach. Let the guy run after the first time, but tell him you and your co-judge are going to discuss it during call backs. That puts the handler on guard in case it happens a second time, and give the handler an opportunity to discuss and enlighten you if he has some unconventional way of sending. I'll bet next time you judge a Master this is one topic you will discuss with your co-judge on set-up day, when you talk about and agree on different judging philosophies.

As to you consulting with a trusted high point judge friend after it became apparent to you that this was perhaps not as clear cut as you made out, I don't have a problem with that. Usually clubs put fairly new judges with seasoned old pros, you didn't have that and your friend was the closest you had to a seasoned old pro. You didn't tell us how that dog did on the rest of the test, but if he did well, I have no problem with him getting a ribbon that day.

Again thank you for taking the time to judge, taking the job so seriously and putting this question out there for all us back seat judges to argue about.

John


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

Ken Bora said:


> just wizzed through all 154 posts again and that is how I read it.
> maybe a new thread with a simple yes/no poll would be good???


Yes. . . . .


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Now for a hypothetical but similar situation. I have a dog that was very prone to going on his number. Alex would sit tall in the saddle, steady as a rock watching all the birds go down, then because my cadence was so consitant in training and trials (this is a field trial dog), he would think in his head, "one thousand one, one thousand two, one thousand three" and go. After this close call happened a few times with judges who took a little longer than normal to give a number, I changed the way I train and trial. 

We always train with someone acting as judge to give us a number. I would wait for a number and say "sit" immeadiately upon hearing the number, then wait a few more seconds to send. Now my dog expects and waits for that sit command, and also waits to be sent. For you hunt test guys, would this approach work in a Master? Can you talk to your dog after a number is given, or does the dog have to demonstrate a higher level of steadyness than his field trial counterpart? Frankly that huge emphasis on steadyness is what bothers me about AKC hunt test. I like the more realistic NAHRA approach where you are allowed to speak quietly to the dogs as birds are going down.

John


----------



## cakaiser (Jul 12, 2007)

Hasn't the judge given his "opinion" on whether the dog is steady, when..
He/she calls number?


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

John Robinson said:


> Can you talk to your dog after a number is given, or does the dog have to demonstrate a higher level of steadyness than his field trial counterpart?


Yes, of course, you can talk to him after your number is given.

When I run a HT, I will say "sit" "easy" "easy" "did I say easy?" "seriously, it is hardly out there at all, easy" Then I double check to make sure my whistle is in my mouth and send him (as quietly as I possibly can).


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

cakaiser said:


> Hasn't the judge given his "opinion" on whether the dog is steady, when..
> He/she calls number?


Thats the way I and most experienced judges interpret it, but the literal wording of the AKC HT rule leaves it a little open. For me it is such a minor issue I wouldn't even note it on my sheet as long as the dog was steady until I gave a number to the handler.

John


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

DoubleHaul said:


> Yes, of course, you can talk to him after your number is given.
> 
> When I run a HT, I will say "sit" "easy" "easy" "did I say easy?" "seriously, it is hardly out there at all, easy" Then I double check to make sure my whistle is in my mouth and send him (as quietly as I possibly can).


You've got a high roller huh.

John


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

John Daniels said:


> Ken Bora said:
> 
> 
> > just wizzed through all 154 posts again and that is how I read it.
> ...


----------



## Christine Maddox (Mar 9, 2009)

For clarification on this issue please refer to the Regulations & Guidelines for AKC Hunting Tests for Retrievers, Amended May 2008.
pg. 21, Section 10:
*Dogs shall be sent to retrieve by handlers only when released by the Judges who shall then score each retrieve accordingly.*
IMO, this clearly states that the judge actually releases the handler, who then releases the dog. If the dog leaves before released by the handler, it is a break.


----------



## stonybrook (Nov 18, 2005)

Hey, Triple A -

Hopefully you're second post is more accurate than your first because I'm afraid that you are incorrect on this one.

This same thing happened when my co-judge and I were judging Master 2 weeks ago. We smirked at each other and I noted it and watched for a break carefully in the next series (where it was a walk-up). The dog showed good control and ended up passing. We didn't need to make a big fuss to the handler because he knew it was not preferred (by him and his training) to have his dog do that.

Travis


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

AAA said:


> For clarification on this issue please refer to the Regulations & Guidelines for AKC Hunting Tests for Retrievers, Amended May 2008.
> pg. 21, Section 10:
> *Dogs shall be sent to retrieve by handlers only when released by the Judges who shall then score each retrieve accordingly.*




I think that the only thing that is clear is that when the Judges give the dog's number, the dog/handler team is released.

It then becomes an issue of what "sent to retrieve" means.

Note that "sent to retrieve" is not modified by any specific language
- It could mean intentional
- It could mean inadvertent

So, it comes down to who is judging and what is important to them
As for me, I would prefer to see an emphasis on work in the field, as opposed to work on the mat


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

AAA said:


> For clarification on this issue please refer to the Regulations & Guidelines for AKC Hunting Tests for Retrievers, Amended May 2008.
> pg. 21, Section 10:
> *Dogs shall be sent to retrieve by handlers only when released by the Judges who shall then score each retrieve accordingly.*
> IMO, this clearly states that the judge actually releases the handler, who then releases the dog. If the dog leaves before released by the handler, it is a break.


I think you need to go back and read all 170 or so post. We've been through the wording of the AKC HT rule, AKC Ft rules, HRC rules, we've dissected it, looked at ways it could be open to interpretation, how much leeway judges have, how it is usually enforced, and had long discussions on exactly how sure a judge can be in determining whether or not a handler actually released his dog. The general consensus is that most experienced judges are content to see the dog steady to the point where he or she gives a handler a number, after that it is up to the handler how he or she sends their dog.

John


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

Those that wrote the AKC Retriever Hunt Test rules were not using HRC as guides rather they were using the FT rules and guidlines.

I wonder how many of those that are focused on the handler sending the dog are viewing the rules from HRC colored glasses where the judges don't release the dog. As Gooser highlights. There is a difference in the philosophy here. HRC judges do not release the dog, the handler is supposed to demonstrate steadiness before sending the dog. Therefore as Gooser stated he sends the dog loud enough that the judges know he sent the dog.

In AKC it's really pretty simple. As stated by someone earlier, the judge determines when the dog has demonstrated enough steadiness by giving the number.

Someone asked where in the rule book it says a tie goes to the runner. Well here it is on page 39:


> Keep in mind that moderate to serious faults in an ability
> will often become more apparent through the series of
> tests. In questionable instances, give the dog the benefit
> of the doubt.


----------



## Bob Samios (Jan 2, 2008)

OK, let's add a new wrinkle. The judge says, "Heel your dog!" Is the handler free to send his dog after the dog comes to the heel position or does he have to wait for the number to be called?


----------



## HarryWilliams (Jan 17, 2005)

It's too late now. I can not take back the 17 pages I just read. Oh well. I will give my opinion/thought; I would choose to judge whether the dog was steady or not vice determining whether the handler sent the dog or not.

But in a practical manner......If they stayed until I released them. They were steady. If they left after that then they were sent. HPW


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

AAA said:


> ...
> *Dogs shall be sent to retrieve by handlers only when released by the Judges who shall then score each retrieve accordingly.*
> IMO, this clearly states that the judge actually releases the handler, .....


no, if they wanted it to read the way you think it reads they would have typed "Dogs must not leave the line to retrieve until sent by handler after handler is released by judges." But they did not type that did they????
They begin the sentance with the word "Dogs" and in that sentance, it is saying the handler cannot send ('member you ain't talkin from time you signal for birds) cannot send (say a word) 'till judges say a number and release........ THE DOG!!!  all this line does is tell the handler when he can talk again, after having to shut up after signaling for the birds!
It is so simple in my simple mind


.


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

Bob Samios said:


> OK, let's add a new wrinkle. The judge says, "Heel your dog!" Is the handler free to send his dog after the dog comes to the heel position or does he have to wait for the number to be called?


Yes, the dog has to wait to be released. The judge determines when the dog can go. Re-heel your dog is not a release to pick up the bird. ;-)


----------



## smackem (Apr 27, 2011)

OK let's put this to sleep. From now on all Handlers must wear collars set on level 6. Once nicked you may release your "dog".


