# Question for Kristie Wilder



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

On the "This is amazing" thread, you wrote the statement below. I'm including the first paragraph to add context. My question lies with second paragraph:



> So while I don't frequently use overs en route to the blind (but probably with some frequency at the very end when the dog may be even but isn't winding it), I surely don't think you can rule them out entirely.
> 
> _And I don't think as a judge (*I'm not one, but responding anyhoo*) you have any right to look at what your handler is casting. Your sole responsibility is to see that on each cast, the dog makes more progress to the blind_.


Could you please explain what you meant by this statement, particularly the parts in red?

Thanks in advance.

kg


----------



## Guest (Apr 4, 2007)

K G said:


> On the "This is amazing" thread, you wrote the statement below. I'm including the first paragraph to add context. My question lies with second paragraph:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


it doesn't matter what cast the handler gives as long as the dog is making progress to the blind. the dogs response and progress to the blind is the only thing being judged (or that should be judged), not whether it's a left back, right angle back, over or whatever other cast the handler is using to get that progress. it's about progress to the blind, not looking at where the handler's arm is and seeing if the dog took what YOU think THAT cast should be. it's about you, as a judge, watching the dog's progress to the blind.

-K


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

> it doesn't matter what cast the handler gives as long as the dog is making progress to the blind. _the dogs response_ and progress to the blind is the only thing being judged (or that should be judged), not whether it's a left back, right angle back, over _or whatever other cast the handler is using to get that progress_. it's about progress to the blind, _not looking at where the handler's arm is and seeing if the dog took what YOU think THAT cast should be_. it's about you, as a judge, watching the dog's progress to the blind.


Question #1: _the dogs response_...So if the dog gives you a cast refusal I shouldn't care what cast you gave that the dog refused?

Question #2: _or whatever other cast the handler is using to get that progress_...But what if the dog doesn't "progress?" I should only write that it was a cast refusal?

Question #3: _not looking at where the handler's arm is and seeing if the dog took what YOU think THAT cast should be_...If I'm in the proper position to score the blind, I can see both what cast you gave _and_ which way the dog turned/if it took the cast. If I am going to do my AKC-mandated duty to score your dog fairly, you can rest assured that not only am I going to write what cast you gave (using a code I've developed over the years), I'm going to show whether the dog took it or not. As a judge, it's my SIGNED and AFFIRMED responsibility to judge that dog by the regs/guidelines and I have found that after looking at a bunch of dogs run a blind, the more notes I make, the more likely I am to fairly justify my scores to _myself_ and my co-judge and the score the dogs work _correctly_. 

If you had done any judging, you'd know that while you are not required to justify or explain your scoring when a handler asks to see their sheets after the test, you can shut them up in a hurry when they want to argue with you about cast refusals and how they only had three when your notes show that had 6 in a ROW *and* _what cast they gave versus which way the dog moved._ :wink: 

By the way, the term "progess to the blind/bird" is not used in the AKC regs/guidelines relative to scoring blinds. It's a popular term and one that makes total sense, but the regs/guidelines give it no credence. 

kg


----------



## Guest (Apr 4, 2007)

K G said:


> > it doesn't matter what cast the handler gives as long as the dog is making progress to the blind. _the dogs response_ and progress to the blind is the only thing being judged (or that should be judged), not whether it's a left back, right angle back, over _or whatever other cast the handler is using to get that progress_. it's about progress to the blind, _not looking at where the handler's arm is and seeing if the dog took what YOU think THAT cast should be_. it's about you, as a judge, watching the dog's progress to the blind.
> 
> 
> Question #1: _the dogs response_...So if the dog gives you a cast refusal I shouldn't care what cast you gave that the dog refused?
> ...


Question number one: Yes, because only the direction and progress of the dog, not the arm motion of the handler, indicates whether the dog is making progress to the blind

Number two: Yes, if dog doesn't progress, then it's a refusal. If and when I judge there is one thing I will take into account in addition to the fact that "non-progress" to the blind is a cast refusal... That's "navigation of obstacles" like logs/impassable cover/etc. So if dog has to make it's way around something impassable (typically in a stick pond), I wouldn't score a right turn to get by a giant cypress tree a cast refusal.

Number three: Where does the rulebook say that you compare the handler's arm to the cast the dog takes? (I'm talking only AKC hunt tests because I'm not as familiar with AKC rulebook). Where on earth does it say that? And who are you, as a judge, to interpret what someone else's cast means? And, beyond that, what difference does the cast make in anything you would ever judge? I would be wasting my time with some "davinci code" for handler casting. All you need to do is look at the dog -- see if it stops when handler whistles, see if it makes progress to the blind when it takes off...

So riddle me this... If a dog autocasts IN YOUR OPINION, with the handler having done WHAT YOU HAVE ASSUMED (according to your "code") IS NOTHING, are you going to score that as a control issue? And how do YOU score a no-hands back?

It's just a waste of time. All you need to do is draw circles and lines to connect them and see if each connection indicated progress to the blind.

I would be curious to hear ways in which your "code" has affected a handler and dog team to their detriment?

-K


----------



## Jerry (Jan 3, 2003)

Well I feel a little bit better now.

I had already made a note to myself that in the future I would have to ignore a single whistle blast by the handler and score it as a POP if the dog sat because that would be an assumption on my part that the dog was trained to sit on a whistle. One musn't do that.

Jerry


----------



## Guest (Apr 4, 2007)

When you boys have time, and Keith I'm actually surprised, open the pdf version of the rulebook (FOR HUNT TESTS) and search on and find where it says ANY single thing about taking into account the ARM DIRECTION of the handler's cast in scoring a dog's progress to the blind. I searched on both ARM and CAST. Arm had zero reponses. Cast had quite a few, but most deal with the original send of a dog on a mark or a re-cast. And a few dealt with cast refusals... BUT none of the ones associated with cast refusals made any note of comparing the handler's cast with the direction the dog takes.

Moreover... For Jerry, who I think doesn't have too much experience in hunt tests but I'm not sure, search on WHISTLE and there are lots of real clear examples on how to score whistle refusals, a dog's response to a WHISTLE and the like.


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

So lets say I train my dogs to take a left back by giving a left over and saying back and my left overs are actually saying "left" while waving my left arm. It sure is different than most but if it gets the dog to the blind and the dog stays on line and challenges the factors, who cares what I look like?


----------



## Mark Littlejohn (Jun 16, 2006)

Got to agree with Kristie. 
Example: Take that pro in Oklahoma who gives his dogs verbal "left"s and "right"s. If he didn't use his hands, are you going to grade him down for the dog going left towards the bird if the guy shouts right? How do you know if its the handler's right or the dog's? As illogical as it may seem, the same thing could apply with a cast. If I'm only listening to whistles then watching the dog's progress to the blind, and he handles to the blind as if he were riding a RR track, why should I care what hand signals the handler used? He got the job done.


----------



## Guest (Apr 4, 2007)

achiro said:


> So lets say I train my dogs to take a left back by giving a left over and saying back and my left overs are actually saying "left" while waving my left arm. It sure is different than most but if it gets the dog to the blind and the dog stays on line and challenges the factors, who cares what I look like?


Amen my brother... I'm going to start doing bassackwards casting and go run under Keith and Jerry just for kicks to see how they'd fail my dog even if he ran a really nice straight line with good sits and casts towards the blind.

Where do you fault the dog in the scoring system? I can't find it in the rulebook nor figure out how you could possibly do it... EXCEPT if Keith and Jerry would score my dog a 0 in trainability for not taking bassackwards casts that, if taken traditionally, would have the dog all over the field.

This is an extreme example, but the easiest way to show why it doesn't work to pay any attention to the handler.


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

> It's just a waste of time. All you need to do is draw circles and lines to connect them and see if each connection indicated progress to the blind.


When _you_ decide to sit in the chair, _you_ can draw circles and lines to connect them. The AKC tells us to score numerically; how we get to those numbers is up to us. 



> I would be curious to hear ways in which your "code" has affected a handler and dog team to their detriment?


I score what I *see*, not what I *think*. If you give a silent right angle back (SRAB....pretty complicated, davinci-code stuff, huh.... :? ), and the dog breaks left, I add a CR and keep drawing. If the dog takes the cast, the drawing tells the story. The best part is that I can tell EXACTLY what the dog did from start to finish. Is that a BAD thing?????



> Where does the rulebook say that you compare the handler's arm to the cast the dog takes? Where on earth does it say that? And who are you, as a judge, to interpret what someone else's cast means? And, beyond that, what difference does the cast make in anything you would ever judge?


When you give a cast, are you trying to communicate with the dog? Are you trying to change the dog's direction when you blow a whistle and then give a cast? What _DIFFERENCE_ does it make??? ALL THE DIFFERENCE IN THE WORLD when it comes to scoring the blind! The regs/guidelines say I have to score what I see...what I see is a handler attempting to communicate with the dog. If I don't write down what I see (casts AND what the dog does), after watching a bunch of dogs, some of those drawings will look like someone went crazy with an Etch-A-Sketch! My job is to score your dog FAIRLY! I draw what I see and I want to know what I meant when I wrote something down.



> So riddle me this... If a dog autocasts IN YOUR OPINION, with the handler having done WHAT YOU HAVE ASSUMED (according to your "code") IS NOTHING, are you going to score that as a control issue? And how do YOU score a no-hands back?


If a dog starts to move before a cast is given, I write that down. Period. If you DO nothing as a handler, then I don't have anything to write down, do I? :roll: When the next whistle blows, I write that down, too. I write stuff down when I judge. I'll score it relative to how the dog moves. Sometimes the dog goes the right way...sometimes it doesn't. That happens when dogs don't wait for casts....and a no hands back is a NHB. :wink: It's an incredible cast when it works!

At the end of the day, the job is to get the blind in a pleasing manner. If you've done that, why do you give a whit how I score you as long as I write down what I see? If you are talented enough to backasswards handle your dog to a clean blind, you have at it. You'll get a passing score. 

Feel better? :wink: 

kg


----------



## Dave Burton (Mar 22, 2006)

I recently went and trained with a pro. When I blew whistle for dog to come in he asked me why she didn't sit. He told me my come in whistle is most peoples sit whistle. How would you judge that? Would you THINK I had blown for her to sit and she came in instead? Knowing my backwardness it's a wonder I didn't teach my dog to go back left when I used right hand backcast. I'm new to the hunt test game but it seems to me as long as the dog went towards the blind then it was OK. I read almost every training thead on here and it has helped alot but some subjects are clear as mud.


----------



## Jerry (Jan 3, 2003)

There's several holes in that reasoning but to each his own.

