# In an AKC Senior test, was this the "right call"?



## fetch (Sep 23, 2003)

AKC Senior test and the land double marks are being thrown. After the first bird lands, as the flyer is tossed, the dog starts prancing his feet and lifting his haunches (but does not move forward). The handler says "Sit." 

The judges allowed completion of the series but told the handler she was out for her talking to her dog during the marks. Handler asked why wasn't this scored as a controlled break (allowed in Senior). One judge said: "Because you're an experienced handler and you should know better than to talk to your dog during the marks."

Right call? 

Or should it be scored as a controlled break?


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

Right call. No talking once you call for the birds.


----------



## Guest (Apr 26, 2010)

Should be scored as a controlled break unless she said it more than once....


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Once, or more than once?

If it happened once, I say it was a controlled break. Twice,= two controlled breaks, the dog is out.


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

Dog stood up, it did not break. She talked to it. Not a controled break in my book. If the dog started to actually break, moving toward the fall (and the OP clearly says this did not happen) and she said something = controlled break. This = talking to the dog to prevent it from breaking, not controlling a break that is training on the line
Creeping is not a break


----------



## Pals (Jul 29, 2008)

badbullgator said:


> Dog stood up, it did not break. She talked to it. Not a controled break in my book. If the dog started to actually break, moving toward the fall and she said something = controlled break. This = talking to the dog to prevent it from breaking, not controlling a break.
> Creeping is not a break


 
That too is how I see it.


----------



## 2tall (Oct 11, 2006)

This has been one of the great mysteries of retriever games to me. When does toe tappin, butt wigglin, standing, and then on to belly crawlin', creepin 1 ft, then 4ft, become a true break? When can I say "no here" or blow the whistle???? I've had judges tell me both ways, one said I should have called him down before he bolted, and another said I was talking to the dog when I could tell he was going to break, and stopped him.

I know, I know, the answer is to make that dog mind! but in a test/trial ya gotta do _*something*_!


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

badbullgator said:


> ..If the dog started to actually break, moving toward the fall (and the OP clearly says this did not happen) and she said something = controlled break.....


So, the dog that demonstrates the higher level of control, gets dropped because it didn't break enough?


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

copterdoc said:


> So, the dog that demonstrates the higher level of control, gets dropped because it didn't break enough?


 
No, the handler did not have enough trust in the dog. A dog standing up and not moving forward is NOT BREAKING. No way, no how! It is standing and dancing (which I have no problem with if it is not excessive). If the dog had that high a level of control there was no need to talk to it during the falls ;-)


*2. A controlled break *
is generally when a dog leaves
to retrieve before being sent, but is quickly brought
under control by verbal command or whistle and returns

to the handler. A controlled break in Master calls for a “0”​ 
score (Ch. 5, Sec. 5 [6]).​


Tell me where this dog left to retrieve before it was sent. If it did not move forward how do you suppose it left? Did it return to her? If it never left it could not have broke and it could not have returned and that is how a controlled break is defined​​


----------



## Final Flight Retrievers (Jan 23, 2010)

Kristie Wilder said:


> Should be scored as a controlled break unless she said it more than once....



I agree 100 %


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

I agree the handler didn't trust the dog and "controlled" the upcoming break.

I think that is better than the handler waiting for the dog to do something "worse" before stopping it.


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

copterdoc said:


> I agree the handler didn't trust the dog and "controlled" the upcoming break.
> 
> I think that is better than the handler waiting for the dog to do something "bad" before stopping it.


 
Right on......in TRAINING but not in a test. That is why you train.


----------



## Eric Johnson (Dec 23, 2004)

Controlled break....once.

Breaking is a continous stream of behavior. As a judge, I can make no assumptions about what the dog is or is not about to do. All I can judge is what I see. When the handler says, "Sit", I can only assume that since the handler knows his dog, the dog is in the act of breaking. 

Now to the specific case here. The judge did not allow the controlled break because the handler was experienced. That goes against what I said above in that the handler apparently knows the dog and knows the dog was in the act of breaking. The handler bit the bullet and stopped the break. The handler should have gotten the benefit of the rules.

In Master a controlled break is not allowed and therefore the handler can't say a thing. In Senior, a controlled break is allowed so you have to give the handler the ability to contol it with a verbal command.

Eric


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

Eric Johnson said:


> Controlled break....once.
> 
> Breaking is a continous stream of behavior. As a judge, I can make no assumptions about what the dog is or is not about to do. All I can judge is what I see. When the handler says, "Sit", I can only assume that since the handler knows his dog, the dog is in the act of breaking.
> 
> ...


so in your book, any senior dog that stands up can be talked to because you assume it is going to break because the handler talked to it? You say you can only judge what you see and yet you also say you base you judging on assumptions...assuming that since the handler talked the dog was breaking. If you did not see the dog breaking you are not judging on what you saw because what you saw was a dog stand up and make no forward motion and that is not a break. Since the handler knows the dog better than you why not let them judge all the work. I am sure they know how the dog runs blinds and what is a cast refusal to their dog better than you do.


----------



## Final Flight Retrievers (Jan 23, 2010)

scored as a controlled break and I would bring the dog back to the water series and see what happens.....


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

badbullgator said:


> Right call. No talking once you call for the birds.


I see your logic here.

I have thought about it a minute and I wish I hadn't responded so quickly.

This isn't really a good scenario to "Judge from a keyboard".

In AKC HT, you aren't allowed to talk to your dog from the time you signal for the marks, until the Judge calls your number. As far as I am concerned, I consider any violation of that rule, to be a controlled break.

However, in HRC you are allowed to talk to your dog while the marks are being thrown. It is up to the Judges to interpret whether your "talking" was actually a controlled break.

That leads me to believe that there must be a gray area in AKC Senior as it applies to controlled breaks as well.


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

wackemnstackem said:


> scored as a controlled break and I would bring the dog back to the water series and see what happens.....


Why? You have posted twice that you would call it a controlled break but no reason why? Do you judge, just wondering. What does brining them back prove? If the dog stands again and the handler says nothing, what then? Do you still think it was a controlled break or the handler talking to the dog? Do you then drop the dog for the handler talking in the first?


----------



## Frenchy (Jul 9, 2005)

Its senior....I'd consider it a controlled break and remind handler not to talk to the dog in the next series.


----------



## Frenchy (Jul 9, 2005)

badbullgator said:


> Why? You have posted twice that you would call it a controlled break but no reason why? Do you judge, just wondering. What does brining them back prove? If the dog stands again and the handler says nothing, what then? Do you still think it was a controlled break or the handler talking to the dog? Do you then drop the dog for the handler talking in the first?


What advantage did the dog gain by the handler saying SIT?


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

copterdoc said:


> I see your logic here.
> 
> I have thought about it a minute and I wish I hadn't responded so quickly.
> 
> ...


You are correct, but as described above a controlled break is when a dog "leaves to retrieve before being sent". In this case the dog DID NOT LEAVE, it only stood up. The OP says NO forward movement took place. sorry that is a dog standing up out of excitment and not, at this point anyway, a break. IF the dog left and the whistle or voice was used to get the dog "quickly under control" and it "returns" it is a controlled break. As Leaves and returns are both in the rule they both have to happen. Standing up is not leaving and it is not returning


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

Frenchy said:


> What advantage did the dog gain by the handler saying SIT?


 
I don't believe I ever said it gained an advantage. Do the rules state they only are in force IF the dog gains an advantage?


----------



## fetch (Sep 23, 2003)

From the answers I can see this is a gray area. 