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

AAA said:


> For clarification on this issue please refer to the Regulations & Guidelines for AKC Hunting Tests for Retrievers, Amended May 2008.
> pg. 21, Section 10:
> *Dogs shall be sent to retrieve by handlers only when released by the Judges who shall then score each retrieve accordingly.*
> IMO, this clearly states that the judge actually releases the handler, who then releases the dog. If the dog leaves before released by the handler, it is a break.


How am I as a judge suppose to know how each handler coming to the line handles, releases, instructs his dogs? It impossible. Therefore I can only either go off my own opinion, which is a big no no, or assume something happened. Neither option is acceptable. Again, understanding the intent of the program is critical. As Ted points out the guide is not absolute on what sending to retrieve consists of. Focus on the important thing, which is marking. If this is what your focused on as a judge, you're completely missing the point of this entire exercise.

/Paul


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

> Dogs shall be sent to
> retrieve by handlers *only when released by the Judges*,
> who shall then score each retrieve accordingly.
> Judges shall call the number of the dog ordered to
> retrieve rather than the name of the handler of the dog.


The emphasis in this passage is not on "by handlers" but rather "only when released by the Judges"

While this passage may cause some ambiguity. The entirety of the book is clear that the Judge releases the dog. Elsewhere in the HT rule book:


> Once all marks are down and the *handler/dog has
> been released by the judges*, a handler may give the . . .





> The handler of the working dog shall remain silent from the time handler signals for the first bird to be
> thrown until the *Judges release the dog*.





> Talking to the working dog – the handler must remain
> silent from the time the handler signals for the first bird to be
> thrown* until the judges release the dog.*


----------



## Christine Maddox (Mar 9, 2009)

Let's change the scenario just a tad. Once all the marks are down, the handler has been instructed to run a blind in the opposite direction of the marks, prior to picking up the marks. The judges release the handler/dog team and the dog automatically leaves the line when the number is called. Now, you tell me..........do you think the dog is going to go for the marks or the blind? Now, is it a break or not?


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

*Dogs shall be sent to retrieve by handlers only when released by the Judges who shall then score each retrieve accordingly*.

That quote-rule simply means that the* Handler* can't release the dog before the judges say its alright, the rule is meant to keep idiot *handlers* from sending dogs to early, in case all the birds aren't down, or something has occurred to warrant a no bird, or a safety issue, late firing on a live flier in the field for instance. It gives the judges the chance to ensure the testing setup has gone off as it should, and it's safe for dogs to run. The rule controls the *handler*, who might in tunnel vision mode, not notice things going on in the field. It doesn't say anything about the dog not being able to be sent by the judges, it also doesn't say anything about the handler having to send the dog right after the judges have released them, if they feel something is unsafe. The rule was designed as a safety check. Why do we have to argue and nit-pick everything, Why is it so Hard to just give something to the dogs?


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

AAA said:


> Let's change the scenario just a tad. Once all the marks are down, the handler has been instructed to run a blind in the opposite direction of the marks, prior to picking up the marks. The judges release the handler/dog team and the dog automatically leaves the line when the number is called. Now, you tell me..........do you think the dog is going to go for the marks or the blind? Now, is it a break or not?


 
love it when folk loosin' just change the story
"O.K. I may be wrong here so lets change it"
O.P. Bud didn't have a blind first did he?????
and what are you testing running a master blind away from the marks instead of in the marks?



.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

AAA said:


> Let's change the scenario just a tad. Once all the marks are down, the handler has been instructed to run a blind in the opposite direction of the marks, prior to picking up the marks. The judges release the handler/dog team and the dog automatically leaves the line when the number is called. Now, you tell me..........do you think the dog is going to go for the marks or the blind? Now, is it a break or not?


I would say the dog had a poor initial line on the blind


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

AAA said:


> Let's change the scenario just a tad. Once all the marks are down, the handler has been instructed to run a blind in the opposite direction of the marks, prior to picking up the marks. The judges release the handler/dog team and the dog automatically leaves the line when the number is called. Now, you tell me..........do you think the dog is going to go for the marks or the blind? Now, is it a break or not?


No its not a break. Its a control issue. Can the handler re-heel the dog and pick up the blind. If not then you can zero for Trainability.

/Paul


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

AAA said:


> Let's change the scenario just a tad. Once all the marks are down, the handler has been instructed to run a blind in the opposite direction of the marks, prior to picking up the marks. The judges release the handler/dog team and the dog automatically leaves the line when the number is called. Now, you tell me..........do you think the dog is going to go for the marks or the blind? Now, is it a break or not?


No break after the judge gave the number. However, the dog is now in a world of hurt if it did not head in the direction of the blind. ;-)


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

AAA said:


> Let's change the scenario just a tad. Once all the marks are down, the handler has been instructed to run a blind in the opposite direction of the marks, prior to picking up the marks. The judges release the handler/dog team and the dog automatically leaves the line when the number is called. Now, you tell me..........do you think the dog is going to go for the marks or the blind? Now, is it a break or not?


If the handler is idiot enough to just let his dog run out on a mark without immediately stopping him, it's a break. If after the dog's number is called and he starts to move but the handler stops him with a sit, heels him over and runs the blind, that's not a break in my book.

John


----------



## J. Walker (Feb 21, 2009)

AAA said:


> Let's change the scenario just a tad. Once all the marks are down, the handler has been instructed to run a blind in the opposite direction of the marks, prior to picking up the marks. The judges release the handler/dog team and the dog automatically leaves the line when the number is called. Now, you tell me..........do you think the dog is going to go for the marks or the blind? Now, is it a break or not?


Why would the judges call the number at all when the dog is going to be required to run a diversion blind first during which it is totally up to the handler's discretion as to when to send the dog? The steadiness question is answered in the handler simply getting his dog to pull off the marks and get aligned for the blind.


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

J. Walker said:


> Why would the judges call the number at all when the dog is going to be required to run a diversion blind first during which it is totally up to the handler's discretion as to when to send the dog? The steadiness question is answered in the handler simply getting his dog to pull off the marks and get aligned for the blind.


Because the handler can't do anything until released by the judges.


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> I think that the only thing that is clear is that when the Judges give the dog's number, the dog/handler team is released.
> 
> It then becomes an issue of what "sent to retrieve" means.
> 
> ...


I agree with this!!

*TEDS OPINION* on whats important is the work in the field. 
Lainee thinks the discussion is a mountain over a mole hill.
The deal is,, the rules leave it open to opinion of the judges.

If you dont agree with their application of their opinion by rule,, is your answer then a "taking behind the woodshed" at the test??

Or If its important enough to all involved to ammend the rules to be more specific..
or is the answere a secret handshake that you must understand before you judge??


Gooser


----------



## Eric Johnson (Dec 23, 2004)

Mr. Gooser-

That rule only applies if a judge has not released the dog to handler control. In the specific case at hand, one or both judges clearly decided the dog had not broken and released the dog and so the issue of breaking is now moot. Like contestants, judges don't get a "do-over" either. Once they've decided the dog didn't break and release the dog, their option to call a break is gone.

As to the handler's belated command, I don't know and neither do you. We can conjecture but we don't know. However, we don't have to know. The judge's release of the dog puts paid to any question of breaking. A dog that's been released simply can not break. The dog can be out of control and there's a way to score that but once the judge says "Dog" or "Forty-three" or whatever the release command the judge has decided upon, the dog can not be judged to have broken.

Eric


----------



## Kelly Greenwood (Dec 18, 2008)

Steadiness is just a safety issue. A steady dog is not going to get shot by running out into the field before directed. Should a dog be dropped for a safety issue? Falls into the same as if a dog should be dropped for handler having unsafe line gun handling. If judges were really worried about it they could say "Number 23" vs "23" it would make it pretty obvious if the handler released the dog, course that judge might never judge again HaHa.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

MooseGooser said:


> I agree with this!!
> 
> *TEDS OPINION* on whats important is the work in the field.
> Lainee thinks the discussion is a mountain over a mole hill.
> ...


Gooser, my general philosophy on judging is to get very good, very experienced judges who really understand the sport, the rules and have competed a lot at that level, then not tie their hands with too many "musts" versus "should's" in the rule book. For the most part this rule book lack of clarity seems to not be a big issue, as judge after judge has posted on here that he or she wouldn't call a break in that instance. Even Bud got it right after initially taking a hard line approach. A wording like they have in the FT rule book does make it more black and white in favor of the dog, so I don't know if this is an "if it ain't broke, don't fix it situation" or a potential problem for earnest new judges. 