Jerry


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

> This is an extreme example, but the easiest way to show why it doesn't work to pay any attention to the handler.


Easiest way for you to justify it, you mean. :wink: Nonsensical examples and searches of the AKC rulebook are great diversions when trying to talk about words used and unused.

Sit in the chair, Kristie. Give yourself the perspective before you pass judgement on how it's done.

kg


----------



## ksubigbuck (Apr 30, 2006)

I think that what she is trying to say, is that if you know your dog is going to want to run a certain direction, you cast it in a slighly different direction knowing that your dog will probably come out somewhere in between.

In this instance the judge shouldn't strike you for knowing your dog and giving the appropriate cast to get your dog to the blind.

An example:
You are getting ready to give your dog a cast. He needs to run a right angled back. You know that the dog is going to want to run a straight right over, so you give him a straight back cast knowing that he will probably come out somewhere in between a straight back and a straight over.

Hunter


----------



## Guest (Apr 4, 2007)

K G said:


> (snip)
> 
> I score what I *see*, not what I *think*. If you give a silent right angle back (SRAB....pretty complicated, davinci-code stuff, huh.... :? ), and the dog breaks left, I add a CR and keep drawing. If the dog takes the cast, the drawing tells the story. The best part is that I can tell EXACTLY what the dog did from start to finish. Is that a BAD thing?????


YES, it's TERRIBLE. Because if the dog breaks LEFT, but turns hard and makes progress to the blind, the dog shouldn't be scored down. MOREOVER, if the dog breaks left and does NOT make progress to the blind, then it's a cast refusal REGARDLESS of which cast the handler gave.

You said: "(using a code I've developed over the years)" = must not be so simple, which is why I nicknamed it.



K G said:


> When you give a cast, are you trying to communicate with the dog? Are you trying to change the dog's direction when you blow a whistle and then give a cast? What _DIFFERENCE_ does it make??? ALL THE DIFFERENCE IN THE WORLD when it comes to scoring the blind! The regs/guidelines say I have to score what I see...what I see is a handler attempting to communicate with the dog. If I don't write down what I see (casts AND what the dog does), after watching a bunch of dogs, some of those drawings will look like someone went crazy with an Etch-A-Sketch! My job is to score your dog FAIRLY! I draw what I see and I want to know what I meant when I wrote something down.


Once again, I ask you to show me where in the rulebook there are any guidelines, recommendations, suggestions, or otherwise pertaining to using the handler's actions to JUDGE a dog's PROGRESS to the blind. It's not up to you to make up your own scoring system. The rulebook appears quite clear on how to score blinds and it says nothing about handler's casts. It DOES address cast refusals, whistle refusals and "progress to the blind". But it never once addresses anything to do with the manner the handler uses to get his dog to the destination.

And, once again, I ask you to give me some examples where your davinci code has been to the detriment of the handler... it sounds like you would score a the left-back scenario you gave above as a cast refusal EVEN IF the dog made progress to the blind, SIMPLY BECAUSE the dog didn't turn over the proper shoulder and that is UNFAIR.

I believe you know Cole Fertic, he casts with ONE ARM. How are you going to score him?
-K


----------



## Guest (Apr 4, 2007)

K G said:


> > This is an extreme example, but the easiest way to show why it doesn't work to pay any attention to the handler.
> 
> 
> Easiest way for you to justify it, you mean. :wink: Nonsensical examples and searches of the AKC rulebook are great diversions when trying to talk about words used and unused.
> ...


now that joie's out of school and I'm cutting back i will be. I think being a contestant for 10 years does give me enough credibility to know the rules. Spare me.


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

> ...the judge shouldn't strike you for knowing your dog and giving the appropriate cast to get your dog to the blind.


I don't know one that would. I wouldn't. Answer the whistles. Carry the casts. If a 45 degree cast gets you the needed 60 degree correction, that will be duly noted and would _hardly_ be considered to be a cast refusal.

Write down what you see and move on. If the dog makes progress to the bird, good for you. If it doesn't, at least I have reference point.

Apparently, some handlers are uncomfortable with that.



> I think being a contestant for 10 years does give me enough credibility to know the rules. Spare me.


Teaching the judges/handlers seminar for two years, making two master hunters, and judging since the inception of the program over 20 years ago does the same for me. :wink: 

kg


----------



## Jerry (Jan 3, 2003)

I've never met him but would I be correct in assuming he points in the direction he wants his dogs to go?

Jerry


----------



## Guest (Apr 4, 2007)

labman63 said:


> I recently went and trained with a pro. When I blew whistle for dog to come in he asked me why she didn't sit. He told me my come in whistle is most peoples sit whistle. How would you judge that? Would you THINK I had blown for her to sit and she came in instead? Knowing my backwardness it's a wonder I didn't teach my dog to go back left when I used right hand backcast. I'm new to the hunt test game but it seems to me as long as the dog went towards the blind then it was OK. I read almost every training thead on here and it has helped alot but some subjects are clear as mud.


Well labman, I suggest you watch these boards closely and make a note of the people who will penalize you for how you choose to run a NICE blind with your dog... make notes so you don't get screwed on the weekend. It's just an example of unfairness in judging. Keith might have all kinds of negative notes about you and your dog. I'm still trying to figure out how he could penalize you, but he hasn't answered that yet... If a dog runs a nice blind, they run a nice blind. PERIOD.

Enjoy the hunt test game. Most judges are fair and reasonable. LOL

And, as I said that, I should also say that I've known and run under Keith for 10 years now and I've NEVER felt he's been unfair. I'm actually really surprised at his scoring system, though.


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

K G said:


> If a 45 degree cast gets you the needed 60 degree correction, that will be duly noted and would _hardly_ be considered to be a cast refusal.kg


DING DING DING DING DING DING after several pages in my thread and several other threads popping up on the subject, SOMEONE FINALLY ANSWERED MY QUESTION!!!!!! :wink:


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

> And, as I said that, I should also say that I've known and run under Keith for 10 years now and I've NEVER felt he's been unfair.


You've run under that scoring system, Kristie. Apparently it's treated you fairly.

kg


----------



## Guest (Apr 4, 2007)

K G said:


> > ...the judge shouldn't strike you for knowing your dog and giving the appropriate cast to get your dog to the blind.
> 
> 
> I don't know one that would. I wouldn't. Answer the whistles. Carry the casts. If a 45 degree cast gets you the needed 60 degree correction, that will be duly noted and would _hardly_ be considered to be a cast refusal.
> ...


This goes back to discussion on here where SOME judges -- NOT YOU (and see my note to labman for reference) -- have been SCORING DOGS DOWN when a handler gave the dog an over cast and the dog took an over for a few steps and then continued IN THE DIRECTION OF THE BLIND. These PARTICULAR judges felt the dog should continue over until the handler stops the dog.

This is really where my point of contention is. NOT in Keith's scoring system, which I think is unnecessary, but have at it... BUT when SOME judges are micro-managing and not paying attention to what MATTERS --> PROGRESS TO THE BLIND.

-K


----------



## Guest (Apr 4, 2007)

K G said:


> > And, as I said that, I should also say that I've known and run under Keith for 10 years now and I've NEVER felt he's been unfair.
> 
> 
> You've run under that scoring system, Kristie. Apparently it's treated you fairly.
> ...


umm, redundant see redundant -- thought that's what I said?

BUT, I handle "traditionally" and some people don't. i would assume that I handle my dogs in a relatively similar manner to what you're used to doing and what many of us are. But not everyone does and they shouldn't be penalized for it.

Now... My bottom line is that there is NO NEED to look at the handler. A cast refusal is any cast that doesn't take the dog toward the blind. That's it. Pretty simple stuff, regardless of what the handler did. If the handler casts his dog AWAY from the blind, then he's cast his dog into a refusal... by the book at least.

-K


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

> BUT when SOME judges are micro-managing and not paying attention to what MATTERS --> PROGRESS TO THE BLIND.


22 years of experience and a full slate of upcoming assignments doesn't allow for "not paying attention."



> umm, redundant see redundant -- thought that's what I said?


My point was, if you've been treated fairly, how I make notes really shouldn't matter to you....and I don't "score" casts....I just make notes of what they were and move on.



> My bottom line is that there is NONEED to look at the handler. A cast refusal is any cast that doesn't take the dog toward the blind.


If you don't look at the handler, how can you know if the dog took the cast toward the blind? Seriously....

kg


----------



## Guest (Apr 4, 2007)

K G said:


> > BUT when SOME judges are micro-managing and not paying attention to what MATTERS --> PROGRESS TO THE BLIND.
> 
> 
> 22 years of experience and a full slate of upcoming assignments doesn't allow for "not paying attention."
> ...


score however YOU want. You can score things that are not indicated in the rulebook, just like some other judges do. I've never been dissatisfied with YOUR judging. But that's NOT the point here. The point is that progress to the blind is all the should be scored. If you want to score extra things that are irrelevant in the RULEBOOK, that's your choice. It's worked fine for you.

i still have unanswered questions on this thread, but so it goes...

-K


----------



## Guest (Apr 4, 2007)

K G said:


> > BUT when SOME judges are micro-managing and not paying attention to what MATTERS --> PROGRESS TO THE BLIND.
> 
> 
> 22 years of experience and a full slate of upcoming assignments doesn't allow for "not paying attention."
> ...


Third time's a charm... At what point, any point, in 22 years of judging, has what you have written regarding the HANDLER's cast affected the dog to his detriment? I need an example of why it's useful to note the casts. And HOW it is relevant to scoring the dog's performance on a HUNT TEST blind. 

I want one example of how you have compared the handler casts to the dog's performance and chosen a LOWER score or ZERO in trainability.

In 22 years you must have SOME examples, maybe many?, of how noting the handler's cast is USEFUL and PERTINENT to HUNT TEST SCORING.


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

> i still have unanswered questions on this thread, but so it goes...


It took me three days to get you to answer my initial question. I had to put it on another thread to get it dealt with.



> I need an example of why it's useful to note the casts. And HOW it is relevant to scoring the dog's performance on a HUNT TEST blind.


When I am discussing a dog's performance with my co-judge, I want to know EXACTLY what a dog did when it did the blind. If the dog took/didn't take the casts, my shorthand will tell me that. That's what I do. It's relevant in that if you gave a SRAB and the dog took a hard left, that's a cast refusal. You might draw a circle and a line....good for you. I use shorthand.



> I want one example of how you have compared the handler casts to the dog's performance and chosen a LOWER score or ZERO in trainability. In 22 years you must have SOME examples, maybe many?, of how noting the handler's cast is USEFUL and PERTINENT to HUNT TEST SCORING.