My reaction was the same as copterdoc's. It has to be a "controlled break" because othewise you get the illogical result that the less well behaved dog (who moves forward and actually tries to go) gets a pass and the better behaved one is dropped. This is not the right result.

The rule is "you can't talk to your dog" but having a rule does not say what the penalty is for breaking it. I thought as far as "penalty," the general judging attitude was what Eric said -- you assume the handler knew the dog was breaking and therefore you score for a controlled break. In Master this would mean elimination from the stake. In Senior if it only happened once (you said sit once) you'd be scored down on trainability for a controlled break.

As far as something being "training during a test," to me that is not a useful tool for analyzing what's allowed or not, because "training" happens any time you give a command or blow a whistle or anything else. Anything we do while running a dog can be considered training in the sense that it changes a dog's behavior (we hope...)


----------



## Pals (Jul 29, 2008)

Frenchy said:


> What advantage did the dog gain by the handler saying SIT?


 
Exactly. None. She talked to the dog after calling for the birds to be sent. No forward motion of the dog, he was bouncing by the sounds of things. Was he going to break??? Maybe/Maybe not. We don't know now. Also there are two judges and both had to come to this agreement. Don't forget that, we were not there and should not arm chair quarterback.


----------



## Final Flight Retrievers (Jan 23, 2010)

badbullgator said:


> Why? You have posted twice that you would call it a controlled break but no reason why? Do you judge, just wondering. What does brining them back prove? If the dog stands again and the handler says nothing, what then? Do you still think it was a controlled break or the handler talking to the dog? Do you then drop the dog for the handler talking in the first?



Doing my apprenticeship next mon. (AKC Sr.) If it was me judging at this test I would have asked the handler to stop talking to your dog ( scored it as a controlled break) and let the dog retrieve the birds. hopefully this series had the Honor and see what the dog did there, if the dog honored then I would bring the dog back to the water series with special instructions to ALL there will be no talking once you call for the birds or you will be dropped......if the dog breaks during the water series then it's dropped, if the handler talks there dropped......


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

fetch said:


> From the answers I can see this is a gray area.
> 
> My reaction was the same as copterdoc's. It has to be a "controlled break" because othewise you get the illogical result that the less well behaved dog (who moves forward and actually tries to go) gets a pass and the better behaved one is dropped. This is not the right result.
> 
> ...


 
Please someone explain to me how a dog standing up is breaking? The dog STOOD UP WITH NO FORWARD MOVEMENT. I have seen MANY master dogs stand up while marks are falling and they are not breaking.......
Please, please explain how standing up is equal to breaking. If this is the case I will be judging a lot more dog to have broke or to have had controlled breaks in the future that I have not in the past.


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

Pals said:


> Exactly. None. She talked to the dog after calling for the birds to be sent. No forward motion of the dog, he was bouncing by the sounds of things. Was he going to break??? *Maybe/Maybe not. We don't know now. Also there are two judges and both had to come to this agreement. Don't forget that, we were not there* and should not arm chair quarterback.


 
Ding, ding, ding....winner....but of course we are going to armchair QB this thing


----------



## Rick_C (Dec 12, 2007)

*"Section 11.​*​​​​In Senior and Master Hunting Tests, a
handler shall not hold or touch a dog to keep it steady,
or verbally restrain a dog on line, except in extraordinary
circumstances, from the time the first bird is being
thrown until the dog’s number is called. Violation of any
of the provisions of this paragraph is sufficient cause to
justify a grade of “0” in Trainability.:"​

(2) Dogs shall be steady on the line, but a controlled
break or creeping shall result in a relatively lower score
in Trainability, than a controlled break or creeping would
in a Junior Hunting Test.

Going by what I read in the rules, badbullgator is right in that, in this case, the handler "verbally restrained" the dog but it did not creep or break so would get a 0 in "trainability".

It does seem odd to me however that saying SIT in this case is worse than re-heeling the dog if it did in fact leave the line.​


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

wackemnstackem said:


> Doing my apprenticeship next mon. (AKC Sr.) If it was me judging at this test I would have asked the handler to stop talking to your dog ( scored it as a controlled break) and let the dog retrieve the birds. *hopefully this series had the Honor and see what the dog did there, if the dog honored then I would bring the dog back to the water series* with special instructions to ALL there will be no talking once you call for the birds or you will be dropped......if the dog breaks during the water series then it's dropped, if the handler talks there dropped......


 
And if the dog stood up with no SIT given??????? You really think a dog standing up is a breaking dog?


----------



## Frenchy (Jul 9, 2005)

So a nervous handler blows the whistle or says sit at the first indication (To the handler) that the dog is about to break and you drop him. But the dog that actually breaks stride for 5 feet before stopping and reheeling is allowed a pass. Sorry, but I can't follow your reasoning there. In my opinion, in a senior test, i'm paying alot more attention to the actions of the dog than I am of the handler. If the verbal sit gave no other advantage to the dog other that "possibly" preventing the break, than I am not going to fail the dog for a minor handleing error. I'll watch the dog complete my test and judge it on the merits of the dogs work. Granted I'll make note of the verbal sit on the line, and reserve final judgment once all series are completed.


----------



## Scott Greenwood (Mar 25, 2008)

Not a break. The handler used it's judgement to make the call. Not what should have done. If it was to reheal the judges would have said so, once you say heal the rules plainly state no talking and you are at fault.

Don't kill yourself, let the judges judge. Creap is fine, break is a total different animal and OP stated the dog did not break.


----------



## Mark Littlejohn (Jun 16, 2006)

I think an important word in the rule is "generally". This opens the rule to interpretation. In my book the handler opted to take a 5 point mark-down in trainability when he prevented his dog from breaking. Now's he's sitting on a big bubble going forward. Could/should he have stayed quiet? Perhaps, but maybe he knows that there is no such thing as a controlled break with this dog, so at the first hint of movement, -5 pts in trainability is better than a folded page.

If he is an experienced handler and knows this dog, then he's probably doing the right thing by making the judges judge. The judge that commented that he's out because "..he should know better" has discredited himself by confessing that personal opinions influenced his scoring (vs objective judgment) regarding the handler.

ml


----------



## Scott Greenwood (Mar 25, 2008)

Frenchy said:


> So a nervous handler blows the whistle or says sit at the first indication (To the handler) that the dog is about to break and you drop him. But the dog that actually breaks stide for 5 feet before stopping and reheeling is allowed a pass. Sorry, but I can't follow your reasoning there. In my opinion, in a senior test, i'm paying alot more attention to the actions of the dog than I am of the handler. If the verbal sit gave no other advantage to the dog other that "possibly" preventing the break, than I am not going to fail the dog for a minor handleing error. I'll watch the dog complete my test and judge it on the merits of the dogs work. Granted I'll make note of the verbal sit on the line, and reserve final judgment once all series are completed.


That's why we are judges, we judge, and make the decisions, OP made the decision for us.;-)


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

Frenchy said:


> So a nervous handler blows the whistle or says sit at the first indication (To the handler) that the dog is about to break and you drop him. But the dog that actually breaks stride for 5 feet before stopping and reheeling is allowed a pass. Sorry, but I can't follow your reasoning there. In my opinion, in a senior test, i'm paying alot more attention to the actions of the dog than I am of the handler. If the verbal sit gave no other advantage to the dog other that "possibly" preventing the break, than I am not going to fail the dog for a minor handleing error. I'll watch the dog complete my test and judge it on the merits of the dogs work. Granted I'll make note of the verbal sit on the line, and reserve final judgment once all series are completed.