I don't think its a secret handshake deal, just common sense on requiring a dog to be steady until released by the judge and handler. The judge releases the handler, then the handler can send the dog telepathically for all I care. You've said you don't judge and don't intend to, as a judge I will tell you that as soon as I give a handler his dog's number my attention immediately shifts to watching the dog work in the field, I pay no attention whatsoever as to how the handler ships his dog.

John


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

I think this dead horse has been beaten back to life.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

huntinman said:


> I think this dead horse has been beaten back to life.


Sorry I need to just leave it alone as I promised about ten pages ago.

John


----------



## Sue Kiefer (Mar 4, 2006)

Wow 20 pages!!!
Sue


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

Thank You ALL for your OPINIONS!

I,m done too.


Gooser


----------



## Rick_C (Dec 12, 2007)

2tall said:


> No one ever answered Rick C's question. The OP stated that the dog had done the same thing in the first series. Why was it ok then and not in the 2nd? What happened in the 3rd? Did the dog truly break and thereby fail himself or did he stomp it and earn his pass?


I think it's because the answer wouldn't support the argument that the dog broke. Because if those on the "broke" side really feel that way, then the dog should have been dropped in the 1st. There are no 2nd chances, room for interpretations etc... IF a master dog breaks. Thanks for your donation, have a safe drive home, you are out.

Ask me how I know :razz:



huntinman said:


> I think this dead horse has been beaten back to life.


LOL


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

Ken Bora said:


> just wizzed through all 154 posts again and that is how I read it.
> maybe a new thread with a simple yes/no poll would be good???


Doug Main's poll on the subject, so far, shows the overwhelming majority do not consider this a break. Pretty black and white there.


----------



## Kent W (Jun 22, 2009)

Sue Kiefer said:


> The handler signals when ready, the judge signal the gunners the birds go down, the judge releases the team by "dog" ( #23) the dog IS free to go.
> If my bonehead dog goes on "Dog" I make book on that as something to work on and continue the test.
> Tie does go to the runner.
> It is nerve racking but it happens.
> Sue


NO, the TIE goes to the umpire (umpired ASA softball for 20 years to the Olympic level) Otherwise, without reading ALL of the posts, it seems most as I agree that the dog was free to go. I judge as well at the Junior and Senior levels and have had this happen to me. And as stated it will usually come back to haunt the handler at some other time. And, it in fact did. Typically at the honor. Note to handler: nip this now. Or get used to going home early.


----------



## Scott Parker (Mar 19, 2009)

I was just wondering how this dog did on the honor if it leaves when it hears the judge say dog.


----------



## Andy Symons (Oct 2, 2003)

Sue Kiefer said:


> The handler signals when ready, the judge signal the gunners the birds go down, the judge releases the team by "dog" ( #23) the dog IS free to go.
> If my bonehead dog goes on "Dog" I make book on that as something to work on and continue the test.
> Tie does go to the runner.
> It is nerve racking but it happens.
> Sue


As you are aware, mine don't get away with it!! I believe the moment in time is the perfect time for a correction (back to the truck).


----------



## BMay (Mar 3, 2003)

Andy Symons said:


> As you are aware, mine don't get away with it!! I believe the moment in time is the perfect time for a correction (back to the truck).


I read something alone the lines where Rex (may have or may not have said???) to pick up your dog when the judges say to do so. 

Today, with some master entry fees as high as $75...If my dog should happen to go on the judges release, so be it. True, not the way you want it to happen and I sure would work on that (not usual) problem in training group situations, etc. and hope it would happen where corrections can be be made. However, I'm very sure that while I'm running an AKC master test, I wouldn't turn into a handler purist and pick up my dog if I wasn't told to do so. JMHO


----------



## Wade Thurman (Jul 4, 2005)

FOM said:


> How do we know that the handler didn't send the dog?


Lainee, I want you to keep this question in mind when you are judging an AA stake and you have a dog pop at 300 yards on a mark. Before you drop the dog, like 99% of AA jdges today will do ask yourself the question.

Did the dog hear something out there that we didn't hear?


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

Wade said:


> Lainee, I want you to keep this question in mind when you are judging an AA stake and you have a dog pop at 300 yards on a mark. Before you drop the dog, like 99% of AA jdges today will do ask yourself the question.
> 
> Did the dog hear something out there that we didn't hear?


Where's the "like" button.

Angie


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

Wade said:


> Lainee, I want you to keep this question in mind when you are judging an AA stake and you have a dog pop at 300 yards on a mark. Before you drop the dog, like 99% of AA jdges today will do ask yourself the question.
> 
> Did the dog hear something out there that we didn't hear?


Maybe the handler uses the same mental telepathy to stop the dog on a blind that the handler did to send the dog on marks.

Not a pop. You can't judge how a handler stops his or her dog.


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

Wade said:


> Lainee, I want you to keep this question in mind when you are judging an AA stake and you have a dog pop at 300 yards on a mark. Before you drop the dog, like 99% of AA jdges today will do ask yourself the question.
> 
> Did the dog hear something out there that we didn't hear?


I've already done that once before, dog was given a rerun.

So please don't assume I wouldn't.

FOM


----------



## Breck (Jul 1, 2003)

Damn red wing blackbirds. 



Wade said:


> Lainee, I want you to keep this question in mind when you are judging an AA stake and you have a dog pop at 300 yards on a mark. Before you drop the dog, like 99% of AA jdges today will do ask yourself the question.
> 
> Did the dog hear something out there that we didn't hear?


----------



## Wade Thurman (Jul 4, 2005)

FOM said:


> I've already done that once before, dog was given a rerun.
> 
> So please don't assume I wouldn't.
> 
> FOM


Who is assuming? 

Giving a rerun by the way doesn't count.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Let me tell ya this, I once called a dog back that handled on all 3 marks in the first series of a master test because something mechanical happened that was unfair to the dog on each bird. So you master judges out there that think dropping a dog for going on the judges release is a break, ponder that one awhile.

/Paul


----------



## Kent W (Jun 22, 2009)

Scott Parker said:


> I was just wondering how this dog did on the honor if it leaves when it hears the judge say dog.


It broke on "dog". No tie. Just back to the truck.


----------



## John Kelder (Mar 10, 2006)

Kent W said:


> It broke on "dog". No tie. Just back to the truck.


Only the handler knows for 100 per cent certainty. The question was poised for a judges perspective . 
If you were on a jury in a capital case in a state with the death penalty kinda perspective regards...........:razz:


----------



## Bill Davis (Sep 15, 2003)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> Let me tell ya this, I once called a dog back that handled on all 3 marks in the first series of a master test because something mechanical happened that was unfair to the dog on each bird. So you master judges out there that think dropping a dog for going on the judges release is a break, ponder that one awhile.
> 
> /Paul


Like to hear more about this......


----------



## Scott Parker (Mar 19, 2009)

John Kelder said:


> Only the handler knows for 100 per cent certainty. The question was poised for a judges perspective .
> If you were on a jury in a capital case in a state with the death penalty kinda perspective regards...........:razz:


John he was answering my question as to what happened to the dog on the honor you don't get a freebee for a break on honor.


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

For some that think the dog did not break, why not just call AKC Performmance Dept (or e-mail them), and get the answer?


----------



## Chris Rosier (Dec 27, 2008)

MooseGooser said:


> seriously!!
> 
> Next time I run a hunt test,, and the Judge releases me,, and my dern fool dog doesnt move,, I'm a gonna step out in front of her and throw my hands up and ask her "WHAT YA WAITIN ON?????"
> 
> ...




I stopped reading after this post on the 8th page. The thread should have closed then.

For everybody saying the dog didnt break, what are y'all gonna do the next time you run an HRC test and the judge doesnt send your dog? Everybody just gonna sit there with there thumbs in there behind's waiting on somebody to say "dog"?



The dog broke. Period. Dot.


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

Chris Rosier said:


> I stopped reading after this post on the 8th page. The thread should have closed then.
> 
> For everybody saying the dog didnt break, what are y'all gonna do the next time you run an HRC test and the judge doesnt send your dog? Everybody just gonna sit there with there thumbs in there behind's waiting on somebody to say "dog"?
> 
> ...


i run HRC tests. once the bird is down, i'm going to say "Port" if i'm running her, "Molly" if i'm running her, or "back" if i'm running Belle.

what's your point? do you have one?-Paul


----------



## BMay (Mar 3, 2003)

Chris...we're talking AKC events. HRC has nothing to do with this thread.


----------



## Chris Rosier (Dec 27, 2008)

paul young said:


> i run HRC tests. once the bird is down, i'm going to say "Port" if i'm running her, "Molly" if i'm running her, or "back" if i'm running Belle.
> 
> what's your point? do you have one?-Paul



Really?