I can't think of one notable example. I can't fathom why you'd care.

As for how it's pertinent, that's answered above.

kg


----------



## Guest (Apr 4, 2007)

K G said:


> > i still have unanswered questions on this thread, but so it goes...
> 
> 
> It took me three days to get you to answer my initial question. I had to put it on another thread to get it dealt with.
> ...


I was almost smarter than to get involved... But here I am now!

Saturday -- hunt test
sunday -- hunt test, drive home
Monday -- dogs, husband, errands
Tuesday -- dogs, time to argue with Keith


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

It appeared that you were BLATANTLY avoiding the question on "This is amazing," but that's okay...you answered the call here.

kg


----------



## John Suits (Jan 12, 2007)

*casts*

Sounds a little Napolean-ish to me. I train with peolpe all the time that have the ability to actually read thier dogs, and yes sometimes I see them give an over hand signal ,but a verbal back to get the dog in the direction of the blind just a little fat,but now I know and am accountable that this is apparrently wrong and will send you striaght to A.K.C. Hell


----------



## Guest (Apr 4, 2007)

K G said:


> It appeared that you were BLATANTLY avoiding the question on "This is amazing," but that's okay...you answered the call here.
> 
> kg


ding, ding, ding, see my previous post. I wasn't going to banter from a hotel room at 11pm when it was bedtime and I had other priorities. Actually I wanted to avoid bantering altogether, but I figured the thread would turn into a kristie-bashing about how "stupid" I am... Figured I'd just argue and get it over with.


----------



## Kevin Hannah (Jan 6, 2003)

> It's relevant in that if you gave a SRAB and the dog took a hard left, that's a cast refusal.


If the SRAB is the cast to the bird and dog takes a hard left do you really need to see what cast the handler gave to know it was a cast refusal?

Seems obvious enough if you just watch the dog.


----------



## Mark Littlejohn (Jun 16, 2006)

This thread, in particular KG's vehement defense of his judging methodology and criteria, have helped me further comprehend why most of us amateurs have trouble understanding the HT "standard". In this thread's example, not only must your dog make continuous, efficient progress to a blind, you must also accomplish this in the precise manner the judge visualizes. Using unorthodox techniques may be effective from your perspective and others focusing on the dog, but it will likely cost you points on some scoresheets. Better get with the mainstream program!


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Well, I have to say I'm a bit surprised by KG's method, and I learned something new about both him and Jerry today. My dogs had bloody well handle the same way they train thier dogs. For the record, KG and Jerry, whose methods do you follow? Lardy, Farmer, Graham or heaven forbid you've created your own training methods. I need to know so that when I finally get to Texas I know how to handle the team. I'm also curious if you folks have a protractor out to determine the exact angle of the cast and compare that to the exact angle the dog takes. Heaven forbid I give a 45 and the dog takes a 60. Course I shouldn't be surprised, KG is tied pretty closely to the organization that wants me to score 3 decimal places out.

I rate this scoring method a 4.782


/Paul


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Keith is also the guy that has...contrary to the prescribed 1 to 10 point scoring for scoring Marks... a sliding scale that includes 1 to 5.
. . .in a system that was designed for a 7 point for a pass average :lol: :lol: :lol: 


*OVER* to the next series, *Back* to the truck.

An exaggerated cast—or more cast than you need— and certainly a *not * literal cast to the blind that _advance the cause_—require no notation save *smart cast*where appropriate :wink: — and are perfectly legitimate tools for running a blind.

My LIST is getting longer regards.

john


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

i would LOVE to see how the non-judging folks on this thread would score a land blind with a real weed-burner running it, who isn't feeling like a team player that day :lol: 

everything looks so cut and dried when you haven't "been there".

Kristie, i'm sure you'll be the hunt test judge we all wish we were, when you finally get around to it.... -paul


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Well-said, Paul. Everything looks easier from the cheap seats, especially after you've run 6 dogs on the same test! :wink: 



> but a verbal back to get the dog in the direction of the blind just a little fat,but now I know and am accountable that this is apparrently wrong and will send you striaght to A.K.C. Hell


As stated earlier, if you cast at a literal 45 degree angle and get the desired 60 degree correction, you're in GREAT shape.



> Keith is also the guy that has...contrary to the prescribed 1 to 10 point scoring for scoring Marks... a sliding scale that includes 1 to 5.
> . . .in a system that was designed for a 7 point for a pass average


I'd ask you to tell the WHOLE story, John...but that would not paint the side-nosed Picasso you wish to portray. :roll: 25 out of 25 is still a perfect score.



> My LIST is getting longer regards.


_Awwwww............_



> Well, I have to say I'm a bit surprised by KG's method, and I learned something new about both him and Jerry today. My dogs had bloody well handle the same way they train thier dogs......Heaven forbid I give a 45 and the dog takes a 60.


This is what I wrote, Paul:_If a 45 degree cast gets you the needed 60 degree correction, that will be duly noted and would hardly be considered to be a cast refusal.kg_

You're starting to sound like you went to the John Fallon school of interpretation.



> Course I shouldn't be surprised, KG is tied pretty closely to the organization that wants me to score 3 decimal places out. I rate this scoring method a 4.782


Where did you find this? You ARE just _making this stuff up_, now....
You're usually not the bandwagon type...that's disappointing...guess it's just easier that way.



> This thread, in particular KG's vehement defense of his judging methodology and criteria, have helped me further comprehend why most of us amateurs have trouble understanding the HT "standard". *In this thread's example, not only must your dog make continuous, efficient progress to a blind*,


Take a look at regs/guidelines, particularly parts I, II, and III. You won't have any trouble understanding how I interprest the Standard AT ALL, 'cause those sections explain how it's done.



> ..._you must also accomplish this in the precise manner the judge visualizes._


.

Where was that said? I just write down what I see and move on. I judge fairly, as Kristie said. That's pretty high praise for someone who's run as many hunting tests as she has in 10 years.



> Using unorthodox techniques may be effective from your perspective and others focusing on the dog, but it will likely cost you points on some scoresheets. Better get with the mainstream program!


As I said to Kristie, you can bassackwards cast all day long and if your dog gets the blind in a pleasing manner, you'll pass.

Gotta buncha word-twisters (but born with a flame suit on) regards, :wink: 

kg


----------



## Sue Kiefer (Mar 4, 2006)

Just a couple of comments about this thread.......
1.). I think that we all can agree that a blind whether it be a water /land blind tests the trainability of the dog. Correct?????
2.) We also can agree that we all have used factors(wind,terrain,sticks, bushes...) to challenge that trainability.
3.) And we all can agree that in order for your dog to retrieve that blind he/she "must" be a team player.It's you the handler giving your dog the neccasary casts to get to the blind.
With that being said......
My biggest pet peeve about the Hunt Test game in general is that everything has to be in the rulebook like it's the darn bible. What happened to common sense????When I started in dogs in the late 80's that rulebook was very small and everyone was a happy camper.Most judges judged the dog and that's it.When I went to running and judging trials , I had some very good mentors both Amateurs and Pros.The same thing.
Now.....?????
Judging requires you as that person to sit and watch,make lots of notes (I also draw pictures)
As far as the blind goes....I'm sorry to disagree with you Kristie BUT you must watch that Teamwork of both the dog and the handler.
I can think of one example of cast refusals that while making progress towards the blind you'd be dropped in my book. A dog that scallops on the casts continuously. Is the dog making progress towards the blind?? Kind of but he /she is also NOT finding some factor that is part of my test.
Another exampleone that I hate to see)The handler that lets his/her dog get off line sometimes way off line either to avoid a hazard (point on a water blind )or to establish a good initial line THAN gives the dog a hail -mary over.Than my question to you as a handler is why did you let your dog avoid my test??????
Use some common sense here people.You ARE judging the team of doggie and man/woman.Also what casts you give in training is NOT the same cast you give at a Hunt Test or Trial. You are being judged.
MY 2 cents on a cold,windy April 4th in the northwoods of Wis. BRRRRRRR
What happened to Spring?????? :shock: 
Sue


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

> Judging requires you as that person to sit and watch,make lots of notes (I also draw pictures)


As do I. It's just that simple. My notes and someone else's notes, someone who doesn't use any sort of shorthand, will more than likely reflect the same sort of work at the end of the day.

Good post, Sue.

kg


----------



## Guest (Apr 4, 2007)

K G said:


> Well-said, Paul. Everything looks easier from the cheap seats, especially after you've run 6 dogs on the same test! :wink:
> (snip)
> kg


So I guess my first dog should always fail? And what does that have to do with this thread.

*still waiting to hear about how your davinci code has affected a dog's score...*

-Kristie


----------



## Guest (Apr 4, 2007)

K G said:


> Well-said, Paul. Everything looks easier from the cheap seats, especially after you've run 6 dogs on the same test! :wink:
> (snip)
> kg


So I guess my first dog should always fail? And what does that have to do with this thread.

*still waiting to hear about how your davinci code has affected a dog's score...*

-Kristie


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

So you drive up to a site and they are running a blind. You get out of the truck and walk over. You see the field, the dog, the handler and a pair of judges. Sometimes seated, sometimes standing, BEHIND the handler looking at the entire field. If you see the handler BEHIND the judges, something is usually going wrong. They are back there for a reason, to see everything. Imagine I am running a blind. My dog is about half way out and I cannot get through a brushy spot that I need to in order to challenge the line. Dog tries to go to the side, I stop and handle in to the brush. Dog tries to go to the other side, I stop and handle into the brush. To no avail, I finally stop the dog a third time, jump up and down in anger and throw my hat to the ground. Dog goes straight through the brushy spot, on line, and scoops up the bird. I might have just intimidated my dog but I am OK because the judges have no need to look at me, only if my dog "Made progress to the blind" Yea, that throw my hat thing is my go through the brush signal to my dog. Please..... :roll: 
Ken Bora


----------



## Guest (Apr 4, 2007)

K G said:


> Well-said, Paul. Everything looks easier from the cheap seats, especially after you've run 6 dogs on the same test! :wink:
> (snip)
> kg


So I guess my first dog should always fail? And what does that have to do with this thread.

*still waiting to hear about how your davinci code has affected a dog's score...*

-Kristie


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

> So I guess my first dog should always fail? And what does that have to do with this thread.


Where did you get that "first dog should fail" stuff? :shock: 

And what it has to do with this thread is that I replied to Paul's post. That's still okay, isn't it???