 
You have a very interesting take on rules interpretation. You say your paying more attention to the dog. If this is the case then answer my question, do you judge a dog that stands up to be breaking? Simple question, is a dog that stands up during falls judged to be breaking? 
You also seem to feel that if no advantage was gained a rule has not been broken. So if someone robs a bank and gets no money in the robbery they have not broken any laws?
Last this is not a MINOR handling error in the eyes of the AKC rules. It is listed under SERIOUS HANDLER FLAWS, not MINOR HANDLER FLAWS. I would have to guess that if they wanted it under minor it would be there and not under Serious. 

*Serious Handler Faults: *Serious faults listed cover all
those instances where the Standard describes conduct of
the handler which in and of itself justifies elimination from
the stake.
_2. Talking to the working dog – the handler must remain_
_silent from the time the handler signals for the first bird to be_
_thrown until the judges release the dog._


----------



## Eric Johnson (Dec 23, 2004)

Whether the dog was actually breaking or not, you as a judge can't say. What you can say is that the handler felt the dog was behaving in the manner that is the start of a break and therefore tried to control it. It's a legitimate controlled break.

I'm not assuming anything about the dog behavior. I'm assuming the handler behavior....the handler felt the dog was breaking and sought to control it. That's the sum total of what I need to know.

Eric


----------



## limiman12 (Oct 13, 2007)

Perhaps the judges were in agreement, perhaps the stronger willed one won an arguement......

If the handler knows that the dog is not one that stands, he/she would assume that the dog is in fact standing with intent to break. I have a friend that would call it a CB if the dogs butt comes up and the handler says sit. He knows dogs well, so I genearlly listen when he speaks......

As mentioned before if a dog is allowed to break, go forward and be braought back under control and it is a CB and dog is still playing, why wouldn't this dog still be playing with a CB. Perhaps to the HANDLERS STANDARD OF WHAT TEH HANDLER WILL CONDONE, the dog broke by violating the sit command......


----------



## Frenchy (Jul 9, 2005)

as quoted above, verbally restraining your dog on line is "sufficent" grounds for scoring a "0" in trainablity. Sufficent to me does not imply ALWAYS grounds for a "0" in trainability.


----------



## Waterfwlr (Jul 14, 2009)

How can it be a controlled break if the dog never moved foward? As far as the rules go, it was the right call. Judges enforced the rule. It's one of those things that some judges may have let slide. BUT, it was the right call.


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

Frenchy said:


> as quoted above, verbally restraining your dog on line is "sufficent" grounds for scoring a "0" in trainablity. Sufficent to me does not imply ALWAYS grounds for a "0" in trainability.


You are avoiding my question.
Do you judge a dog that stands to have broke?


----------



## Frenchy (Jul 9, 2005)

badbullgator said:


> You are avoiding my question.
> Do you judge a dog that stands to have broke?


Not avoiding anything. Was typing the last reply when your first question came up.

No, a dog that stands has not broke.


----------



## Scott Greenwood (Mar 25, 2008)

Eric Johnson said:


> Whether the dog was actually breaking or not, you as a judge can't say. What you can say is that the handler felt the dog was behaving in the manner that is the start of a break and therefore tried to control it. It's a legitimate controlled break.
> 
> I'm not assuming anything about the dog behavior. I'm assuming the handler behavior....the handler felt the dog was breaking and sought to control it. That's the sum total of what I need to know.
> 
> Eric



This is the answer!!!!!!!!!!!! Break or not, handler spoke to dog to gain control, serious fault. No PASS. If you want to hedge your bets, keep your mouth shut and see what the judges have to say. I have a creeper, never breaks, yet, just creeps, keep my mouth shut and see where I fall.

BTW, as the old saying goes, TRAIN DON'T COMPLAIN.


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

Frenchy said:


> Not avoiding anything. Was typing the last reply when your first question came up.
> 
> No, a dog that stands has not broke.


 
Ah then HOW COULD THIS BE A CONTROLLED BREAK???? The dog STOOD up and was told to SIT. You even agree a dog standing is not a dog breaking.


----------



## Frenchy (Jul 9, 2005)

badbullgator said:


> You have a very interesting take on rules interpretation. You say your paying more attention to the dog. If this is the case then answer my question, do you judge a dog that stands up to be breaking? Simple question, is a dog that stands up during falls judged to be breaking?
> You also seem to feel that if no advantage was gained a rule has not been broken. So if someone robs a bank and gets no money in the robbery they have not broken any laws?
> Last this is not a MINOR handling error in the eyes of the AKC rules. It is listed under SERIOUS HANDLER FLAWS, not MINOR HANDLER FLAWS. I would have to guess that if they wanted it under minor it would be there and not under Serious.
> 
> ...


Also, you are incorrect in assuming that I feel no rule has been broken. What I said is that the punishment for such infraction does not ALWAYS merit disqualification.

Just like your bank robber wouldn't receive the death penalty for his robbery attempt. I'm not failing the dog for the handlers pre-emptive "sit".


----------



## Juli H (Aug 27, 2007)

It's not a controlled break. The dog/handler should be dropped. If the handler had waited for the dog to move forward and said 'sit' at that time, it is a controlled break.



Juli


----------



## Scott Greenwood (Mar 25, 2008)

Juli H said:


> It's not a controlled break. The dog/handler should be dropped. If the handler had waited for the dog to move forward and said 'sit' at that time, it is a controlled break.
> 
> 
> 
> Juli


Bingo, BANGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Frenchy (Jul 9, 2005)

Juli H said:


> It's not a controlled break. The dog/handler should be dropped. If the handler had waited for the dog to move forward and said 'sit' at that time, it is a controlled break.
> 
> 
> 
> Juli


This line of reasoning is lost on me, and one I can't agree with.


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

Frenchy said:


> Also, you are incorrect in assuming that I feel no rule has been broken. What I said is that the punishment for such infraction does not ALWAYS merit disqualification.
> 
> Just like your bank robber wouldn't receive the death penalty for his robbery attempt. I'm not failing the dog for the handlers pre-emptive "sit".


Assuming your typing......
If as you say a dog that stands is not judged to have broke, how can you call this a controlled break? If not a controlled break it is a serious handler fault by an experianced handler and is cause for the dog to disqualified. Since no break took place here the word that was said is really the issue. You feel it was OK to say sit. What if instead the handler said heel to pull the dog around to see the flyer? Would that be a disqualification? Since you judge assuming what the handler means how do you know that sit was not to get the dog to look at the second mark? There is a reason this is a SERIOUS fault. Keep in mind TWO judges disqualified this dog.


----------



## Juli H (Aug 27, 2007)

the dog didn't move forward..there was no break....how can you control something that hasn't happened? the term 'controlled break' implies the dog has broke and the handler is now 'controlling' the dog. In this case the handler was 'preventing' not 'controlling'...MHO>  

BTW, this is one of the things I like about NAHRA - you can quietly talk to your dog while the birds are being thrown. However, I have no problem with the AKC rules as they pertain to talking, as they seem pretty cut and dry. No talkie to doggie until you get the okie dokie. 

Juli


----------



## David Lo Buono (Apr 6, 2005)

*NO WAY *is this a controlled break....Its a dog with poor line maners and a handler that talked to him...PERIOD

Now as far as to drop the dog...Well, that is up to the judges: Weather the handler is experienced or not, the rule is the rule, don't talk to your dog during the marks......I dislike the rule, but it is what it is.......Perhaps I'm missing something??? But, I don't see how this is a "controlled break" in the least.....