My point is, the handler didnt send the dog, so the dog broke.


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

Chris Rosier said:


> *I stopped reading after this post on the 8th page.* The thread should have closed then.
> 
> For everybody saying the dog didnt break, what are y'all gonna do the next time you run an *HRC test *and the judge doesnt send your dog? Everybody just gonna sit there with there thumbs in there behind's waiting on somebody to say "dog"?
> 
> ...




1. No you didn't

2. We are talking AKC;-)


----------



## rboudet (Jun 29, 2004)

Chris Rosier said:


> Really?
> 
> My point is, the handler didnt send the dog, so the dog broke.


How do you know the handler did not send the dog? Where does it say in the rule book you have to send the dog on a verbal command? You can train them to go on anything, clicks, sniffs, a hand or a fart!

Can't believe this is being debated!!!


----------



## Chris Rosier (Dec 27, 2008)

I KNOW that y'all are discussing AKC tests, but thanks for the clarification.


----------



## Mistyriver (May 19, 2005)

Chris Rosier said:


> Really?
> 
> My point is, the handler didnt send the dog, so the dog broke.



How do you know that? Do you know the communication for which the handler gave the dog to leave the line? Knee twitch, forward motion, soft whisper. Judged called 'dog' and that is all that matters. HRC is a different game and I judge HRC and judges don't release dog/handler team.


----------



## birdboy (Feb 9, 2009)

BMay said:


> Chris...we're talking AKC events. HRC has nothing to do with this thread.


IMO, it doesnt matter if your talking NARA, AKC, HRC or SRS. Lets stream line the sequence of events:

1- Marks go off
2- Judge said "Dog"
3- Dog took off with no que from handler
4- Handler said dogs name after dog had left

The dog left on the judges command, not the handler. The judge is not part of that team. By calling the dogs name after/while it was leaving is a confession on the part of the handler that the dog in fact broke. From the origional post:

*Break deffination in book "It is generally understood that a break occurs when a dog makes a movement, that, in the opionion of the Judges, indicates a deliberate intent to retrieve without having been ordered to do so, and cannot be brought under control by the handler." *

The dog was not ordered to do so and the handler made no attempt to bring the dog under control. As a handler, you have to give the judge something to judge. By making no attempt to bring the dog under control, you are telling me that you cant.

As for the folks that believe the judge can release the dog for the retrieve; if I am unsure how close the judge wants me to run the blind, I cant let him run it for me can I? The judge is to have no influence on the test once it has begun. If your dog leaves on "dog", you will likely have issues down the road and I suggest you contition your dog to leave on its name (or whatever command you choose, other than dog) only.


----------



## Chris Rosier (Dec 27, 2008)

rboudet said:


> How do you know the handler did not send the dog? Where does it say in the rule book you have to send the dog on a verbal command? You can train them to go on anything, clicks, sniffs, a hand or a fart!
> 
> Can't believe this is being debated!!!



How many people do you know that send their dog by sniffling? Seriously.


----------



## Bill Davis (Sep 15, 2003)

I find it pretty amusing that this thread is still going strong. I throw my .02 cents in. 
In the eyes of the judges they deemed the dog to be steady enough for them by saying "Dog" at this point the dog is free to go and retrieve the marks. At this point it doesn't matter if the judges heard the handler give a verbal command or even a visual que to send his dog. It doesn't matter if the handler said the dogs name after he left the line. The dog demastrated steadyness long enough for the judges to say "dog" . Maybe the handler gives a very quiet cast to send his dog and then a little louder command once the dog leaves the line. You as Judge don't know. Judge what you see in front of you and not what you think should have happened. 
If you as a judge have to nitpick that much to drop a dog from a test, then setup a better test, either the dogs do the work in the field or they don't. If they do GREAT if not then I guess the dogs just didn't have a good day. To many judges look for the little nitpicky things to drop dogs. 
I once got warned by a judge for telling my dog "Good Job" and softly clapping my hands, after a difficult blind. 
Some judges need to get off their high horse. Yes I am a Judge


----------



## birdboy (Feb 9, 2009)

Mistyriver said:


> How do you know that?


I know every situation is different, and there are two sides to every coin. That being said, the origional post stated there was no send on the part of the handler untill after the dog had left. We are debating the situation with facts presented before us, a similar situation with different truths may provide an opposite feeling. I believe what Chris is trying to say is that you know good and well your dog broke. Take your lumps and head home to prevent it from happening again.


----------



## Chris Rosier (Dec 27, 2008)

birdboy said:


> I believe what Chris is trying to say is that you know good and well your dog broke. Take your lumps and head home to prevent it from happening again.



Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner!


----------



## birdboy (Feb 9, 2009)

Bill Davis said:


> I find it kind of amusing that this thread has gone on so long. IMO if a set of judges are so bent on failing a dog for what they call a questionable "break" instead of judiging the dog performance in the field,


Is it questionable? Not the way I see it. The test starts at the retrieving line (or sooner depending on what level your running).


----------



## BMay (Mar 3, 2003)

Thomas...with all due respect, I really don't care what the Peformance Dept might say. I'm a hearing impaired judge. I release the handler/dog team with their number. If the dog is steady and hasn't crept...the number is called and the dog can go. I can't and don't want to get...close enough to the dog/handler team to hear IF or WHAT might've been said. That's how it is...period. If said dog goes on his number, picks up the mark(s), he/she is back for the next series. I really don't understand why some are trying to make such an issue out of this. If the majority of the poll judges say it's not a break and the majority of the poll non judges also say it isn't a break........Well, just saying 
Bob May
AKC Judge Z5853


----------



## Mistyriver (May 19, 2005)

birdboy said:


> I know every situation is different, and there are two sides to every coin. That being said, the origional post stated there was no send on the part of the handler untill after the dog had left. We are debating the situation with facts presented before us, a similar situation with different truths may provide an opposite feeling. I believe what Chris is trying to say is that you know good and well your dog broke. Take your lumps and head home to prevent it from happening again.


You are exactly right and if you go back and read one of my earlier posts I said if it was my dog, I know it broke and it would be either a no here and head home, or sit, heel, here or something to get it under control. However with that said, only the handler in this case presented really knows if his dog broke and he/she will have to deal with it.


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

i find it amusing that the people with the least experience are the ones strenuously arguing for the dog to be dropped.

i'm not even sure they have run an AKC test, let alone judge one.-Paul judge # zf390


----------



## BMay (Mar 3, 2003)

Paul...exactly!!!


----------



## RF2 (May 6, 2008)

paul young said:


> i find it amusing that the people with the least experience are the ones strenuously arguing for the dog to be dropped.
> 
> i'm not even sure they have run an AKC test, let alone judge one.-Paul judge # zf390


We are officially talking in circles. Just what I said on page 16.


----------



## Chris Rosier (Dec 27, 2008)

LOL. Dont know how Gooser argued with y'all as long as he did......

Chris Rosier Handler # 8675309


----------



## Jerry Beil (Feb 8, 2011)

This is getting kind of ridiculous.

The judge signals the handler/dog team when he is satisfied that the dog is steady. The handler then generally sends the dog. How he sends the dog is irrelevant.

So, if you want to fail the dog for "breaking" after the judge said it was OK for the dog to go, because in your judgement, the handler didn't "send" the dog, then aren't you encouraging handlers to have not easily noticed send signals because if I do send my dog on a sniff, there isn't any chance of my getting failed for this situation.

At first, I kind of agreed that the dog should be failed, but after reading the rest of this thread, I can see where I was wrong in that thinking.

Since there is not a specified way a handler has to release a dog, and since the test doesn't say that the judge has to perceive the signal, then why put unneeded subjectivity into the test by having the judge determine if the dog broke when the judge can evaluate steadiness by not releasing the team until he is satisfied that he has seen it? 

For those who say the handler knows his dog broke and should just take his lumps, what about when you know your dog didn't see the mark, but lined on where you were facing, or went to the gun station, and you know he didn't see it but still passes etc? Do you fail your own dog then because you know he didn't really mark the fall?


----------



## birdboy (Feb 9, 2009)

While we are posing hypotheticals...
You and a buddy are shooting ducks one day. A group comes in and the two of you shoot a couple of times. No ducks are dropped and your buddy says, "Dog gone, I cant believe we missed those." Your dog takes off when the statement is made. Is that a break or was he free to go because your buddy said dog? I'm no high falutin' AKC judge, just a lowly curious inexperienced handler wanting to learn from the best out there.