> still waiting to hear about how your davinci code has affected a dog's score...


davinci code....yeah, it's pretty complicated...... :roll: .....it affects my remembering the dog's work. Did you miss this post from earlier, or are you just trying to make some existential point:



> _I can't think of one notable example. I can't fathom why you'd care. As for how it's pertinent, that's answered above. _


If you think I've done a fair job judging your dogs, why would you give one flip about HOW I make my notes??? And my *RIGHT* to do so?

kg


----------



## Guest (Apr 4, 2007)

paul young said:


> i would LOVE to see how the non-judging folks on this thread would score a land blind with a real weed-burner running it, who isn't feeling like a team player that day :lol:
> 
> everything looks so cut and dried when you haven't "been there".
> 
> Kristie, i'm sure you'll be the hunt test judge we all wish we were, when you finally get around to it.... -paul


Ok, so just because I'm a handler I can't be as well-educated as the rulebook and scoring system as the [few] high and mighty judges who feel I, as a handler, know nothing...

There are several reasons I have not judged to this point...

FIRST, up until my husband left for school (early 2003), I felt personally that I did NOT have enough experience RUNNING hunt tests. I wanted to judge, trust me, but I felt I would only be doing a disservice to the participants until I had EARNED MY WINGS.

When Joie left for school, now almost four years ago, I have had no time for myself, much less to take a weekend judging. NOT that I didn't want to.

But now I have run and titled multiple master dogs under many judges in different parts of the country. I have had time to observe, learn, read the rulebook, apply all this to my handling. Don't participants DESERVE for me to WAIT until I feel PREPARED?? I was on schedule to apprentice in Atlanta, but that test was cancelled.

I've waited to judge until I felt I could make a commitment and DO IT RIGHT. Do you not think that consistenly running multiple master dogs for years in various conditions has not given me ANY great experience and education regarding the rulebook and scoring system???

So what business to people have judging if they aren't currently running master dogs?? Do they have no credibility?? We have several judges in our area that are great judges, but they do not regularly run dogs. So do they have NO credibility judging? Can they not JUDGE good dog work without regularly running a dog??? YES, they can. Just as I can be intimately familiar with the rulebook and scoring system and never have judged.

But what I WILL bring when I do finally get to judge will be almost a decade of experience (at least 1/2 of early part spent fumbling around in the dark trying to figure out what to do) running master level dogs of EVERY TYPE (heardheads, cooperative, low desire, high rollers). I will have a decade of experience in efficient logistics in setting up and keeping tests moving (most people who don't handle a lot of dogs don't have this and it shows). I will have compassion for the handler and whatever their dog may be or not be because I've been in their shoes regardless of what type of dog they have. I'll judge fairly because I've been there, done that and know what's important ACCORDING TO THE RULEBOOK.

So please, give me a break with the holier-then-thou judges soapbox. It goes both ways and there are plenty of non-running/non-handling judges that can score a dog with the best of them.

-Kristie


----------



## Guest (Apr 4, 2007)

K G said:


> If you think I've done a fair job judging your dogs, why would you give one flip about HOW I make my notes??? And my *RIGHT* to do so?
> 
> kg


Beeeeecaaauuuuussseeeeeeeee....

YOU have chosen to be the defender of the rulebook, grammar, proving points, providing defenses...

YOU have stated that YOU choose - and you ABSOLUTELY have the right to do so -- to make notes of HANDLER behavior in casting. You say you MAY refer back to them.

IF you make notes, and correct me if I'm wrong (yeah, like you wouldn't), then they MAY come into play in scoring, right?? 

I want to know under what LEGAL basis of the AKC hunt test rules do you have to use your notes about HANDLER CASTING (SRAB or whatever other notes you make) in SCORING THE DOG.

YOU admitted to making these notes. You wouldn't make them unless you MAY use them at some point, right? So I want to hear about HOW notes about a handler's PARTICULAR cast would affect the SCORING OF THE DOG.

If you cannot defend changing a dog's score BECAUSE of where saw a handler's arm, then it validates what I'm saying -- there's no point in recording it. You DO have EVERY RIGHT to, but you have *no right* to use in scoring the dog... Prove me wrong using the rulebook, please.

-Kristie


----------



## Guest (Apr 4, 2007)

Ken Bora said:


> So you drive up to a site and they are running a blind. You get out of the truck and walk over. You see the field, the dog, the handler and a pair of judges. Sometimes seated, sometimes standing, BEHIND the handler looking at the entire field. If you see the handler BEHIND the judges, something is usually going wrong. They are back there for a reason, to see everything. Imagine I am running a blind. My dog is about half way out and I cannot get through a brushy spot that I need to in order to challenge the line. Dog tries to go to the side, I stop and handle in to the brush. Dog tries to go to the other side, I stop and handle into the brush. To no avail, I finally stop the dog a third time, jump up and down in anger and throw my hat to the ground. Dog goes straight through the brushy spot, on line, and scoops up the bird. I might have just intimidated my dog but I am OK because the judges have no need to look at me, only if my dog "Made progress to the blind" Yea, that throw my hat thing is my go through the brush signal to my dog. Please..... :roll:
> Ken Bora


Ok I'll speak slowly 

We are talking about what CAST the dog is given - not a temper tantrum


--- dang it, stupid bulletin board removed the 30 spaces I had between each word!


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

Kristie Wilder said:


> We are talking about what CAST the dog is given - not a temper tantrum





Kristie Wilder said:


> Now... My bottom line is that there is NO NEED to look at the handler.
> 
> -K


and if you are not looking at me, how will you know the difference :? ? Look at the entire field.
Ken Bora


----------



## Guest (Apr 4, 2007)

Ken Bora said:


> Kristie Wilder said:
> 
> 
> > We are talking about what CAST the dog is given - not a temper tantrum
> ...


um, I think I, and anyone else, would notice a temper tantrum? Plus you normally have boundaries from which you have to cast your dog (a box, so to speak) and the judges will always be behind you unless you chose to pick up your dog.

-K


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

i don't use handler's boxes, and know few good judges that have. if you set up a good blind, it's not necessary.

if i have to move to see your dog, you're in trouble. if you have to move to see your dog, well, we may have seen a CR OR 2 (USUALLY 2 ON BLINDS WHERE I JUDGE). i like to give enough room to survive 1 bad cast or refusal at a critical, go out of sight point. of course the handler has to be on top of things. if they're too slow, they may only have 1 chance at it.-paul


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

> YOU have chosen to be the defender of the rulebook, grammar, *proving points*, *providing defenses*...


And *you* NEVER have. R_iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii_ght. Duly noted.



> YOU have stated that YOU choose - and you ABSOLUTELY have the right to do so -- to make notes of HANDLER behavior in casting. You say you MAY refer back to them.


Because I don't have the photographic memory that apparently you WILL have if you EVER sitin the chair. My notes help me in my discussion with my co-judge about a dog's work. It's MY reponsibility to be able to have that discussion. THAT is what my notes and shorthand provide me with.



> IF you make notes, and correct me if I'm wrong (yeah, like you wouldn't), then they MAY come into play in scoring, right??


Absolutely. I do NOT score the dog IMMEDIATELY after the dog has run. I have that RIGHT. I wait until all the dogs have run to score their work because I want to make sure that the _first_ dog that runs the test gets the same fair interpretation of the work as the _last_ dog that runs the test. 



> I want to know under what LEGAL basis of the AKC hunt test rules do you have to use your notes about HANDLER CASTING (SRAB or whatever other notes you make) in SCORING THE DOG.


See Part III, section IV, paragraph (3) under "Trainability." It discusses "handling." In order to score trainability, you have to "handle." Since you are a "Lardyite for life," you give casts to change your dog's direction. I CHOOSE, because it's my job to interpret what you have asked your dog to do with that cast (as you are allowed to do per the regs/guidelines), to write down the cast given and whether or not the dog took YOUR CAST. MY JOB is to interpret if the dog accepted your cast and if that cast and, more importantly, THE DOG'S RESPONSE, moved that dog close to achieving its goal. IF I WRITE DOWN WHAT I SEE, NOT WHAT I THINK, I'VE DONE WHAT THE AKC HAS ASKED ME TO DO. 



> YOU admitted to making these notes. You wouldn't make them unless you MAY use them at some point, right? So I want to hear about HOW notes about a handler's PARTICULAR cast would affect the SCORING OF THE DOG.


Asked and answered.



> If you cannot defend changing a dog's score BECAUSE of where saw a handler's arm, then it validates what I'm saying -- there's no point in recording it. You DO have EVERY RIGHT to, but you have no right to use in scoring the dog... Prove me wrong using the rulebook, please.


I really don't think there's any "proving" you're wrong, Kristie. All I did was set out to prove that my job is to score the dog fairly. IT IS MY RIGHT (and job, frankly) as a judge to write down what I see. Casting is part of handling; accepting/rejecting those casts is part of judging a dog's trainability (response). 

If you don't agree with that, fine....but I ask you to think long and hard before you decide to sit in the chair FOR THE FIRST TIME. There are a TON of reponsibilities that a judging team has that AREN'T spelled out letter for letter, situation by situation in the regs/guidelines. If you can't judge without that sort of straight-line discipline and direction, you probably should just stick to _running_ dogs.

You might, however, make a great _scorekeeper_, if the sport ever gets to that.

kg


----------



## 3 dog knight (Jul 9, 2003)

Kristie Wilder said:


> I want to know under what LEGAL basis of the AKC hunt test rules do you have to use your notes about HANDLER CASTING (SRAB or whatever other notes you make) in SCORING THE DOG.
> 
> YOU admitted to making these notes. You wouldn't make them unless you MAY use them at some point, right? So I want to hear about HOW notes about a handler's PARTICULAR cast would affect the SCORING OF THE DOG.
> 
> ...


I have my popcorn and I can't believe what I hear, KG making up rules and scoring systems that aren't in the AKC book??

Did hell freeze over?? 

3DK


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

> i don't use handler's boxes, and know few good judges that have. if you set up a good blind, it's not necessary.


Ditto. Anyone who sees a handler's box at a hunting test has probably got grounds for a protest since the regs/guidelines don't say anything about using one.

8) ..........................................



> if i have to move to see your dog, you're in trouble.


I don't mind moving a little, because casting from a fixed position in while hunting is usually not practical; that said, moving a lot means the dog is off line and without some sort of expedient correction, is avoiding the line to the blind.



> if you have to move to see your dog, well, we may have seen a CR OR 2 (USUALLY 2 ON BLINDS WHERE I JUDGE). i like to give enough room to survive 1 bad cast or refusal at a critical, go out of sight point. of course the handler has to be on top of things.


I like to give 'em PLENTY of room. I don't want to hear any excuses like "I couldn't move over far enough to get him back on line" when the dog winds the bird from 30 yds off line at the end of the blind.