----------



## Ken Newcomb (Apr 18, 2003)

I understand the rules but don't understand why the rules are as they are. Dog has a controlled break and handle speaks to stop him (2 faults) dog lives to play again. Handler speaks (1 fault) dog go home and not come back.


----------



## TN_LAB (Jul 26, 2008)

I know nothing, and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn last night. 

I'm pretty sure my dog has stood and rotated to see the 2nd mark before. If/when this happens, I have to bite my tongue to keep from telling her to sit. Why? Because I feel that would be viewed as talking to my dog during the marks. 

I'm pretty certain my dog automatically sits before being released, but it's not because I commanded her to sit. I just might have to get a video camera and/or have a friend watch us closely the next time.


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

Ken Newcomb said:


> I understand the rules but don't understand why the rules are as they are. Dog has a controlled break and handle speaks to stop him (2 faults) dog lives to play again. Handler speaks (1 fault) dog go home and not come back.


 
I agree. 
I am not a big fan of not talking to your dog at any level. I have never hunted and not spoken to my dog. Not all the time, but I talk to them many times in the blind while hunting. Not to mention my dogs are often standing while hunting, but have never broke.... Regardless, it is the way the rule is written.


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

TN_LAB said:


> I know nothing, and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn last night.
> 
> I'm pretty sure my dog has stood and rotated to see the 2nd mark before. If/when this happens, I have to bite my tongue to keep from telling her to sit. Why? Because I feel that would be viewed as talking to my dog during the marks.
> 
> I'm pretty certain my dog automatically sits before being released, but it's not because I commanded her to sit. I just might have to get a video camera and/or have a friend watch us closely the next time.


And nothing wrong with that. You dog stands he does not break. Standing and breaking are two different things.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

The big problem I have here is the statement "you are an experienced handler". How does handle experience make a difference? It sure should not.

I'd rather have been dropped and would probably have take the dog off line if he had a chronic issue.

Am I the only one on the thread who cares more about the long term effect of letting a dog get away with such nonsense?

Test wise regards,


----------



## Monte09 (Feb 5, 2008)

Juli H said:


> the dog didn't move forward..there was no break....how can you control something that hasn't happened? the term 'controlled break' implies the dog has broke and the handler is now 'controlling' the dog. In this case the handler was 'preventing' not 'controlling'...MHO>
> 
> BTW, this is one of the things I like about NAHRA - you can quietly talk to your dog while the birds are being thrown. However, I have no problem with the AKC rules as they pertain to talking, as they seem pretty cut and dry. No talkie to doggie until you get the okie dokie.
> 
> Juli


Its not that simple, a "break" is more than moving forward, I'd argue that its a series of events. If the dog is sitting it must stand up before it moves forward. In this case the dog did not move forward because the break was controlled. If you limit the definition of breaking to moving forward then there would be no such thing as creeping. If the dog was creeping and the handler said sit is he too dropped? Must the dog be in a full sprint before the handler can be judged to controlled a break?

Just thinking out loud. Thanks in advance for you feedback.

Steve Coombes


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

DarrinGreene said:


> The big problem I have here is the statement "you are an experienced handler". How does handle experience make a difference? It sure should not.
> 
> I'd rather have been dropped and would probably have take the dog off line if he had a chronic issue.
> 
> ...


 
Ah....because an experianced handler SHOULD know better. I would not want to drop a first time handler for one word. I can't say that I would not, but if I could help it I would not. Now an experianced handler may well be doing what I stated above...sit may not be tomake the dog not break, but rather to get is attention to see the next fall. Lets say the dog is locked on the first fall and the next fall is over 90 degs in the other direction. An experianced handler may well have something more in mind that his dog breaking. the dog turns to look at you as you say sit ands ses the second fall..... Experianced know better. The person stepping up with his first senior dog may not. 
I care about not letting the dog get away with nonsense, but if my dog had a breaking issue saying SIT in the test is not going to solve it and you are training. I would have picked my dog (and have for very similar) or not had a problem with a judge disqualifying me for talking if I got a correction in. I use HRC for this very thing. I can talk and correct my dog and if the problem still continues I pick them up rahter than reward them


----------



## TN_LAB (Jul 26, 2008)

badbullgator said:


> And nothing wrong with that. You dog stands he does not break. Standing and breaking are two different things.


And I think that's where fetch made the error. The controlled break rule is subject to interpretation and has a lot of gray area, whereas the talking during the marks rule is pretty cut and dry.

Probably strong odds that fetch might have been the only person to even realize his dog was standing, but when he commanded SIT it obviously was noticed by the judge.

Stinks real bad and I know I'd be in a bad mood as a result.


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

Monte09 said:


> Its not that simple, a "break" is more than moving forward, I'd argue that its a series of events. If the dog is sitting it must stand up before it moves forward. In this case the dog did not move forward because the break was controlled. If you limit the definition of breaking to moving forward then there would be no such thing as creeping. If the dog was creeping and the handler said sit is he too dropped? Must the dog be in a full sprint before the handler can be judged to controlled a break?
> 
> Just thinking out loud. Thanks in advance for you feedback.
> 
> Steve Coombes


 
Come on Steve. So by your post any dog who stands has broke? A dog has to eat before it craps. I don't disipline a dog for eating in my house but I sure do for crapping in it.
A dog eating is not a dog crapping 
A dog standing is not a dog breaking


----------



## dixidawg (Jan 5, 2003)

Consider the act of a person jumping.

If you take numerous still pictures of the entire act of jumping,,,,, 

Would any picture that shows a foot still on the ground capture someone that has not yet jumped?

Would any picture that shows feet off the ground depict someone that has already jumped?

So they would have either not yet jumped, or have already jumped. 


I think a break is a lot like that. There are a whole LOT of things that constitute a break, and there's no singular thing that constutes a break.

If you only consider forward motion to constitute a break, then by definition a creep would also be a (controlled) break.


----------



## louisianadukdog (Mar 22, 2006)

badbullgator said:


> I agree.
> I am not a big fan of not talking to your dog at any level. I have never hunted and not spoken to my dog. Not all the time, but I talk to them many times in the blind while hunting. Not to mention my dogs are often standing while hunting, but have never broke.... Regardless, it is the way the rule is written.


Right on... Rules is rules!!!! BUT...this is one that I can't understand. How many of you can't / won't / don't talk to your dog while in the duck blind? I talk to my dog all the time in the blind. Sit, pay attention, down, here...all without disturbing th hunt.


----------



## starjack (Apr 30, 2009)

This is why i will not enter hts. Way to much politics.


----------



## Monte09 (Feb 5, 2008)

Thats funny. But no I dont consider standing or creeping a completed break but if the dog stood or crept I think there is room in the rules to consider it a controlled break if the handler said sit during either. Im not convinced the dog must be in a complete sprint before the controlled break is allowed.

Convince me,

Steve


----------



## Final Flight Retrievers (Jan 23, 2010)

badbullgator said:


> And if the dog stood up with no SIT given??????? You really think a dog standing up is a breaking dog?


that would/may not happen because you ARE allowed to talk quietly to your dog while honoring....


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

dixidawg said:


> Consider the act of a person jumping.
> 
> If you take numerous still pictures of the entire act of jumping,,,,,
> 
> ...