----------



## Chris Rosier (Dec 27, 2008)

birdboy said:


> While we are posing hypotheticals...
> You and a buddy are shooting ducks one day. A group comes in and the two of you shoot a couple of times. No ducks are dropped and your buddy says, "Dog gone, I cant believe we missed those." Your dog takes off when the statement is made. Is that a break or was he free to go because your buddy said dog? I'm no high falutin' AKC judge, just a lowly curious inexperienced handler wanting to learn from the best out there.



Wheres the, rolling on the floor, laughing out loud, I just spewed water out my nose and all over my computer screen smiley?


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

birdboy said:


> While we are posing hypotheticals...
> You and a buddy are shooting ducks one day. A group comes in and the two of you shoot a couple of times. No ducks are dropped and your buddy says, "Dog gone, I cant believe we missed those." Your dog takes off when the statement is made. Is that a break or was he free to go because your buddy said dog? I'm no high falutin' AKC judge, just a lowly curious inexperienced handler wanting to learn from the best out there.


just an out of control dog...and a couple of poor wingshooters!


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

I said I was done!

I just cant stop! I must have a problem. I’m going to have to eventually deal with it.

I believe deep down inside that most people who have trained a dog knows darned well that if the dog goes before it is sent, the dog broke. Most all rules in the dog games define a break that way.

The issue here is whether or not it is JUDGED as a break.

In the original post the Judge involved said the handler made no motion, command, or direction to the dog to send it after they released the dog.
The judge involved also said, that AFTER the dog broke, oh sorry,, left for the retrieve, the handler commanded its release with its name. The handler gave the command after the dog left.

IMHO. 

The judges, gallery, and the 8 point people in the crowd didn’t do the handler and dog team, or the organization, any favors by pulling the judges aside and forcing them to change their opinion,, only the handler really knows for sure that the dog broke, and if they took advantage of a technicality. Like I pointed out earlier,, the RULES do say its left up to the OPINION of the judges (2) IF a dog breaks. No one in the entire thread quoted the AKC HUNT TEST rules that say otherwise. They only posted THEIR interpretation of the rules. 

All this is a moot point however. If the handler honestly inside KNOWS that dog broke at the test, and if that dog eventually passed that day because people lambasted the judges to let them continue to play,, How does that handler feel about their performance that day? 
Are they gonna go home and display that ribbon? Do they own a “Lucky” ribbon?

I own a bunch of them!! I think they are an insult to the dogs that ran that test that day proper.

I am one that has a dog (actually 2) that that I allowed to develop bad habits, because during training I was told that a “little” creep or a sloppy sit probably isn’t going to get you tossed from tests. Sure enough,, I entered tests, and the judges allowed that creep, or that movement, even though the rules state that a Finished dog should own a high standard. I am fighting that to this day. 

Mt one dog has a Title “designation” Not 1 of the five tests she ran,, was I proud of or thought she passed. It was pretty much HORRIBLE work in all of them. But she passed!! I made the decision No More tests, and I was going to try and learn about standards and pride.

To the handler at the test in discussion. Only YOU know if your dog broke. Only You know how you feel about that ribbon. 
My opinion is if you have a problem,, its best to fix it., and not worry about that weekend ribbon. A breaking/ creeping dog will catch up with you eventually. Nobody did you ANY favors,,,,,,,,, IN MY HUMBLE OPINION.

Now,,,, I gotta go and work on my problem of NOT bein able to keep my mouth shut!!!

Gooser


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

who has the sig line saying when you get a gift say thank you and walk away????
who said that? it fits here whom ever said it.


.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Chris Rosier said:


> I KNOW that y'all are discussing AKC tests, but thanks for the clarification.


2 different games. 2 different standards. 2 different rules. 

And since HRC is less focused on the precision of the dog work and testing the dogs abilities, I find it ironic we're confusing the two. 

/Paul


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

birdboy said:


> IMO, it doesnt matter if your talking NARA, AKC, HRC or SRS. Lets stream line the sequence of events:
> 
> 1- Marks go off
> 2- Judge said "Dog"
> ...


And once again i'll say, you are judging by your own opinion of how to handle a dog. 

Some people should really not judge. I hope club officers are watching this thread ....

/Paul


----------



## Chris Rosier (Dec 27, 2008)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> 2 different games. 2 different standards. 2 different rules.
> 
> And since HRC is less focused on the precision of the dog work and testing the dogs abilities, I find it ironic we're confusing the two.
> 
> /Paul




Thank you for your input sir. BTW, how's the view up there on that high horse?


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

birdboy said:


> I know every situation is different, and there are two sides to every coin. That being said, the origional post stated there was no send on the part of the handler untill after the dog had left. We are debating the situation with facts presented before us, a similar situation with different truths may provide an opposite feeling. I believe what Chris is trying to say is that you know good and well your dog broke. Take your lumps and head home to prevent it from happening again.


How does the judge know the dog broke. TJ Lindbroom sends his dogs by making this little clicking sound. I've judged TJ, ran dogs in tests, honored his dogs and trained with him hundreds of times and I don't believe I have ever heard him click. I've asked him about it since I saw no visible send when standing right behind him. 

Course what does TJ know? He's only won a National.....

Never assume when judging....

/Paul


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

Quote:

"Some people should really not judge. I hope club officers are watching this thread" ....


After reading this thread ,, club officers please note! Gooser has no desire to either.

I hated gettin beat up as a kid! 


Gooser


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

MooseGooser said:


> I said I was done!
> 
> I just cant stop! I must have a problem. I’m going to have to eventually deal with it.
> 
> ...


The only comment I have is it is up to the judging community to monitor and build consistency in judging. Its pretty obvious AKC isn't going to do that....

/Paul


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Chris Rosier said:


> Thank you for your input sir. BTW, how's the view up there on that high horse?


Its pretty good. Understanding both games, their rules, the dog work involved is important to success. What i look for in a dog, how i train dogs etc is to a higher standard than either game asks. That is done for a reason. I have to be able to put my personal standards aside when it comes to judging and go with the intent of the organization and abide by the rules they produce. Unfortunately some people can't see the difference.

/Paul

Dusky HRC
Past President, Vice President, Board Member, Founding Member


----------



## Tom Mouer (Aug 26, 2003)

Ken-
Re gift quote "Say "thank you" & walk away...." , it was Lance Brown quoting Auggie Belmont. He told me the same thing, many years ago.The quote is preferenced with the following...
"You wil get screwd more times than you will get a gift,so..
BTW, if the scenario was as described, the dog did NOT break, and should have been scored.


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

Tom Mouer said:


> Ken-
> Re gift quote "Say "thank you" & walk away...." , it was Lance Brown quoting Auggie Belmont. He told me the same thing, many years ago.The quote is preferenced with the following...
> "You wil get screwd more times than you will get a gift,so..
> BTW, if the scenario was as described, the dog did NOT break, and should have been scored.


thats the one I was thinking of, thank you. 


.


----------



## birdboy (Feb 9, 2009)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> How does the judge know the dog broke. TJ Lindbroom sends his dogs by making this little clicking sound. I've judged TJ, ran dogs in tests, honored his dogs and trained with him hundreds of times and I don't believe I have ever heard him click. I've asked him about it since I saw no visible send when standing right behind him.
> 
> Course what does TJ know? He's only won a National.....
> 
> ...


Seems pretty obvious since the handler tried to cover it up by calling the dogs name after it left. I do appreciate the time and effort the judges put into the chair and hope they continue to do so. I also understand that they are only human which is why if my dog were to break (which she has been known to do) I do not try and put it on them by trying to cover it up with a delayed send. Does TJ click and call the dogs name? in this case the handler admitted the dog screwed up and tried to cheat it in.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

birdboy said:


> Seems pretty obvious since the handler tried to cover it up by calling the dogs name after it left. I do appreciate the time and effort the judges put into the chair and hope they continue to do so. I also understand that they are only human which is why if my dog were to break (which she has been known to do) I do not try and put it on them by trying to cover it up with a delayed send. Does TJ click and call the dogs name?* in this case the handler admitted the dog screwed up and tried to cheat it in*.