:wink: !

kg


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

> I have my popcorn and I can't believe what I hear, KG making up rules and scoring systems that aren't in the AKC book??
> 
> Did hell freeze over?? :wink:


If you can find where I've done that, the popcorn refill is on _me_!  

kg


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

K G said:


> Well-said, Paul. Everything looks easier from the cheap seats, especially after you've run 6 dogs on the same test! :wink:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I guess my problem with judging to your own standard, which is what you’re basically doing when you insist that a right hand means the dog must turn to the right and go straight back vs turning left and going straight back is this. I’m assuming the dog and handler are not working as a team despite the fact the dog holds the line to the blind and picks up the bird. I try to leave my assumptions in the truck and judge what I see in front of me. I also leave all my years of observations about the dog and the handler in the truck. The fact the moron dropped me when he was judging, or that he uses his hat to cast, or he takes the bird before the dog swing finishes all gets left in the truck. I judge what is before me based on the dog’s performance. I’ll say it again. If the blind is so easy that the dog can blow the handler off and still hold the line and get the bird then I can’t blame the dog for my stupid test. Put some factors in the blind that require a demonstration of the dog/handler working together and you’ll know if they are in sync. I won’t have to get all nit picky as hell over which way the dog turned and dug back.

/Paul


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

everybody who trains their dog to turn to the dog's left by raising their left hand answer up...... :?

it seems we should just save ourselves all that drawing/note taking and just ask the handler what score they should receive.

actually, if i'm only supposed to judge what the dog does, why is there even a handler at all?

correct answer gets free popcorn for the life of this thread. -paul


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

> I guess my problem with judging to your own standard, _which is what you’re basically doing_ when you insist that a right hand means the dog must turn to the right and go straight back vs turning left and going straight back is this.


Please show me where I've said anything remotely resembling this. All I've said is I write down what cast was given and what the dog does.

I keep forgetting that you tech-types take everything so literally. I don't. Not when I judge, either. What you've described above would NEVER be considered to be a cast refusal. You have ASSumed it would be. _You are wrong. _ 



> I’m assuming the dog and handler are not working as a team despite the fact the dog holds the line to the blind and picks up the bird. I try to leave my assumptions in the truck and judge what I see in front of me.


And you'll find where I've said that "I JUDGE WHAT I SEE, NOT WHAT I THINK" if you care to find it on this thread.



> I also leave all my years of observations about the dog and the handler in the truck. The fact the moron dropped me when he was judging, or that he uses his hat to cast, or he takes the bird before the dog swing finishes all gets left in the truck. I judge what is before me based on the dog’s performance.


Ditto. The work they do is the work that gets judged.



> If the blind is so easy that the dog can blow the handler off and still hold the line and get the bird then I can’t blame the dog for my stupid test.


Ditto.



> Put some factors in the blind that require a demonstration of the dog/handler working together and you’ll know if they are in sync.


Ditto.



> I won’t have to get all nit picky as hell over which way the dog turned and dug back.


And a lot of what I write down doesn't even come into play. That's my problem to deal with...but if it helps me score your dog _correctly_, why do you care what I write? :roll: 

Blown WAY out of proportion regards,

kg


----------



## 3 dog knight (Jul 9, 2003)

I've never run under you, or studied your scoring methods or anything that would prove my tongue in cheek comment about this thread, BUT here's a little something I found reading the HT R&G book. 


K G said:


> Ditto. Anyone who sees a handler's box at a hunting test has probably got grounds for a protest since the regs/guidelines don't say anything about using one.
> 
> kg





> Section 5. When coming to the line to be tested,
> and while on the line, the dog and handler shall assume
> such locations as may be directed by the Judges.


 I know I haven't taken a reading comprehension class lately, but the way I see it, you've just lost one of your five strikes on the judges test. 

Carry on. opcorn: 

3DK


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

No, it's not the comprehension that's the problem. It the lack of interpretation of a comment made fully "tongue in cheek," sorta like the "if it ain't in writing in the rulebook it can't be done" way of thinking.

Penalty? No butter for _your_ popcorn. Carry on.

kg


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

paul young said:


> everybody who trains their dog to turn to the dog's left by raising their left hand answer up...... :?
> 
> it seems we should just save ourselves all that drawing/note taking and just ask the handler what score they should receive.
> 
> ...


Ok, Paul, I'll take it easy on ya for the sake of  your name...

How do you score a dog that doesn't sit to the whistle yet stops promptly, looks at the handler and takes the direction indicated by the handler? Doesn't everyone teach their dog to sit to the whistle? Must be a cast refusal, yet the dog was clearly working with the handler. Careful with putting your training techniques into the judges chair.

/Paul

oh by the way, if you say it is a cast refusal, then what your saying is that this dog didn't deserve to be a 7 time MN qualifier because this dog always did this. Guess these judges were wrong as well....

MT MCKINLEY MR MIDNIGHT, MH
WOODY THURMAN
1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

> How do you score a dog that doesn't sit to the whistle yet stops promptly, looks at the handler and takes the direction indicated by the handler? Doesn't everyone teach their dog to sit to the whistle? Must be a cast refusal, yet the dog was clearly working with the handler.


Wrong. The dog stopped. That's what the whistle was for: to get the dog ready for a change in direction. I don't give one whit if he sits or not....

And here's a shocker: _I don't even write that down_! :shock: 

Not Paul regards,

kg


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

that's correct. i/we will tell you from where you may start your blind or marks. that's what it refers to. any judge that limits where you may move to handle your dog is doing this on their own. most just say you may not move forward. occasionally, in FT'S you get a "no see 'um" blind and are told when you may move up.

the other reason it's in the book is so that remote cast scenario's may be used.

when you stand between the 2 ribbons or inside the chains to start your blind you will notice that the obstacles are in line with the marker for the bird. that way it's the same test for everyone. if we couldn't tell you where to start from......... :roll: -paul


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

no, the book says the dog should STOP...... :? -paul


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

K G said:


> > I guess my problem with judging to your own standard, _which is what you’re basically doing_ when you insist that a right hand means the dog must turn to the right and go straight back vs turning left and going straight back is this.
> 
> 
> Please show me where I've said anything remotely resembling this. All I've said is I write down what cast was given and what the dog does.
> ...



Feel better. 10am and you got your daily, “your wrong” comment out. Sure takes the pressure off doesn’t it……no wait, that is just joking don’t take it all serious…..

Perhaps I’ve assumed this because this is how I’ve interpreted Jerry and your description of a cast refusal. I’ve asked for clarification and haven’t had a reply yet so I continue to work with this perception. As for the originality of this thread, you can see/watch/write/diagram/doodle/snore or whatever you want in the chair. You’re the judge for the day and if you want to score blinds this way that’s your privilege. I’ve always felt its my job to run the test put in front of me and the judges job to judge it. Frankly my standards in training and expectations for my dogs are higher than what is required by AKC. Since I know this about myself, I make a conscience effort to leave my standard in the truck when I sit in the chair. In 12 years of running master tests, not once have I asked to see the judges book, see my scores or asked why the dog was dropped. Every time I’ve lost a dog in a test I’ve seen it coming, because the dog typically has failed my personal standard. Ask anyone, if it gets ugly, I’m the first to yell NO HERE…but that’s my standard not AKC’s.

/Paul


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

paul young said:


> no, the book says the dog should STOP...... :? -paul


So your inconsistent with your judging? I thought you said this...



paul young said:


> everybody who trains their dog to turn to the dog's left by raising their left hand answer up...... :?


so you pick and choose training methodologies and intersperse them with how you judge? Doesn't everyone train their dog to sit to the whistle? Isn't that a CR. Help me understand, I'm taking notes in my judges database, added a record for Jerry and you, updated KG's and a pending page for Kristie...

/Paul


----------



## Golddogs (Feb 3, 2004)

Kristie Wilder said:


> When you boys have time, and Keith I'm actually surprised, open the pdf version of the rulebook (FOR HUNT TESTS) and search on and find where it says ANY single thing about taking into account the ARM DIRECTION of the handler's cast in scoring a dog's progress to the blind. I searched on both ARM and CAST. Arm had zero reponses. Cast had quite a few, but most deal with the original send of a dog on a mark or a re-cast. And a few dealt with cast refusals... BUT none of the ones associated with cast refusals made any note of comparing the handler's cast with the direction the dog takes.
> 
> Moreover... For Jerry, who I think doesn't have too much experience in hunt tests but I'm not sure, search on WHISTLE and there are lots of real clear examples on how to score whistle refusals, a dog's response to a WHISTLE and the like.


This is where cherry picking bits and peices of the rule book come to haunt. 
Kristy, in your zealous defense of your position you are overlooking a key fact in running and judging blinds. Esp, the judging part. You are working as a team and a HUGE part of evaluating the blind work is how the team is working together. To evaluate that, I need to see what both team mates are doing and go from there.
As stated elsewhere, I don't view a wrong cast as a cast refusal and am looking more for team work to the bird. Key being toward the bird.


----------



## Hew (Jan 7, 2003)

They'll have to pry my judge's pencil out of my cold, dead hand _after_ I fight to the death to support KG's right to write whatever he wants on his judge's sheet that helps him to fairly assess the dog/handler team. :wink: 

That said, I personally don't see the utility of trying to discern and notate what cast I _think_ a handler intended when the really important part of the equation is the line the dog took after said cast. Others might (and obviously do). 

Last time I judged, a handler who had some cast refusals whistle stopped his dog and was engaging in the old "listen to me" stare down. In the middle of the stare down the dog wheels around and takes a perfect angle back. I didn't see or hear any cast. Maybe the handlre made a gesture in front of his body that I couldn't see. Maybe he trained the dog that a five second pause on a whistle sit means "execute right angle back." Maybe he did a Vulcan mind-meld with the dog. Most likely, the dog just took off on its own. I gave the team the benefit of the doubt, though. And in the grand scheme of things, that one cast (or no cast) didn't make or break them. Likewise, I'm sure that noting (or not noting) a handler's cast doesn't make much difference in the big picture of that team's performance. In the end, the judges determine whether they did the work or they didn't; their notations about how they made that determination aren't really important.


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

how does a dog stopping, but not sitting, constitute a cast refusal? who said it did? now i'm really confused....

by the way, i judged with Woody. we had no disagreements concerning the dog work whatsoever. a great guy, very funny, and a gentleman.  -paul


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

> That said, I personally don't see the utility of trying to discern and notate what cast I _think_ a handler intended when the really important part of the equation is the line the dog took after said cast. Others might (and obviously do).


You _know_ I agree with you here, right? :wink: I write down what cast was given and what the dog does....