 
Again standing up is not a break. No way, no how and no a dog that has crept 3 feet is still WAITING to be sent for a retrieve. A dog that has broke has LEFT before being sent. Forward motion is just part, the rule says "leaves before sent" My mentioning of forward motion only goes to saying that a dog that stands has not broke (or even creeped in many cases) a dog that stands and moves forward is creeping to a point


----------



## Pals (Jul 29, 2008)

Monte09 said:


> Thats funny. But no I dont consider standing or creeping a completed break but if the dog stood or crept I think there is room in the rules to consider it a controlled break if the handler said sit during either. Im not convinced the dog must be in a complete sprint before the controlled break is allowed.
> 
> *Convince me*,
> 
> Steve


 Where's that internet wiffle bat when you need one?????


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

wackemnstackem said:


> that would/may not happen because you ARE allowed to talk quietly to your dog while honoring....


 
That is not answering the question. The question was if the dog on honor stood up and never moved and no sit was given do you still feel the first instance was a controlled break? If it makes it easier we can say that it it at the water and the dog stands up, does not move and the handler does not speak to the dog. Did the dog have a break in this case? It could not be a coltrolled break because the handler did nothing to controll him so standing in this case would have to be a break if the first instance was a controlled break becasue the dog stood, the handler said sit. the only difference is the word SIT.


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

Monte09 said:


> Thats funny. But no I dont consider standing or creeping a completed break but if the dog stood or crept I think there is room in the rules to consider it a controlled break if the handler said sit during either. Im not convinced the dog must be in a complete sprint before the controlled break is allowed.
> 
> Convince me,
> 
> Steve


Lets do this real slow.....the dog stood up. It did not move or creep per the OP. The rules say a controlled break is when the dog leaves on a retrieve before sent. A dog that stands up and does not move CANNOT be judged to have left for a retrieve. I have posted the rules, you convince me why a dog that stands and does not move is in any way a controlled break. I never siad it had to be a full sprint or even a walk. I said a standing dog is not a dog that has broke.


----------



## Pals (Jul 29, 2008)

badbullgator said:


> Lets do this real slow.....the dog stood up. It did not move or creep per the OP. The rules say a controlled break is when the dog leaves on a retrieve before sent. A dog that stands up and does not move CANNOT be judged to have left for a retrieve. I have posted the rules, you convince me why a dog that stands and does not move is in any way a controlled break. I never siad it had to be a full sprint or even a walk. I said a standing dog is not a dog that has broke.


 
Oh there's the wiffle bat!!! Just kidding Corey, just kidding.


----------



## fetchingfloyd (Apr 18, 2010)

fetch said:


> AKC Senior test and the land double marks are being thrown. After the first bird lands, as the flyer is tossed, the dog starts prancing his feet and lifting his haunches (but does not move forward). The handler says "Sit."
> 
> The judges allowed completion of the series but told the handler she was out for her talking to her dog during the marks. Handler asked why wasn't this scored as a controlled break (allowed in Senior). One judge said: "Because you're an experienced handler and you should know better than to talk to your dog during the marks."
> 
> ...


my two cents.......the thing i dont like about what was done was how the judge said "because you are an experienced handler...." we should judge all dogs and handlers on the same level......if one guy does something like what has been mentioned and gets tossed and another one does it and doesnt get tossed based on "experience", there is something wrong with that. i dont have a problem either way with what the results are as long as it is the same for everybody. i can see this particular posted situation as a grey area and could go either way due to the judges interpretation but it just needs to be uniform for all handlers, not just the "experienced" ones.


----------



## Final Flight Retrievers (Jan 23, 2010)

badbullgator said:


> That is not answering the question. The question was if the dog on honor stood up and never moved and no sit was given do you still feel the first instance was a controlled break? If it makes it easier we can say that it it at the water and the dog stands up, does not move and the handler does not speak to the dog. Did the dog have a break in this case? It could not be a coltrolled break because the handler did nothing to controll him so standing in this case would have to be a break if the first instance was a controlled break becasue the dog stood, the handler said sit. the only difference is the word SIT.



you interpret/judge this situation as talking to your dog I interpret/judge it as the handler stopping the dog from breaking. therefore if the handler didn't say anything we would be talking about a controlled break....correct........so that's why I would bring the dog back to the water series ( with special instruction to the handler NO TALKING AFTER YOU CALL FOR THE BIRDS) and see if he tries to break on his own. Let the dog fail the test on his own....


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

wackemnstackem said:


> you interpret/judge this situation as talking to your dog I interpret/judge it as the handler stopping the dog from breaking. the*refore if the handler didn't say anything we would be talking about a controlled break....correct........*so that's why I would bring the dog back to the water series ( with special instruction to the handler NO TALKING AFTER YOU CALL FOR THE BIRDS) and see if he tries to break on his own. Let the dog fail the test on his own....


 
Not at all. A dog that stand up has done NOTHING wrong!! How is standing up a controlled break??? 
Please, please tell me how a dog that stood up would be a controlled break?


----------



## Monte09 (Feb 5, 2008)

badbullgator said:


> Lets do this real slow.....the dog stood up. It did not move or creep per the OP. The rules say a controlled break is when the dog leaves on a retrieve before sent. A dog that stands up and does not move CANNOT be judged to have left for a retrieve. I have posted the rules, you convince me why a dog that stands and does not move is in any way a controlled break. I never siad it had to be a full sprint or even a walk. I said a standing dog is not a dog that has broke.


I appreciate you taking it slow. I think you convinced me, the dog clearly hasnt "left for a retrieve". Thanks for being patient.


----------



## Scott Greenwood (Mar 25, 2008)

wackemnstackem said:


> you interpret/judge this situation as talking to your dog I interpret/judge it as the handler stopping the dog from breaking. therefore if the handler didn't say anything we would be talking about a controlled break....correct........so that's why I would bring the dog back to the water series ( with special instruction to the handler NO TALKING AFTER YOU CALL FOR THE BIRDS) and see if he tries to break on his own. Let the dog fail the test on his own....


Not me. Black and white ruling here. No matter what, keep your mouth shut until birds hit ground. I don't care if it's your first Junior or your handling your tenth dog at the National. Keep your mouth shut.

Let the judges judge, best way to do that is not let them think about you.


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

fetchingfloyd said:


> my two cents.......the thing i dont like about what was done was how the judge said "because you are an experienced handler...." we should judge all dogs and handlers on the same level......if one guy does something like what has been mentioned and gets tossed and another one does it and doesnt get tossed based on "experience", there is something wrong with that. i dont have a problem either way with what the results are as long as it is the same for everybody. i can see this particular posted situation as a grey area and could go either way due to the judges interpretation but it just needs to be uniform for all handlers, not just the "experienced" ones.


 
You are right. It should be, but I can tell you I have seen people come to the line so nervous they are about to mess themselves because it is their first time running seniors (or juniors, or master). It is human nature to want to give someone in this situation the benefit of the doubt that they were just nervous. I understand that everyone can be nervous at any level regardless of experience but I think that is the reason why most don’t want to be too hard core with inexperianced handlers. Not saying it is right, just saying why I think people feel that way


----------



## Final Flight Retrievers (Jan 23, 2010)

badbullgator said:


> Not at all. A dog that stand up has done NOTHING wrong!! How is standing up a controlled break???
> Please, please tell me how a dog that stood up would be a controlled break?



the problem with this is that the handler stepped in and we may never know what would have happened. So I would want to see the dog again to remove all doubt of wether the dog just stood up or was he going to break on the birds. Now if the dog just stands up on the water series and does not break then I would discuss what happen in the land series with my co judge and make our decision then.. THAT'S why you need to bring the dog back...IMO...