He didn't try to "cheat it in" I assume he called the dogs name as the dog was leaving as a part of his normal cadence. One thing I have learned is that it is not cheating to let the judges judge, that's their job. My job is to run my dog. Now there are situations where in the big picture it is worth it for me to pick up my dog and give up on a ribbon that day, say a blatent water cheat, but there are other times where I'll keep running and leave it in the judges hand on whether I was good enough that day. Also despite this crazy debate and parsing of the rule book, every AKC master judge I have ever known in twenty years of running this game, wouldn't have called a break on that dog even with the handler calling out the dog's name as he left the line.

This is crazy talk, it's driving me nuts...

John


----------



## Bill Davis (Sep 15, 2003)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> 2 different games. 2 different standards. 2 different rules.
> 
> And since HRC is less focused on the precision of the dog work and testing the dogs abilities, I find it ironic we're confusing the two.
> 
> /Paul


Please explain your comment........


----------



## birdboy (Feb 9, 2009)

John Robinson said:


> He didn't try to "cheat it in" I assume he called the dogs name as the dog was leaving as a part of his normal cadence. One thing I have learned is that it is not cheating to let the judges judge, that's their job. My job is to run my dog. Now there are situations where in the big picture it is worth it for me to pick up my dog and give up on a ribbon that day, say a blatent water cheat, but there are other times where I'll keep running and leave it in the judges hand on whether I was good enough that day. Also despite this crazy debate and parsing of the rule book, every AKC master judge I have ever known in twenty years of running this game, wouldn't have called a break on that dog even with the handler calling out the dog's name as he left the line.
> 
> This is crazy talk, it's driving me nuts...
> 
> John


Not trying to nit pick here, just going off the information given in the original post. The post stated the handler did not call or release the dog until AFTER it had left the line, not as it was leaving. Had it been as it was leaving, then yes tie goes to the dog and kudos to the handler for quick thinking. 

I too would like some clarification on the inferiority of HRC in comparison to AKC.


----------



## rboudet (Jun 29, 2004)

Chris Rosier said:


> How many people do you know that send their dog by sniffling? Seriously.


You can train a dog to go on anything you want!!!!

THE DOG WAS RELEASED BY THE JUDGE, you are free to do what you want to send the dog. How is this so hard to understand


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

Is the HRC coming into this because, HRC judges do not release dogs. If I recall from the HRC stand-point they actually place the judges significantly away from working teams, for the exact reason that they do not want the judges, to accidentally release dogs. Preventing this scenario and problem, Now I ask you with 20 odd pages of argument over it... who might be considered inferior, from this stand point?


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Well, I don't think anyone has changed anyone else's mind.

But lots of information to put in your black book


----------



## Andy Symons (Oct 2, 2003)

BMay said:


> I read something alone the lines where Rex (may have or may not have said???) to pick up your dog when the judges say to do so.
> 
> Today, with some master entry fees as high as $75...If my dog should happen to go on the judges release, so be it. True, not the way you want it to happen and I sure would work on that (not usual) problem in training group situations, etc. and hope it would happen where corrections can be be made. However, I'm very sure that while I'm running an AKC master test, I wouldn't turn into a handler purist and pick up my dog if I wasn't told to do so. JMHO


Well, we've run another 20 or so times since then, FT and HT, and hasn't done it again (yet ). I believe it was money well spent!!


----------



## Chris Rosier (Dec 27, 2008)

rboudet said:


> You can train a dog to go on anything you want!!!!
> 
> THE DOG WAS RELEASED BY THE JUDGE, you are free to do what you want to send the dog. How is this so hard to understand



You didnt answer my question.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

birdboy said:


> Not trying to nit pick here, just going off the information given in the original post. The post stated the handler did not call or release the dog until AFTER it had left the line, not as it was leaving. Had it been as it was leaving, then yes tie goes to the dog and kudos to the handler for quick thinking.
> 
> *I too would like some clarification on the inferiority of HRC in comparison to AKC.*


I don't know if others have inferred any inferiority of HRC in comparison to AKC, I certainly didn't mean to as I have never even seen one. It just sounds like they are very different retriever venues. Those of us that run AKC are pretty used to operating under a system, right or wrong, where we have to wait until the judge gives us a number before we can say anything or signal our dog in any way. Now even this rule has been stretched by handlers shifting their body forward or back, right or left, even scraping their foot on the ground in an attempt to pull a dog's attention to another gun. After the judge gives you a number in AKC a dog can go, it's not a break, even if the handler says his name belatedly after he leaves the line. I don't know how HRC deals with this, but the discussion is about AKC.

John


----------



## birdboy (Feb 9, 2009)

John Robinson said:


> I don't know if others have inferred any inferiority of HRC in comparison to AKC, I certainly didn't mean to as I have never even seen one. It just sounds like they are very different retriever venues. Those of us that run AKC are pretty used to operating under a system, right or wrong, where we have to wait until the judge gives us a number before we can say anything or signal our dog in any way. Now even this rule has been stretched by handlers shifting their body forward or back, right or left, even scraping their foot on the ground in an attempt to pull a dog's attention to another gun. After the judge gives you a number in AKC a dog can go, it's not a break, even if the handler says his name belatedly after he leaves the line. I don't know how HRC deals with this, but the discussion is about AKC.
> 
> John


I'm sorry John. I probably should have put that in another post. In no way was I directing that at you. That was ment for the tone I interpreted from another post. My apologies for the confusion.

On a lighter note... does anyone know what the longest thread in RTF history is?


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

birdboy said:


> I'm sorry John. I probably should have put that in another post. In no way was I directing that at you. That was ment for the tone I interpreted from another post. My apologies for the confusion.
> 
> On a lighter note... does anyone know what the longest thread in RTF history is?


No problem. Like Ted says, lots of comments but nobody is changing anybody's mind here. I already got put on Gooser's ignore list and I feel bad about that so I better quit while I'm not too far behind.

John


----------



## Chris Rosier (Dec 27, 2008)

birdboy said:


> On a lighter note... does anyone know what the longest thread in RTF history is?



The "seat on a duck" one has to be near the top


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

The difference between AKC standards and HRC standards are quite evident. Two different games, two different focuses for evaluation. HRC is roughly 50/50 focused on both handler and dog. AKC is more 80/20 with emphasis on dog work. Two examples

1. HRC's stance on the handler wearing the latest and coolest in camo.
2. Started dogs bringing a bird back to the area of the line instead of delivering to hand. 

No need to go on and on about the differences and no disregard for either venue. HRC though does not put nearly the emphasis on dog training, precision and performance. Rather the focus is more on the team and hunting. 

/Paul


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

please note:

Make Gooser the defaul in your "Black Book"
I have way to much to learn,, and am currently way to busy tryin to iron out problems I HAVE CREATED with my current dog.

I do have an opinon,, and I enjoy discussions!

I have been told many times to get off the Internet,,, and train that dog of yours

Maybe its startin to sink into a thick head!:razz:


Gooser


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

This is a great thread, it *IS* the complaint of AKC HT *"Incarnate"* _poor_ interpretation of insignificant rules by different judges. 20 plus pages arguing over one little line in the rule book, which I doubt the writers looked twice @ when they wrote it in. Probably devoting majority of their time to describing judging of marking, test setups, and things that really show dog work (very bad of them). 

We did it without going into name calling or pettiness. And we didn't even get the " train don't complain" standard because a judge wrote it. Great job!!!, It's definitely going into the file.


----------



## rboudet (Jun 29, 2004)

Chris Rosier said:


> How many people do you know that send their dog by sniffling? Seriously.


About as many that send their dog on a fart But whats your point? As stated before you can train a dog to go on anything. And it appears you "might" only run HRC where you are not released at all.

If I am paying 70-80+ dollars in entry fees, money on hotel, food, gas and drink and my dog goes on his number or "dog" or cheats, I will work on that Monday not at a test. And in HT you are playing against a standard, so why would anyone care. If I pass a test with no handles and all 10s across the page and all others had handles and hunts I still get the same $3 ribbon.


----------



## birdboy (Feb 9, 2009)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> The difference between AKC standards and HRC standards are quite evident. Two different games, two different focuses for evaluation. HRC is roughly 50/50 focused on both handler and dog. AKC is more 80/20 with emphasis on dog work. Two examples
> 
> 1. HRC's stance on the handler wearing the latest and coolest in camo.
> 2. Started dogs bringing a bird back to the area of the line instead of delivering to hand.
> ...


I was introduced to the retrieving game at an HRC test, and it may be for that reason that I am a little partial to them. Then again, it may be the whole "For hunters, by hunters" thing. Since you mentioned it first, it seems that your biggest issues with HRC is the whole realism of the sport. As far as started dogs go, I've been an advocate of either changing the rules or implementing another level for attracting beginners.