Judge what you see, not what you think regards,

kg


Ps...and how 'bout them 2x NCAA men's BB Champs and _new_ women's Nat'l Champs! :wink: 

(don't want to be accused of trying to GDG this thread, so I used smaller type..... 8) .....)


----------



## Vicky Trainor (May 19, 2003)

K G said:


> Absolutely. I do NOT score the dog IMMEDIATELY after the dog has run. I have that RIGHT. I wait until all the dogs have run to score their work because I want to make sure that the first dog that runs the test gets the same fair interpretation of the work as the last dog that runs the test.


Keith,

Out of clarification, do you not score any of the dogs until the series is over in Hunt Tests as well as Field Trials?

Vicky

P.S. The Lady Vols are the bomb!!!! Go VOLS!!!!


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Usually, no, I don't....unless they've committed some sort of fatal error like a mandatory elimination fault.

Unless, of course, a dog does a PERFECT job of whatever the test is. That is EASY to score when it happens!  

kg


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

paul young said:


> how does a dog stopping, but not sitting, constitute a cast refusal? who said it did? now i'm really confused....
> 
> by the way, i judged with Woody. we had no disagreements concerning the dog work whatsoever. a great guy, very funny, and a gentleman.  -paul



So, the dog stopping but not sitting is not a CR, but a dog that turns left and digs back does commit a CR if the handler used his right arm?

/Paul


----------



## Hew (Jan 7, 2003)

> Ps...and how 'bout them 2x NCAA men's BB Champs and new women's Nat'l Champs!


Behold the power and glory of the SEC.


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

> this is how I’ve interpreted Jerry and your description of a cast refusal. I’ve asked for clarification and haven’t had a reply yet so I continue to work with this perception.


I use the popular convention "make progress to the bird/blind" when considering cast refusals.

If someone gives a RHB (right hand back....no S in front of it means it was a VOCAL right hand back) and the dog proceeds in the direction of the bird but maybe not _exactly, perfectly_ at it, THAT is not a cast refusal per se. WHY? Because _that_ cast would be given more than likely when a dog is just to the right of the line to the blind and is proceeding in the general direction of the bird. Pin-point lining is _not_ what I look for; I look for communication, cooperation, and success on a blind. If in the above scenario the dog continues in the _same_ direction as _before_ the whistle was blown and the cast was given, THAT would more than likely be considered to be a cast refusal because the dog did not _change direction_. The KEY is to improve the dog's position to where the bird is; otherwise, the handler would not have blown the whistle, now would they...... 8) ............ :wink:

kg


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

since no one (not even you...) has said they expect their dog to turn the opposite way when given a cast, i apply this reasoning;

if the dog goes further off line, to the left, before the handler stops and gives the next cast, yes, that is a cast refusal. if the dog turns to it's left and moves closer to the bird, you probably got lucky, but i can't/won't score it as a cast refusal. not rocket surgery regards-paul


----------



## Jerry (Jan 3, 2003)

I think it's funny how statements get twisted, turned, misinterpreted, etc.

That's one of the reasons I feel a very important "tool" to carry in the Zip-Loc bag in my Judge's book is a biggo ERASER!!!  

Perhaps I do write notes like CR, WR, OOC and I suppose they are in fact based on my thoughts of "how the dog should have been trained".

I think I've been very clear in stating that those notes may never come into play in the final summation but I have them in the event that they are needed to make a separation in the placement of dogs. Having never judged a HT, I also assume they are not nearly as essential in determining a Pass/Fail situation.

Jerry


----------



## JDogger (Feb 2, 2003)

[quote = "Vicky Trainor"]
K G wrote: 
Absolutely. I do NOT score the dog IMMEDIATELY after the dog has run. I have that RIGHT. I wait until all the dogs have run to score their work because I want to make sure that the first dog that runs the test gets the same fair interpretation of the work as the last dog that runs the test. 


Keith, 

Out of clarification, do you not score any of the dogs until the series is over in Hunt Tests as well as Field Trials? 

Vicky 
[/quote]

[quote ="KG"]
Usually, no, I don't....unless they've committed some sort of fatal error like a mandatory elimination fault. 

Unless, of course, a dog does a PERFECT job of whatever the test is. That is EASY to score when it happens! 

kg[/quote]

So, are you saying then that when you judge a HT all dogs in the middle, between 0 and 10 are judged relative to the performances of all the other dogs, and not against a pass/fail standard?

Hugh


----------



## Patrick Johndrow (Jan 19, 2003)

So scoring a blinds (just like marks) are more subjective than objective?


----------



## Bubba (Jan 3, 2003)

> So, are you saying then that when you judge a HT all dogs in the middle, between 0 and 10 are judged relative to the performances of all the other dogs, and not against a pass/fail standard?


Even God grades on a curve - Boy am I grateful for that especially with /paul out there helping out us underacheivers.

Everything is relative regards

Bubba[/quote]


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

> Perhaps I do write notes like CR, WR, OOC and I suppose they are in fact based on my thoughts of "how the dog should have been trained


My personal favorite by a veteran judge-OOP (out of paper) says it all.

One who uses shorthand to remember and grade fairly regards


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Bubba said:


> > So, are you saying then that when you judge a HT all dogs in the middle, between 0 and 10 are judged relative to the performances of all the other dogs, and not against a pass/fail standard?
> 
> 
> Even God grades on a curve - Boy am I grateful for that especially with /paul out there helping out us underacheivers.
> ...


[/quote]

Hey I never called anyone an underachiever. I'm just trying to get clarification on what they mean. The way they write is most likely not what they mean, pushing them on the issue gets the real story out. Besides, I like debating issues, it makes me defend my thoughts on items, lets me know if someone "really" believes what they believe and often times I learn something. Please, feel free to underestimate the *******, it gives me an advantage when I run against ya. Besides, I may be the only master judge in history to watch someone handle on all 3 birds in the first series and call them back to the 2nd. Who's grading on a curve now...?

/Paul


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

K G said:



> > this is how I’ve interpreted Jerry and your description of a cast refusal. I’ve asked for clarification and haven’t had a reply yet so I continue to work with this perception.
> 
> 
> I use the popular convention "make progress to the bird/blind" when considering cast refusals.
> ...


It appears that maybe we've come full circle. As, "The KEY is to improve the dog's position to where the bird is", does it really matter what cast the handler gives??? 

Isn't anything else "Thinking" or "Assuming" how the dog was trained? :wink:


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> I may be the only master judge in history to watch someone handle on all 3 birds in the first series and call them back to the 2nd. Who's grading on a curve now...?
> 
> /Paul


Would you mind elaborating. . .*in detail *. . .the circumstances?

john


----------



## Sue Kiefer (Mar 4, 2006)

I think that we all are still missing the point here............
Where a blind whether it be a water/land blind is judgement of trainabilty on the dog's part.You and him/her are the team.
Also the bigger point is the common sense factor. I see sooooo many references to the rule book over and over. Where's your common sense??????Does everything have to be black and white?????
I think that I can speak for Keith when I say that we wouldn't drop your dog based on 1or 2 cast refusals especially if they were separate from each other as the team of handler and dog navigated our land/water blind.
It's when "The Team" has multiple cast refusals at one specific area or like in my last post I talked about a dog that scallops the blind."Was he/she fighting the factors??by giving such small tiny but correct casts??When the rulebook says that the dog should take the cast given until the whistle is blown and a different direction is given.
+ There is always another test where I can further evaluate your dog's trainabilty.
Sue


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

ginger69 said:


> I think that we all are still missing the point here............
> Where a blind whether it be a water/land blind is judgement of trainabilty on the dog's part.You and him/her are the team.
> Also the bigger point is the common sense factor. I see sooooo many references to the rule book over and over. Where's your common sense??????Does everything have to be black and white?????
> I think that I can speak for Keith when I say that we wouldn't drop your dog based on 1or 2 cast refusals especially if they were separate from each other as the team of handler and dog navigated our land/water blind.
> ...


I don't think I lost the point. This is what I'm driving at. Its the cold hard, turn one way its a cast refusal, period stuff that drives me crazy.

/Paul


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

well then you're driving yourself crazy because no one on this topic has said that they judge that way..... :roll: 

stick a fork in me regards, paul


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

> So, are you saying then that when you judge a HT all dogs in the middle, between 0 and 10 are judged relative to the performances of all the other dogs, and not against a pass/fail standard?


Nope...not at all.

What I'm saying is do the test. The test is "The Standard" that you have to run against in a HT...at least it should be if it's set up to test those dogs in that test level to that test level's Standard. The reason I don't score dogs until the test is over (except those perhaps that FAIL and perhaps those that are PERFECT) is that I want to make sure that I don't underscore/overscore dogs (plural) that run early compared to those (plural) that run late. There might be a tendancy to be overly critical of early work and overly lenient against later work when/if conditions change. How that _individual_ dog does is how that individual dog _does_. To "judge" a hunting test means to take EVERYTHING into consideration EXCEPT comparing dog to dog.

And there is no "pass/fail" standard. There are minimum scores/averages that must be attained in order to receive a qualifying score.



> It appears that maybe we've come full circle. As, "The KEY is to improve the dog's position to where the bird is", does it really matter what cast the handler gives???


I've already explained this in a post to Kristie. You can find it if you care to. 



> Isn't anything else "Thinking" or "Assuming" how the dog was trained? :wink:


I've already stated my position on "_ass_uming" and "judging what I think" as well. I could _give_ a crap how a dog was trained.



> I think it's funny how statements get twisted, turned, misinterpreted, etc.


I don't think "funny" is how I'd interpret that, Unca Jer......... :wink: ......though I do have a word (phrase, actually.... 8) ) I'd use....


kg


----------



## Jerry (Jan 3, 2003)

THANK YOU Mr. Young!!!!

That statement got to the nut cuttin and I don't see any room for misinterpretation.

Jerry


----------



## Guest (Apr 4, 2007)

Golddogs said:


> Kristie Wilder said:
> 
> 
> > When you boys have time, and Keith I'm actually surprised, open the pdf version of the rulebook (FOR HUNT TESTS) and search on and find where it says ANY single thing about taking into account the ARM DIRECTION of the handler's cast in scoring a dog's progress to the blind. I searched on both ARM and CAST. Arm had zero reponses. Cast had quite a few, but most deal with the original send of a dog on a mark or a re-cast. And a few dealt with cast refusals... BUT none of the ones associated with cast refusals made any note of comparing the handler's cast with the direction the dog takes.
> ...


I never once said the dog and handler dont' work as a team, nor did I EVER say the judge shouldn't look at the handler at all the entire test. What I said was that the arm casting position of the handler should NOT be taken into account when JUDGING a dog's performance on a BLIND.