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

wackemnstackem said:


> the problem with this is that the handler stepped in and we may never know what would have happened. So I would want to see the dog again to remove all doubt of wether the dog just stood up or was he going to break on the birds. Now if the dog just stands up on the water series and does not break then I would discuss what happen in the land series with my co judge and make our decision then.. THAT'S why you need to bring the dog back...IMO...


 
You have still failed to explain how standing up is a controlled break.....


----------



## Scott Greenwood (Mar 25, 2008)

wackemnstackem said:


> the problem with this is that the handler stepped in and we may never know what would have happened. So I would want to see the dog again to remove all doubt of wether the dog just stood up or was he going to break on the birds. Now if the dog just stands up on the water series and does not break then I would discuss what happen in the land series with my co judge and make our decision then.. THAT'S why you need to bring the dog back...IMO...



This is where the rules make it clear as a major fault. No need to bring them back. IMO....the dog/handler combo are at a 0 or 1 for trainability, one more nick and your done.

You better show up test day to run a test and not consider it as another training scenario


----------



## Final Flight Retrievers (Jan 23, 2010)

badbullgator said:


> You have still failed to explain how standing up is a controlled break.....


I have never stated anywhere in my comments that standing up constitute a break HAVE I. So Please re-read my previous post as to why I would want to see this dog run again....


----------



## WRL (Jan 4, 2003)

badbullgator said:


> You have still failed to explain how standing up is a controlled break.....


I will explain it for you......

The dog stood up.....the HANDLER saw that as a BREAK and therefore STOPPED IT.

Therefore, its a controlled break. It is that simple.

If the dog had stood up and the handler said MARK.....its a CONTROLLED BREAK.

While you are not allowed to "talk to the dog while the marks are going down" it does not SAY its a non-qualifying penalty.

It says you should not do it. But it does NOT say its a "non-qualifying fault". That's because in Master it would be (no controlled breaks) but in Senior/Junior it would be not be grounds for failure.

Therefore, ANY TALKING TO THE DOG while the marks are going down will be penalized but not necessarily are you talking about a penalty that is an automatic dismissal.

Because we were not there, we don't truly know what transpired. 

But IF it were as simple as a dog being told SIT, its a controlled break (other work being take in into consideration) the dog lives to see another series.

Had the handler said nothing and the dog merely stood there, its not a penalty. 

Because the handler's job is to mitigate an potential "non-qualifying faults" you have to judge what was DONE not what could have been.

WRL


----------



## Monte09 (Feb 5, 2008)

Funny thing this exact thing happened to me. My 1st test ever, a Sr. Hunt test, and I said sit between marks. Not sure if it was due to nerves or habit but my dog had not moved and I said sit after the 1st mark was down. I said it very softly and Im not sure to this day if I passed because the judges didnt hear me or they scored it as a controlled break. 

Steve


----------



## Marty N. (Nov 28, 2003)

Controlled break.

The handler knows the dog and is the best judge of what the dog is going to do, as far as a judge or another person knows she controlled the dog from breaking.

Marty


----------



## WRL (Jan 4, 2003)

badbullgator said:


> Again standing up is not a break. No way, no how and no a dog that has crept 3 feet is still WAITING to be sent for a retrieve. A dog that has broke has LEFT before being sent. Forward motion is just part, the rule says "leaves before sent" My mentioning of forward motion only goes to saying that a dog that stands has not broke (or even creeped in many cases) a dog that stands and moves forward is creeping to a point



What about a dog that has "moved" 10 yds. Still there when the judges say dog. Or what if the dog "auto-reheels".......even if it is out there 30 yds.

What is the "point"? 

Its arbitrary and left up to the judges. That is what they are there for. JUDGING.....

WRL


----------



## WRL (Jan 4, 2003)

Marty N. said:


> Controlled break.
> 
> The handler knows the dog and is the best judge of what the dog is going to do, as far as a judge or another person knows she controlled the dog from breaking.
> 
> Marty


WOW! I should have just waited and let you post..... It was shorter than mine.

I agree.

WRL


----------



## limiman12 (Oct 13, 2007)

Who was it that said "you own what you condone"??????

Perhaps in the handlers eyes it was a violation of sit and therefore a break.....

He got punished for having high standards. But since it worked that way, hopefully his dog will be better for it in the long run.


----------



## Scott Greenwood (Mar 25, 2008)

WRL said:


> I will explain it for you......
> 
> The dog stood up.....the HANDLER saw that as a BREAK and therefore STOPPED IT.
> 
> ...


No it is not a controlled break..........judges make that determination, not handlers. I wish I could go to tests and tell judges what my dogs did and did not.

It is a major fault, major faults are enough to disqualify a dog in the long run.


----------



## Scott Greenwood (Mar 25, 2008)

WRL said:


> What about a dog that has "moved" 10 yds. Still there when the judges say dog. Or what if the dog "auto-reheels".......even if it is out there 30 yds.
> 
> What is the "point"?
> 
> ...



Exactly.............so why do you open your mouth and allow for a major fault!


----------



## JustinS (May 17, 2009)

This is always a concern at hunt tests because so many judges see it from different views plus if a judge allows his or her dog to do something but not other things then that is what they might score the same way. I just prefer to talk to the judges before I run and then if my dog messes up and I see it there are no questions to ask or to complain


----------



## Scott Greenwood (Mar 25, 2008)

Marty N. said:


> Controlled break.
> 
> The handler knows the dog and is the best judge of what the dog is going to do, as far as a judge or another person knows she controlled the dog from breaking.
> 
> Marty



And got herself in a situation she could not get out of. If whe knows the dog will break she is better off not even entering the test.

Let the judges judge, that is what they are there for. If the handler would have done that we wouldn't be here pissing up a rope!


----------



## limiman12 (Oct 13, 2007)

I just have a hard time understanding why this is a bigger fault than a dog that runs out twenty yards and is whistled down, and reheeled. Give the benifit of the doubt to the dog......... 

If I remmeber the test was allowed to continue. So this dog smashes the marks lets say, and is dropped. a dog that has a full fledged CB and is so-so on the marks is carried????? A dog that sits still and barely does acceptable marking is carried......
but a dog that stands and the handler has high "sit means sit" standards is punished????

HAve read the AKC rule book, have not run any AKC HT's. If this is the interpretaion, sounds like looking for a reason to drop a dog rather then looking for ways to pass dogs.


----------



## Juli H (Aug 27, 2007)

If this is such a debate amongst handlers and judges, why doesn't the akc just allow quiet talking at the senior level? seems like it would solve a lot of problems. LOL....

If my dog is sitting and whines a little, and the whine is an indication to ME that he is going to break, do I get dropped for telling him 'sit', even tho he didn't move? 

I guess if I was the handler I'd err on the side of caution and not say a damn thing to my dog until the dog either actually broke or the judges released him. Seems like most of the time there is a 'break line' determined by the judges and shown to the handlers during the handler meeting...If your dog gets beyond 'this line', it is a break..anything up to that point is a creep.

Juli


----------



## Bubba (Jan 3, 2003)

When the dog stands up no harm no foul- as long as no one says anything. Once the handler cautions el Poocho to remember his/her manners- it's a different matter. 
Call it whatever you want bottom line is that the handler knew or at least strongly suspected that the dog was going to leave and broke the sequence by saying something. 

So at that point the judges have 2 options:
1. Drop the team on the "No Talking" rule.
2. Call it a controlled break. If it was a first offense, whack them for some trainability points we are on the road. Second offense- thanks for the donation see ya around write when ya find work. 