Before I continue let me say first, I do run both and will continue to run HRC & AKC events. The first AKC test I went to, I didn't know many people. As I walked around, I would say hi to folks as I passed by. The only people that spoke to me in return, I found out, were regular HRC entrants who were only running to get a title. It was the same condescending attitude you are presenting now that drives people away from AKC venues. So send us you tired, weak and oppressed masses; no matter what camouflage pattern they have. Some games are for hunters and some games are for those that play hunter. Up to you what to play, but don't bash one for the other.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

birdboy said:


> I was introduced to the retrieving game at an HRC test, and it may be for that reason that I am a little partial to them. Then again, it may be the whole "For hunters, by hunters" thing. Since you mentioned it first, it seems that your biggest issues with HRC is the whole realism of the sport. As far as started dogs go, I've been an advocate of either changing the rules or implementing another level for attracting beginners.
> 
> Before I continue let me say first, I do run both and will continue to run HRC & AKC events. The first AKC test I went to, I didn't know many people. As I walked around, I would say hi to folks as I passed by. The only people that spoke to me in return, I found out, were regular HRC entrants who were only running to get a title. It was the same condescending attitude you are presenting now that drives people away from AKC venues. So send us you tired, weak and oppressed masses; no matter what camouflage pattern they have. Some games are for hunters and some games are for those that play hunter. Up to you what to play, but don't bash one for the other.


I just stated the differences between the venues. Condescending my ass....

/Paul

Dusky HRC
Past President, Vice President, Board Member, Founding Member


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

27 pages of debating an issue that is a non-issue. I send my dogs via mental telepathy as soon as I hear the 'd' (for 'dog' or number) enunicated by the judge to release my dog to retrieve. I defy anyone to know how or when I send my dog but I am lightning quick and send my dog virtually simultaneous with the judge's release. So, whether you are discussing AKC HT or FT rules, the rules, as they currently exist, are abundantly clear, using the OP's premise - no break.


----------



## Jerry Beil (Feb 8, 2011)

I'm new to the Hunt Test world, and I found the folks at the AKC event I attended in May to be very friendly. Also, not sure where you get the condescending thing from - The fact that it might be considered a break in HRC, is irrelevant, as the way the dogs are evaluated for steadiness is completely different there.

The dog described in the OP wasn't perfect, and I suspect that if you ask the handlers in any test in any venue, you'll find that the dogs' performances are rarely perfect. The dog obviously exhibited steadiness by waiting until the judge released the handler/dog team. In HRC, that would have been a fail, but only because the handler has to demonstrate the steadiness. In none of the tests is the standard for passing perfection.


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

quote:

*In none of the tests is the standard for passing perfection.*

Yes thats true,, but it IS a Failer in the upper levels for a dog to break!!

Look up the definition of a break in all the venues, compare them, and tell me if there is a obvious difference.

Gooser


----------



## Bubba (Jan 3, 2003)

This is simple- the judge(s) indicate that the dog has completed the portion of the test where steadiness is evaluated to their satisfaction by uttering either the dog's number or just by saying "Dog". Once they have given that indication there are LOTS of other things that remain to be evaluated (including trainability) but steadiness is a closed issue.
How the communication between dog and handler is accomplished is none of my business provided that it produces the desired results. Yup the dog left before the handler would have liked and as I already indicated it isn't something that I personally would accept. That isn't the question and frankly isn't even germain. The steadiness question was answered when the judge called for the dog to be released.
We all know what a break is and that it is a fatal error in the upper levels of any venue. Point is that once the dog is released then by definition there can be no break. That would have to happen BEFORE the judge(s) indicate that their requirements have been met.

We return you now to my regularly scheduled GDG regards

Bubba


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

NCHank said:


> I'm new to the Hunt Test world, and I found the folks at the AKC event I attended in May to be very friendly. Also, not sure where you get the condescending thing from - The fact that it might be considered a break in HRC, is irrelevant, as the way the dogs are evaluated for steadiness is completely different there.
> 
> The dog described in the OP wasn't perfect, and I suspect that if you ask the handlers in any test in any venue, you'll find that the dogs' performances are rarely perfect. The dog obviously exhibited steadiness by waiting until the judge released the handler/dog team. In HRC, that would have been a fail, but only because the handler has to demonstrate the steadiness. In none of the tests is the standard for passing perfection.


Not necessarily true (your HRC comment on steadiness).


----------



## Byron Musick (Sep 19, 2008)

I'm still trying to figure out why Paul's Ass is condensating, too much heat? Get that Donkey to some AC real quick! 

I think once the Judge releases you, up to that point you have achieved the steadiness standard set for the test, or so I would think! IMHO


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

MooseGooser said:


> quote:
> 
> *In none of the tests is the standard for passing perfection.*
> 
> ...


Mike

1) A break is only a break IFthe rules say it is a break
2) If the Rules say it is not a break, then whatever you may think it is, it is not a break
3) Under the Field Trial Rules, it is not a break.
4) It would seem that the HT Rules are more ambiguous. 

When I read the HT Rules, I could see either position.
I prefer that the situation NOT be a break. But that is my preference, and there will always be some subjectivity that arises from judging.

You are entitled to your opinion.
The others are entitled to theirs.
You are not going to convince them.
They are not going to convince you.

So, to you and others, I say

Let it go


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Bubba said:


> This is simple- the judge(s) indicate that the dog has completed the portion of the test where steadiness is evaluated to their satisfaction by uttering either the dog's number or just by saying "Dog". Once they have given that indication there are LOTS of other things that remain to be evaluated (including trainability) but steadiness is a closed issue.
> How the communication between dog and handler is accomplished is none of my business provided that it produces the desired results. Yup the dog left before the handler would have liked and as I already indicated it isn't something that I personally would accept. That isn't the question and frankly isn't even germain. The steadiness question was answered when the judge called for the dog to be released.
> We all know what a break is and that it is a fatal error in the upper levels of any venue. Point is that once the dog is released then by definition there can be no break. That would have to happen BEFORE the judge(s) indicate that their requirements have been met.
> 
> ...


I can vouch for Bubba as knowing what a break is as my dog Pete has demonstrated how to break in style many times for Bubba. I swear the two of them work it out before hand just to piss me off....

/Paul


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Byron Musick said:


> I'm still trying to figure out why Paul's Ass is condensating, too much heat? Get that Donkey to some AC real quick!
> 
> I think once the Judge releases you, up to that point you have achieved the steadiness standard set for the test, or so I would think! IMHO


People been carrying my ass for years. I wish they would just put him down...










/Paul


----------



## Bill Davis (Sep 15, 2003)

NCHank said:


> I'm new to the Hunt Test world, and I found the folks at the AKC event I attended in May to be very friendly. Also, not sure where you get the condescending thing from - The fact that it might be considered a break in HRC, is irrelevant, as the way the dogs are evaluated for steadiness is completely different there.
> 
> The dog described in the OP wasn't perfect, and I suspect that if you ask the handlers in any test in any venue, you'll find that the dogs' performances are rarely perfect. The dog obviously exhibited steadiness by waiting until the judge released the handler/dog team. In HRC, that would have been a fail, but only because the handler has to demonstrate the steadiness. In none of the tests is the standard for passing perfection.


It would not be concidered a fail in HRC. Once all the birds are on the ground the dog is free to go. Now if the dog is out in front of the gun barrel then the handler is expected to reheel their dog before being sent....


----------



## Kevinismybrother (Aug 3, 2009)

Dang it - ran out of popcorn AGAIN!! 
and everyone comparing their apples and oranges and watermelons is making this like a food fight!! A fine mess and no resolution to the question.

ya'll ought to take a break instead of reloading. 

just saying regards(less)


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Kevinismybrother said:


> Dang it - ran out of popcorn AGAIN!!
> and everyone comparing their apples and oranges and watermelons is making this like a food fight!! A fine mess and no resolution to the question.
> 
> ya'll ought to take a break instead of reloading.
> ...


Are you me? Because Kevin is my brother too, and he lives in Colorado.

John


----------



## Kevinismybrother (Aug 3, 2009)

maybe we is twins seperated at birth!! 
We Both have that brother Kevin, and we irritate the bejeessus out of Gooser

PS if you think this was bad - trying saying something ornery like "good luck" while he is in the holding blind!!