I'm not saying the dog is running on his own. I'm not saying the handler can't do things to get himself and his dog dropped.

Pure and simple, my problem is with judges that COMPARE the handler's posture/position/arm on a cast with the dog's response. The handler is trying to accomplish a LINE to the blind. Bottom line. It doesn't matter WHAT cast they give as long a they accomplish THAT with their dog. So to score a cast refusal because you expected or assumed a dog to do something based on the arm position of their handler is foolish -- the only thing that should be scored is whether the dog made progress to the blind.


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

This thread has reached the end of its useful life (if it ever _had_ one). I now know why the original question as stated on the other thread was avoided.

We now take you back to our regular programmming....I hope.... 8) 

kg


----------



## Jerry (Jan 3, 2003)

One more question to Kristie, then I'm through also.

Kristie, what in your opinion constitutes a cast refusal?

Jerry


----------



## Mark Littlejohn (Jun 16, 2006)

KG:

This was a great thread, THANK YOU for opening your judge's kimono, so to speak. I don't even know who you are in the real world as many on here do, but I'd never sidestep running under you, even if I don't completely comprehend your scoring method. After all, it can't be _that_ bad, or you'd never have judged more than a couple of tests! :lol: 

Besides, I was so far in your corner (vs others') on the mid-test training / morality issue, I figure you must be good people.

Mark


----------



## Guest (Apr 4, 2007)

K G said:


> > YOU have chosen to be the defender of the rulebook, grammar, *proving points*, *providing defenses*...
> 
> 
> And *you* NEVER have. R_iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii_ght. Duly noted.


Never said i didn't. But you seem to make it a point to get into long, drawn out, winded, down into the earth and out the other side to China arguments on a regular basis based on written rules (both retriever games and grammar and maybe some other things I've missed).



K G said:


> > IF you make notes, and correct me if I'm wrong (yeah, like you wouldn't), then they MAY come into play in scoring, right??
> 
> 
> Absolutely. I do NOT score the dog IMMEDIATELY after the dog has run. I have that RIGHT. I wait until all the dogs have run to score their work because I want to make sure that the _first_ dog that runs the test gets the same fair interpretation of the work as the _last_ dog that runs the test.


Talk to your friends Jerry and Milt. They do not recommend scoring this way. They say that before you EVER run a participant in the test, you already KNOW how you're going to score certain performances and what you expect out of a master dog on that test. So there should be no reason to wait until the end and certainly not to compare dogs' performances, which isn't "allowed" either... You don't have the right to do that either... (yanking away)



K G said:


> If you don't agree with that, fine....but I ask you to think long and hard before you decide to sit in the chair FOR THE FIRST TIME. There are a TON of reponsibilities that a judging team has that AREN'T spelled out letter for letter, situation by situation in the regs/guidelines. If you can't judge without that sort of straight-line discipline and direction, you probably should just stick to _running_ dogs.
> 
> You might, however, make a great _scorekeeper_, if the sport ever gets to that.
> 
> kg


Yeah, that's nice. Thanks for the insult. I'm a big girl, Keith (yeah, I know in more ways than one). I'm a little brighter than you're giving me credit for. The only reason I continue to defend this is because I feel badly for folks who are given the shaft by unfair judging. I feel I was only a victim of something like this once... And that's pretty much zero in the scheme of things. In a heavy stick pond, with a young dog making a ton of effort but trying to figure out how to navigate obstacles and got herself off line a couple of times. A very messy blind that the judges seemed to give no leeway for dogs to try to figure it out.

Now... I am about to implicate myself because the rulebook also doesn't appear to state anything about "progress to blinds". So I'm making sh!t up, too....


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

K G said:


> This thread has reached the end of its useful life (if it ever _had_ one). I now know why the original question as stated on the other thread was avoided.


Yeah, cause we've got a bunch of pansy arse, suck my beef jerky HRC judges that won't stand up and defend thier bad decisions. :twisted:


----------



## Guest (Apr 4, 2007)

Jerry said:


> One more question to Kristie, then I'm through also.
> 
> Kristie, what in your opinion constitutes a cast refusal?
> 
> Jerry


a cast that, when taken, does not improve the dog's progress to the blind


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Okay...this and then I'm done.....



> ....before you EVER run a participant in the test, you already KNOW how you're going to score certain performances and what you expect out of a master dog on that test.


True enough. Scoring _certain_ performances is easy. Each level HAS its Standard, a level of expectation for the dogs entered in that test. I've stated that.....but let me ask you this: should I score _your_ dog, dog #1 in Master A that had a good mark on the _area_ of the fall of the last bird down in the first series, but a hellacious, mechanical pencil emptying hunt on that pheasant flyer in dewy grass, with the same consideration as dog number 50 that goes out with the same mark and hunts for two seconds where there are enough feathers to stuff a bed with by the time he runs?



> So there should be no reason to wait until the end and certainly not to compare dogs' performances, which isn't "allowed" either... You don't have the right to do that either...


I have EVERY right to give the dog the benefit of the doubt under the changing conditions of the test. *IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH COMPARING DOG'S PERFORMANCES.* The test is *not* the same for every dog under certain conditions, and I and my co-judge have every RIGHT per the regs and guidelines to judge accordingly. It's in The Book as such with regard to the dogs not having to see EXACTLY the same test, and when conditions change, the test changes, therefore the Standard potentially changes...and yes, how "bright" you are was not, and is not, the issue.

Since you think my judgement of your dogs has been fair the times you've run under me, I don't know why you continue to battle over how I choose to score dogs.

I do have a tendency to to overexplain my positions. I do my faulted _best_ to make it CRYSTAL clear what my position is. This thread is a perfect example of how that might fail under the most sincere of efforts.

kg


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

K G said:


> Okay...this and then I'm done.....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I feel like i have to drag out clarification from you all the time. Geez can't you just share what you do without all this? :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:

/Paul


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

To quote the great cartoon pugilist Popeye The Sailorman:



> I am's what I am's and that's all that I ams.....


G'day regards,

kg


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

After reading pages 1 and 7, the essence of this discussion seems to be that some have the OPINION that the judges should watch the cast the handler gives and the reaction of the dog while others share my opinion that I watch the dog (for response to the whistle and response to the cast), having NO interest in the cast given by the handler:shock:, but rather has the dog corrected it's "line to the blind".

No where in Field Trial Rules and Standar Procedures are the terms cast refusal or whistle refusal even mentioned. In Standing Recommenations Of The Retriever Advisory Committee in the Supplement to Standard Procedures under classificatioin of faults the terms "not stopping on the whistle" and "failure to take the handler's directions" are used.

A blind retrieve is a test of control. A good blind is pleasing to watch as the dog takes a good initial line, leaves the handler's side at a good pace, stops on the whistle, takes direction, continues on that new direction for a significant period of time, and negotiates obvious hazards. These are the things that should be judged on a blind not the cast that the handler has given......at least IMHO from 30 years of judging 8) 

IMHO too many over complicate the judging of blinds, and as always in field trial judging everything is relative. 

Having Absolutely NO INTEREST In Becoming Involved In This Discussion Regards :wink:


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

It also doesn't say anything about making progress to the bird, yet that's what we judge.

The cast is only relative to what the dog does. I've never said I judge the cast. In fact, I've said the opposite.

You ready to find a replacement for me, Ed? :wink: 

kg


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

K G said:


> You ready to find a replacement for me, Ed? :wink:


nope because if you and I judged the same group of dogs on a blind we would arrive at the same conclusions no matter our methods.

My short speech was to inject my own opinions, others methods and opinions notwithstanding or criticized. 

For me it is difficult enough to judge a blind by watching the dog and keeping accurate notes without wathing the handler, for those with greater mental capacities it might not be so challenging.

My intent was (in the case of inexperienced judges particularly) to concentrate on the dog's performance because that's what we are evaluating.

and on my judge's sheet I use the designations "cr and wr" for cast refusal and whistle refusal respectively, if there are many of those and/or many deviations from line, and many casts even if taken, those dogs would not expect to be among the callbacks :wink:


----------



## Jerry (Jan 3, 2003)

And I assume you use those notes because they are in fact directly related to "control" and "taking direction", which are addressed.

Jerry


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

EdA said:


> After reading pages 1 and 7, the essence of this discussion seems to be that some have the OPINION that the judges should watch the cast the handler gives and the reaction of the dog while others share my opinion that I watch the dog (for response to the whistle and response to the cast), having NO interest in the cast given by the handler:shock:, but rather has the dog corrected it's "line to the blind".
> 
> No where in Field Trial Rules and Standar Procedures are the terms cast refusal or whistle refusal even mentioned. In Standing Recommenations Of The Retriever Advisory Committee in the Supplement to Standard Procedures under classificatioin of faults the terms "not stopping on the whistle" and "failure to take the handler's directions" are used.
> 
> ...


Excellent post. Now this is encouraging. 

/Paul


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Jerry said:


> And I assume you use those notes because they are in fact directly related to "control" and "taking direction", which are addressed.Jerry


nothing fancy

pil (poor initial line)

hacky (too many casts and not carrying casts)

piggy (slow)

oc (out of control)

As I previously stated a blind should be pleasing to watch, the coordination between handler and dog, the dog's response to the whistle and to changing direction, and of course the route the dog takes, ie the line to the blind, hence the need for obstacles, sometimes natural sometimes artificial to define the blind so that handlers should have no doubt as to the route to pursue.

IMHO judging blinds is much more like art than it is like science 8)


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

> nope because if you and I judged the same group of dogs on a blind we would arrive at the same conclusions no matter our methods.


Agreed.



> IMHO judging blinds is much more like art than it is like science


Well said. Different strokes for different artists can still make for enjoyable paintings.

kg


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

I only read the first four pages before replying, so please forgive me if I say something that has already been said, or take someone wrong.

But I too used to think that a "cast refusal" (the dog going the opposite direction of the apparent command given by handler) was a big issue to judges. But then I raised this issue with some very esteemed field trial judges (guys who are empaneled at judges seminars) over dinner one night. And I was assured _a good judge does not pay attention to the handler, s/he judges the line to the blind and only the line to the blind._ The explanation was the same as has already been given -- the judge cannot be assured of what commands were used to teach the dog to do what.

And my own training was used as an example! I train using "Yee" for "left," and "haw" for "right" as they do for sled dogs. But apparently that is backwards for retrievers. It is supposed to be "yee" for "right," and "haw" for "left."

I was told, "What is a judge going to do with your dog if you give a voice-only cast? Even if they understood 'yee-haw,' you have trained it backwards! How would they determine what is a refusal and what is not? That is why a judge must judge the line to the blind and only the line to the blind."