In general I favor the kinder and gentler interpretation of calling it a controlled break. True the dog didn't actually leave but the handler took the pencil out of the judges hands.

Back to you regularly scheduled GDG regards

Bubba


----------



## Frenchy (Jul 9, 2005)

For those that fall into the camp that "rules is rules" and would fail the dog for the verbal "sit" infraction....



From the Regulations and Guidelines for AKC Hunting Tests for Retrievers

"Classification of the many faults which may be exhibited by retrievers during the course of a hunting test shall be primarily in terms of generalizations. In the lists which follow, various infractions are cataloged as I. Serious Faults, II. Moderate Faults and III. Minor Faults. Each fault should be considered as a single occurrence, and only to an average degree. *However, such infraction may be so minor in degree that it scarcely merits the indicated penalty*. Conversely, the degree of a given instance of infraction may be of sufficient gravity to merit a much more severe penalty that is suggested - even to the point of elimination from the stake. Also, in each of these three general categories, all of the faults listed should not be given equal weight, since they are not of equal gravity or importance.

Repetition of a fault, particularly time after time, indicates a "weakness" or a bad habit, and justifies much more penalty than in an isolated occurrence of this fault. The same holds true when there is a combination of different faults. The listing of individual faults within each category has not been made in the order of their seriousness. A Judge may be thoroughly justified in moderating a penalty or even in failing to impose one, if, in his or her opinion, there have been extenuating circumstances to justify such action."


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Juli H said:


> If this is such a debate amongst handlers and judges, why doesn't the akc just allow quiet talking at the senior level? seems like it would solve a lot of problems. LOL....


I think this was in jest, but I do think it is a valid point to make.

I just don't understand having a rule that provides the potential for harsher penalty of "verbal restraint", than for a controlled break.

I think the rule needs to be re-written, so that it makes sense....


----------



## Scott Greenwood (Mar 25, 2008)

Juli H said:


> If this is such a debate amongst handlers and judges, why doesn't the akc just allow quiet talking at the senior level? seems like it would solve a lot of problems. LOL....
> 
> If my dog is sitting and whines a little, and the whine is an indication to ME that he is going to break, do I get dropped for telling him 'sit', even tho he didn't move?
> 
> ...



Exactly..............you answered the previous posters response too.

You need to err on the side of caution. Better to have a judge make an absolute decision than to make a judgement call that will definately get you dropped.


----------



## Scott Greenwood (Mar 25, 2008)

Frenchy said:


> For those that fall into the camp that "rules is rules" and would fail the dog for the verbal "sit" infraction....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Frenchy,

Your not the judge at this test and this is how this judge interprets the rule. You cannot make assumptions to the reasoning of a score when only the "2" judges that were there made the ruling.


----------



## Frenchy (Jul 9, 2005)

Scott Greenwood said:


> Frenchy,
> 
> Your not the judge at this test and this is how this judge interprets the rule. You cannot make assumptions to the reasoning of a score when only the "2" judges that were there made the ruling.


I have no problem with the way the judges ruled. They had the pencil that day, and were well within their bounds to DQ the dog. I'm mearly arguing the point that while it CAN be grounds for a DQ that it doesn't have to be. 

I'm not commenting and any one specific instance or any one dog. I've attempted to keep this as a general argument while still adressing the original posters question.


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

WRL said:


> What about a dog that has "moved" 10 yds. Still there when the judges say dog. Or what if the dog "auto-reheels".......even if it is out there 30 yds.
> 
> What is the "point"?
> 
> ...


 
Not the point. we are talking about a dog that STOOD up, not walked 2 yards or even a foot....stood up Not a break in any way


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

wackemnstackem said:


> I have never stated anywhere in my comments that standing up constitute a break HAVE I. So Please re-read my previous post as to why I would want to see this dog run again....


 
If standing up and saying sit is a controlled break than you must be saying that standing up is a break and the SIT was the controlled part.


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

WRL said:


> I will explain it for you......
> 
> The dog stood up.....the HANDLER saw that as a BREAK and therefore STOPPED IT.
> 
> ...


So you are saying that standing is a break and therfore every dog who stands at master level would be dropped for breaking. That is not logical.


----------



## Frenchy (Jul 9, 2005)

Me thinks you are taking this WAY to literal.......but thats just me.


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

Frenchy said:


> Me thinks you are taking this WAY to literal.......but thats just me.


 
yeah but then you think a dog standing up is a break ;-)


----------



## Splash_em (Apr 23, 2009)

WRL said:


> I will explain it for you......
> 
> The dog stood up.....the HANDLER saw that as a BREAK and therefore STOPPED IT.
> 
> ...


This is exactly as the rule was explained to me at my first test.


----------



## WRL (Jan 4, 2003)

badbullgator said:


> If standing up and saying sit is a controlled break than you must be saying that standing up is a break and the SIT was the controlled part.


No that's not accurate.

If my dog stands and I say nothing.....then I don't "see" my dog breaking.

If my dog stands and I say "SIT" (or anything)....then I "SEE" my dog breaking (otherwise why say anything).

This wasn't a thread about what the HANDLER should have done, its about WHAT occurred and how it needs to be judged.

If I am running a blind and the dog starts to veer in the wrong direction I can do one of two things. I can hit a sit whistle as soon as I "see" the veering. When I hit the sit whistle, I am telling the judges "Hey my dog is going in the wrong direction"....or I can wait to see if he veers back in the right direction. Now he MAY veer in the right direction or he may not. But if he does NOT, then the penalty is much worse than in the first situation as now the dog is farther off line etc.

Same here. SIT before the dog gets out there 10 yds. 

If I feel I have to say SIT, then you as a judge would think that I believe my dog is in the act of breaking whether you think he would have or not.

WRL


----------



## Final Flight Retrievers (Jan 23, 2010)

WRL said:


> No that's not accurate.
> 
> If my dog stands and I say nothing.....then I don't "see" my dog breaking.
> 
> ...


exactly;-);-)


----------



## WRL (Jan 4, 2003)

Corey I can't make the "double quote thing" happen so I copied and pasted from your quote of my quote.

Corey quoted" If the dog had stood up and the handler said MARK.....its a CONTROLLED BREAK." You cannot be serious are you???

"While you are not allowed to "talk to the dog while the marks are going down" it does not SAY its a non-qualifying penalty." Uh actually yeah it does, serious handler fault

It says you should not do it. But it does NOT say its a "non-qualifying fault". That's because in Master it would be (no controlled breaks) but in Senior/Junior it would be not be grounds for failure.

Therefore, ANY TALKING TO THE DOG while the marks are going down will be penalized but not necessarily are you talking about a penalty that is an automatic dismissal." Actually againg serious handler fault and enough to drop for

......end quote

Yes I am serious. If you tell your dog to MARK as the marks are going down, its a controlled break. I have NO IDEA how you train. MAYBE you train your dog to SIT on the word mark. ANYTHING said after you call for the birds and before being released to retrieve would be construed as a "controlled" break.

As you posted, you COULD be dropped but it does NOT say you MUST be dropped.

WRL


----------



## Guest (Apr 26, 2010)

badbullgator said:


> No, the handler did not have enough trust in the dog. A dog standing up and not moving forward is NOT BREAKING. No way, no how! It is standing and dancing (which I have no problem with if it is not excessive). If the dog had that high a level of control there was no need to talk to it during the falls ;-)
> 
> 
> *2. A controlled break *
> ...