----------



## David Barrow (Jun 14, 2005)

I brought this subject up as described from the original poster to AKC Rep Jerry Mann a few years ago to settle a bet I had made with another Master Judge, and his response was " The dog is free to make the retrieve upon the handler being given a number, and it is not considered a break". Thank you for posting Budd.
Those that disagree should perhaps storm the AKC and burn down the place.
Those that prefer to evaluate a dogs abilities in the field good for you.
(perhaps a clue as to who won the bet)


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

David Barrow said:


> I brought this subject up as described from the original poster to AKC Rep Jerry Mann a few years ago to settle a bet I had made with another Master Judge, and his response was " The dog is free to make the retrieve upon the handler being given a number, and it is not considered a break". Thank you for posting Budd.
> Those that disagree should perhaps storm the AKC and burn down the place.
> Those that prefer to evaluate a dogs abilities in the field good for you.
> (perhaps a clue as to who won the bet)


Thank you, David.


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

David Barrow said:


> I brought this subject up as described from the original poster to AKC Rep Jerry Mann a few years ago to settle a bet I had made with another Master Judge, and his response was " The dog is free to make the retrieve upon the handler being given a number, and it is not considered a break". Thank you for posting Budd.
> Those that disagree should perhaps storm the AKC and burn down the place.
> Those that prefer to evaluate a dogs abilities in the field good for you.
> (perhaps a clue as to who won the bet)


Did you ask Jerry Mann why the HT rule is so poorly written? 

The FT rule book added about 1 sentence to the section on breakiing and everyone who reads it understands what the rule is. The HT rule is debated here for an untold number of pages and if you can read and understand the English language, you have to go find an AKC rep to tell you that regardless of what our rule book states, it is not a break.

And BTW, you didn't win the bet in my opinion. Jerry Mann is just another guy with an opinion just like everyone else. He just happens to work for the AKC. 

The HT rules committee has made a deliberate decision not used the same clarifying language contained in the FT rule book. Thus, they obviously do not intend to follow the FT rule.


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

"The HT rules committee has made a deliberate decision not used the same clarifying language contained in the FT rule book. Thus, they obviously do not intend to follow the FT rule."

Do you know this for a fact? I would think only members of the HT Rules committee know why a rule was written and the intentions of a rule. Anything else is just speculation on our part.


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

David Barrow said:


> I brought this subject up as described from the original poster to *AKC Rep Jerry Mann* a few years ago to settle a bet I had made with another Master Judge, and his response was "* The dog is free to make the retrieve upon the handler being given a number, and it is not considered a break*". Thank you for posting Budd.


NANNER NANNER BOO BOO :snipersmile::snipersmile:


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

Thomas D said:


> "The HT rules committee has made a deliberate decision not used the same clarifying language contained in the FT rule book. Thus, they obviously do not intend to follow the FT rule."
> .


Well, no. they copied the NAHRA Field Test rule book page for page. Some folk (Cleo) have original ones with the NAHRA marks still on the pages. Don't give um too much credit here 

.


----------



## steve schreiner (Jun 15, 2009)

This has turned into the same debate as the one over the constituion....The constitution was written for a christian nation that had a moral code of behavior ...The rule book was written for people with certain preconceived notions about dogs and their behavior...Enough lack of clarity to judge dogs instead of being like the SRS games...Bean counters...The thoughs and guide lines given by judges of old was that a tie goes to the runner (at least 40 years ).... Just as some people have no morals to guide them with out the letter of the law some have not the ability to judge without the letter of the law...Steve S


----------



## steve schreiner (Jun 15, 2009)

Ken Bora said:


> NANNER NANNER BOO BOO :snipersmile::snipersmile:




Ken, This as any other subject debated by the people needs someone to clarify the intent of the book....Who do you think should be this person if not Jerry or any one of the other AKC reps...? Steve S


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

steve schreiner said:


> Ken, This as any other subject debated by the people needs someone to clarify the intent of the book....Who do you think should be this person if not Jerry or any one of the other AKC reps...? Steve S


no, I agree with Mr. Mann. and it is what I have been typing all along as well and voted in the poll. You misunderstand my
NANNER NANNER BO BO!!;-)
　
.


----------



## steve schreiner (Jun 15, 2009)

Sorry Ken ....Your post just hit me wrong ....I haven't read all the post on this thread ....glad you agree...Take care ...Steve S


----------



## Chris Rosier (Dec 27, 2008)

Bubba said:


> Yup the dog left before the handler would have liked and as I already indicated it isn't something that I personally would accept. That isn't the question and frankly isn't even germain.
> Bubba



To quote the late, great Buford T Justice, "the &^*&*$# germans got nothin to do with it!"

PS - I think y'all are just trying to get this thing to 30 pages.;-)


----------



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

Bubba said:


> Nope.
> 
> The judges released the dog and he is at that point free to ship the dog using whatever cue that fits the moment. Dog broke but not till after the judges said it was OK.
> 
> ...


The OP was asked and then conscisely answered on post #2. 
29 more pages of further debate and discourse then follow it. Seriously? 

Internet love regards,


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

FOM said:


> Mountain out of a mole hill....dear lord can the dog mark, does he have natural talent, trained skills and would I want to hunt with him?? That's more important than this trivial matter....common sense is not so common!


I mean, we both already posted... why has this thread continued? lol


I was at a hunt test in the last 90s when a buddy of mine was walking back to the truck and said the judges told him his dog broke on the second bird of a double. Seriously. _(by this i mean after the dog retrieved the first bird, it left on its own for the second)_

Judges have brain farts all the time. It happens. Hopefully they have an opportunity to correct it before it's too late.

Lainee... i was there when you had a judge tell you that you failed a blind and to go home, then you got second in that trial. 

SM


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Well, I think the dog didn't break.

/Paul


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

Shayne Mehringer said:


> I mean, we both already posted... why has this thread continued? lol
> 
> 
> I was at a hunt test in the last 90s when a buddy of mine was walking back to the truck and said the judges told him his dog broke on the second bird of a double. Seriously. _(by this i mean after the dog retrieved the first bird, it left on its own for the second)_
> ...


I was there too...

I also own a dog that on occasion breaks while being lined up for a blind - and he lined one. Hasn't been dropped for such behavior & he has been released on marks several times by "dog" without a judgement penality. My Gen is very unpredictable and an amazing dog given his limitations, but that's another story.


----------



## Geiss (May 5, 2010)

Chris Rosier said:


> To quote the late, great Buford T Justice, "the &^*&*$# germans got nothin to do with it!"
> 
> PS - I think y'all are just trying to get this thing to 30 pages.;-)


looks like they got it!


----------



## Daniel J Simoens (Jul 7, 2011)

I only show 8 pages!!!! plenty of work to do!!!!!


----------



## Mistyriver (May 19, 2005)

rboudet said:


> And it appears you "might" only run HRC where you are not released at all.



That is not true. According to the rule book On the Judges signal the handler can release his/her dog or as otherwise directed by the Judges. Normally it is the last bird to hit the gound.


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

Granddaddy said:


> I was there too...


And most importantly, you were NOT the judge.

SM


----------



## Rick_C (Dec 12, 2007)

captainjack said:


> Did you ask Jerry Mann why the HT rule is so poorly written?
> 
> The FT rule book added about 1 sentence to the section on breakiing and everyone who reads it understands what the rule is. The HT rule is debated here for an untold number of pages and if you can read and understand the English language, you have to go find an AKC rep to tell you that regardless of what our rule book states, it is not a break.
> 
> ...


Seriously??

Is that the argument you use when given a ticket for speeding too, that it was just some guy that happens to work for the police departments opinion that you were speeding?


----------



## David Barrow (Jun 14, 2005)

Captainjack, no I did not ask why the book was so poorly written.

However, I do know some of the folks that were involved in the process of getting the sport started (those that are still with us) HT's, and appreciate the fact that they took the time to write it so that I have a venue to give my dogs the opportunity to work in when I am not hunting.

I very seldom have the time to participate in both HT's and spend most of my time in FT's because of the logic that you have expressed. I too early on, spent alot of time worrying about the areas that you are, until I began to appreciate the real capabilities of these wonderful animals. I hope one day you will have a chance to gain that insight, and if you choose not, so be it, your loss.

By the way, I would have picked up my dog if I believed it would have caused a bad habit (and have before).

Good Luck, and thanks again Budd for being honest enough to try and gain a broader insight on judging.


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

birdboy said:


> Since you mentioned it first, it seems that your biggest issues with HRC is the whole realism of the sport.


LOL --Now *that* is some funny stuff.


----------