And for you Jerry, we had a guy show up for training who has trained his dog to Senior blowing his whistle twice for sit, and once for come-in. What would you, or any judge do? You judge what you see the dog do, not what the handler directs the dog to do, because you cannot be positively sure what the handler directed.

I am in Kristie's camp.


----------



## BROWNDOGG (Nov 26, 2005)

WOW---Thats alot of reading, it takes along time to digest 8 pages.....
________
VAPOR GENIE VAPORIZER


----------



## Jerry (Jan 3, 2003)

*I'm not the smartest guy in the world Kevin but it wouldn't take me long to figure out what he was doing.

Remember that biggo eraser I mentioned???

Jerry


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

> WOW---Thats alot of reading, it takes along time to digest 8 pages.....


At least you get the _complete_ picture that way....and for the record, I carry a "biggo" eraser, too!

Full disclosure regards,

kg


----------



## Ken Guthrie (Oct 1, 2003)

KG,

I hope you don't expect to compare notes with me when we judge together. :wink: I never took notes in class and I don't plan on doing so now. :lol: 

My plan..............

Watch a dog run the blind.............

Make mental notes whether the dog 

A. Challenged the line to the blind
B. Took a good initial line
C. Showed style in retrieving the blind

D. Last but not least...............

The dog showed the ability to work with the handler.

I won't give a damn if the handler stuck his leg out and yelled "yee-ha". Hell, if the handler uses a verbal command instead of a whistle for the dog to stop, thats cool too.


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

> Hell, if the handler uses a verbal command instead of a whistle for the dog to stop, thats cool too.


We might have to talk about this one..... 8) 

As long as you write something down and are comfortable explaining what you've written if there's a dog we need to discuss, we'll be good to go.

I could give a fat rat's fanny how you do your diagrams. I'm amazed that so many people are interested in mine.

Stick men regards,

kg


----------



## Ken Guthrie (Oct 1, 2003)

K G said:


> > As long as you write something down and are comfortable explaining what you've written if there's a dog we need to discuss, we'll be good to go.
> 
> 
> What if I write either
> ...


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

No question....just a statement.

From the Field Trial Rules and Standard Procedure for Retrievers, Part I, section 11:


> _Judges should keep sufficiently detailed notes_ on each dog's performance to enable them to recall it completely, or at least its outstanding features. Each fault should be noted, even those that are minor. Although the latter may not require that the dog be penalized at that time, repetitions of that fault or commission of various other faults, in succeeding series, may cause the total of faults to assume serious proportions.


_"Sufficiently detailed notes"_ regards,

kg


----------



## Ken Guthrie (Oct 1, 2003)

K G said:


> No question....just a statement.
> 
> From the Field TrialRules and Standard Procedure for Retrievers, Part I, section 11:
> 
> ...


A sample of detailed notes on blind for example Example dog.............

"GIL"- Good initial line

"CTL"- Challenged the line

"RWS"- Retrieved with style

"NA"- Nice a$$

"DSDMB"- Didn't see, drinking my beer.

All of these would be for a dog that did well. :wink:

For a dog that did bad...........

"DLH"- Don't like handler

"DDO"- Dropped Dozer Once

"BIL"- Bad Initial Line

"TS"- Ted Shih :lol: :lol: :evil:


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Ed, you _sure_ you don't want to find a replacement for me???? :shock: 

:wink: 

I ain't skeered regards, 

kg


----------



## Ken Guthrie (Oct 1, 2003)

K G said:


> Ed, you _sure_ you don't want to find a replacement for me???? :shock:
> 
> :wink:
> 
> ...


Heck, I asked him the same thing yesterday.

:lol: :lol: :lol: 

I can't wait regards,

Gut


----------



## HarryWilliams (Jan 17, 2005)

Receiving an education can sometimes be painful (for student, teacher and/or both). HPW (thinking this might be the first time a person needs a reservation to be in the gallery)


----------



## Jerry (Jan 3, 2003)

You have to add one more Ken If I enter!!!

GDW - Gave Dozer Win    

Jerry


----------



## JUNKMAN (Feb 26, 2007)

*casts*

when i leave work today,after spending 4hrs reading this....... me and hairball is going to have a talk.......just to get his opinion in all this....
QUITE INTERESTING STUFF FOR A PHASE ONE. I hope he gets to run in the pile of feathers. joe


----------



## Debthomas (Nov 11, 2004)

I'm thinkin, this is another reason that I am glad to be in the South! 


North Carolina Regards!


----------



## Arturo (Jan 10, 2004)

Just read all *8* pages and I finally got a _good_ laugh out of it with the KG vs KG banter! It's amazing how some know so much without ever having done it! :wink:
Riddle me this.
Handler sends dog on blind and has numerous handles which are perfect. Dog reaches green bush and does not find blind. Handler realizes he handled dog to wrong bush (like that’s ever gonna happen). Dog is given and takes a 40 yd. over and gets the bird.
The handles were taken as per the handler but were not improving to the blind. The dog did not have any CR's ... or did he? Did he get a CR on every handle? He took the cast he was given (have to see both dog and handler and use common sense with right means right etc...) The trainability was excellent!!!!!! The dog passed. The handler failed. It is a team sport!
As soon as judge realized handler was sending at wrong bush then he could have said, "Hey good looking, the blind is over there." That only applies to handlers with NA(how often does that happen?) If handler is male with BFA(doesn't really matter what A looks like), no verbal assistance is offered. And no these rules are not in the book. These are just some of the things I have incorporated into my judging techniques over the years.

I love this game regards,
Arturo


----------



## Debthomas (Nov 11, 2004)

My score sheet would say * DAH.......


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Debthomas said:


> My score sheet would say * DAH.......


or better yet WAH is a DAH :wink:


----------



## Arturo (Jan 10, 2004)

Debthomas said:


> My score sheet would say * DAH.......


Mine says SMF!

Shaking head regards,
Arturo


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Had a situation where a Qual handler lined up his dog for the blind, which was 60 yds outside and upwind of our memory bird on a three-guns out triple at about 200 yds +/-. Dog takes a dead perfect line toward the blind. I'm thinkin': "Here comes our first line job!" I was sort of excited about it 'cause some of the work had been awful on that blind up to that point. Then, about halfway to the bird, the handler blows a whistle. I'm thinkin': "The dog was dead on line....you don't have to handle him now to impress us...." He gives a RAB and the dog takes it...chugs on up the hill...._toward the wrong scrub bush_. :shock: He stops the dog close to where he thought the bird was and says, "There's no bird there." I said, "You are correct. The bird is about 40 yds directly to the left and slightly in from where the dog is now." He could not get the dog to the bird and almost had to get on a 4-wheeler to go get him in the field where he went WAY long and wasn't answering whistles.

Sometimes you want to ask the handlers: "What ARE you doing???"...but you can't....

Now, this handler had watched probably 15 dogs run prior to his, and had been behind the line for a great number of dogs that had run that blind. Several blinds were planted while he was watching.

The moral of the story is: watch where the bird is planted, and if you still don't know when you get to the running line, ASK! :wink: 

kg


----------



## Arturo (Jan 10, 2004)

EdA said:


> Debthomas said:
> 
> 
> > My score sheet would say * DAH.......
> ...


HEY! That's not funny! It may be true but it ain't funny! :wink:


----------



## Alec Sparks (Jan 31, 2003)

I'm sure the main players in this thread are tired but could you answer just one question for me please?

What would your take be or what notes would you make if a handler walked out a big/loud right OVER and the dog took a right straight back that put it right on the line to the blind? 

I ask because I think that's kind of at the root of the problem K's talking about. I have run under judges [during the stone age] that would consider that a cast refusal because the dog "didn't take your cast". No question, some judges want to see literal casting at tests. They feel if you ask for an angle back and the dog doesn't turn and go back 45 dergees from it's orginal line, it's a CR regardless of if/how it may haved improved the dogs progress to the blind.

Same with an over, if the dog doesn't go over 90 degrees to it's orginal line before it was stopped, it's a cast refusal. Perhaps not the same as going straight back on an over but none the less a "ding" if the dog doesn't go over 90 degrees.

And some judges want the cast carried with no fade back, another ding if a dog fades back unless cast.


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

> What would your take be or what notes would you make if a handler walked out a big/loud right OVER and the dog took a right straight back that put it right on the line to the blind?


Hope everybody's sitting down right now.....and doesn't have a mouthful of liquid refreshment..... 8) .........

Since I judge what I SEE, not what I THINK, I'd say you got the correction you needed to improve your position relative to the location of the bird.

In other words, _good job_! :wink:

Now, let me take this a step further (as if any of you would expect anything less..... :roll: )....my notes would show "WRHO" and a line showing the correction that the dog took. No more, no less. The "WRHO" tells me the cast was a "walking right hand over" (verbal, 'cause there's no "S" before the "W"), and the dog corrected its line and proceeded toward the bird.

Kristie asked me of a situation where writing down the casts would prove to be a detriment to the dog, and this situation made me think of an example.

If you're trying to correct a dog's angle to the running line, when you don't get the original cast, you repeat the whistle then lower the arm a bit to increase the lateral angle to a more definite "over." Say the first cast is a SRAB....dog keeps going straight back, no correction to the line of the blind....then a WSRAB....dog slightly corrects to line, but still will go past the bird if it doesn't get more correction....then a WSRO, almost pointing the dog at the line to the blind since the two previous casts didn't get the desired correction. My notes tell me that the silent right angle back was not taken = CR #1. Since now the dog has increased its distance off the line to the blind by not taking the first cast, a walking silent right angle back is given, and the dog corrects slightly, but not enough to get back on the proper line to the blind = CR #2 Say what you will about the casts given and the handler's choice to give them: I'm just making notes, drawing pictures, and judging what I see. Then, cast #3, a walking silent right over gets the dog back on line. If I were judging the handler (which I'm NOT), I'd say he/she gambled with that first correction; it probably should have been more severe of an angle relative to the position of the dog and the blind...but it wasn't; the dog didn't take it....and it took two more casts to get the dog back on line. I'm judging the DOG, and the first two casts did not improve its position to the bird.

Hope this helps regards,

kg


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

K G said:


> > What would your take be or what notes would you make if a handler walked out a big/loud right OVER and the dog took a right straight back that put it right on the line to the blind?
> 
> 
> Hope everybody's sitting down right now.....and doesn't have a mouthful of liquid refreshment..... 8) .........
> ...


Hey, why aren't these two posts over in my thread? THis is exactly what I was asking about!


----------



## Alec Sparks (Jan 31, 2003)

I'm old school RTF and can't even begin to keep up with all the posts here in these wacky modern times.


----------