"is generally" leave it open to interpretation and "quickly brought under control by verbal command or whistle" covers this scenario... 

It's very similar to when the judges at master say "you can blow your whistle OR say sit, either one, ONCE on a walkup"... If you say something or blow for a total of two commands, you're out. Why? Because the judges assume your dog isn't under control, it consitutes a controlled break and that's a drop in master...

Same thing in Senior. Now I haven't read the whole thread, which I should probably do before posting! 

-K


----------



## brwndg/yelladawg (Jul 17, 2008)

I have run a few Junior tests & just ran my first Senior. At first I was miffed by the rules. I thought most of the rules are ridiculous and didn't apply to an actual hunting scenario, but after running my Senior a light bulb went off.....we ain't hunting: we're running a *TEST*! The rules are there to judge my dog against a standard. Hunting is hunting and we are not being judged. Different game, different rules. Don't like the rules, don't play the game.
And my amateur .02 cents: the dog didn't leave the line - no break. fetch talked to the dog after calling for the birds - bad move, you broke the rules. If you should be dropped I cannot say, I am not a judge.


----------



## WRL (Jan 4, 2003)

Scott Greenwood said:


> No it is not a controlled break..........judges make that determination, not handlers. I wish I could go to tests and tell judges what my dogs did and did not.
> 
> It is a major fault, major faults are enough to disqualify a dog in the long run.


Judges judge what they see. We are not determining whether the handler was a "good" handler. We are determining how this situation would be judged.

If you don't DO SOMETHING, judges can't judge it. BUT if you do, then its judged.

This person DID something.

THAT is what is being judged. And this person responded to a "breaking dog"....

WRL


----------



## Guest (Apr 26, 2010)

Eric Johnson said:


> (snip)Now to the specific case here. The judge did not allow the controlled break because the handler was experienced. That goes against what I said above in that the handler apparently knows the dog and knows the dog was in the act of breaking. The handler bit the bullet and stopped the break. The handler should have gotten the benefit of the rules.(snip)
> Eric


 
Plus, since when should the "experience level" of the handler have anything to do with how the judges apply the rules??? ...except maybe in Junior where you might be willing to give some with a new handler...

-K


----------



## WRL (Jan 4, 2003)

Kristie Wilder said:


> Plus, since when should the "experience level" of the handler have anything to do with how the judges apply the rules??? ...except maybe in Junior where you might be willing to give some with a new handler...
> 
> -K


THAT"S EXACTLY IT....I would be PIIIIIISSSSSEDDDD if something like that was said to me.

WRL


----------



## Guest (Apr 26, 2010)

So here's the real thing to think about here...

Had she WAITED for her dog to go MORE OUT OF CONTROL and THEN said "sit" -- she would have been 100% OK and called back with a ding on trainability....

THINK ABOUT THAT!!! What a shame to drop a handler for getting her dog under control "too quickly".

The rule about "not talking to the dog on the line" is NOT in the spirit of what we're talking about here -- a SINGLE command!!! It is meant to prevent a verbal banter that goes on while marks are going down.

Shame on anyone who would drop a handler for saying a SINGLE SIT when they felt their dog might go out of control!!

-Kristie


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Kristie Wilder said:


> So here's the real thing to think about here...
> 
> Had she WAITED for her dog to go MORE OUT OF CONTROL and THEN said "sit" -- she would have been 100% OK and called back with a ding on trainability....
> 
> ...


That's what I was trying to say in post #92.

The rule needs to be re-written, so that it "fits" the intent.


----------



## Frenchy (Jul 9, 2005)

WRL said:


> THAT"S EXACTLY IT....I would be PIIIIIISSSSSEDDDD if something like that was said to me.
> 
> WRL


Me too! I just find it hard to believe that so many people would judge this so black and white. The rules allow for some flexibility in judging for a reason!


----------



## T. Mac (Feb 2, 2004)

This sounds kinda like something I heard occured this last weekend at the test in Corning. Didn't see it, but the version I heard is just a tad different. 

Again a very experienced handler running senior. Gets to the line and signals for the birds and then turns to the dog and commands sit. As the second bird is in the air, the dog gets up and the handler again commands the dog to sit. Based on this scenario, if I were judging, I would drop the dog. 

Based on the orignally presented scenario, my co-judge and I would definately talk about it. Don't remember if the op reported if this was first series or second. As it was a sit and signal, you still have the walk up results to look at. And if the dog were called back, a lot of the decision to qualify this dog would be based on the dog's line manners, heeling from the blind, second series trainabilty, etc. If everything else trainability wise is not near perfect then I can definately see dropping the dog as the trainability score for the first series is going to be less than 5, probably a 2 or 3. And if my co-judge wanted to see the dog again, I wouldn't have too much of a problem with that either if all else was good.


----------



## Good Dogs (Nov 1, 2005)

There have been many comments that "a controlled break in SR is allowed." Not so. It's not an automatic DQ but as posted above it can be grounds for a DQ. Judeges' call. Talking or commanding "SIT" before released is to be considered as indication by the handler that pup is breaking. (At least that's what I heard last seminar I went to.) Were the judges right to drop the dog? Their call.


----------



## WRL (Jan 4, 2003)

Good Dogs said:


> There have been many comments that "a controlled break in SR is allowed." Not so. It's not an automatic DQ but as posted above it can be grounds for a DQ. Judeges' call. Talking or commanding "SIT" before released is to be considered as indication by the handler that pup is breaking. (At least that's what I heard last seminar I went to.) Were the judges right to drop the dog? Their call.



Therefore, because it ISN"T an automatic failure it IS allowed. Could there be extenuating circumstances involved? Yep absolutely.

WRL


----------



## WRL (Jan 4, 2003)

T. Mac said:


> This sounds kinda like something I heard occured this last weekend at the test in Corning. Didn't see it, but the version I heard is just a tad different.
> 
> Again a very experienced handler running senior. Gets to the line and signals for the birds and then turns to the dog and commands sit. As the second bird is in the air, the dog gets up and the handler again commands the dog to sit. Based on this scenario, if I were judging, I would drop the dog.
> 
> Based on the orignally presented scenario, my co-judge and I would definately talk about it. Don't remember if the op reported if this was first series or second. As it was a sit and signal, you still have the walk up results to look at. And if the dog were called back, a lot of the decision to qualify this dog would be based on the dog's line manners, heeling from the blind, second series trainabilty, etc. If everything else trainability wise is not near perfect then I can definately see dropping the dog as the trainability score for the first series is going to be less than 5, probably a 2 or 3. And if my co-judge wanted to see the dog again, I wouldn't have too much of a problem with that either if all else was good.


You are dropping the dog based on what? Two controlled breaks (two SIT commands after calling for the birds?)

WRL


----------



## WRL (Jan 4, 2003)

Kristie Wilder said:


> So here's the real thing to think about here...
> 
> Had she WAITED for her dog to go MORE OUT OF CONTROL and THEN said "sit" -- she would have been 100% OK and called back with a ding on trainability....
> 
> ...


Not true. As a handler, YOU should know the dog.

What if this person KNEW, that if I don't get my dog under control NOW, there will be no controlled break? It will just be a BREAK! 

I had a dog years ago, once the butt was up, if she didn't sit on a SINGLE SIT then she was gone....there was no HEEL....HERE.....it was just gone gone gone.....

WRL


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

Kristie Wilder said:


> "is generally" leave it open to interpretation and "quickly brought under control by verbal command or whistle" covers this scenario...
> 
> It's very similar to when the judges at master say "you can blow your whistle OR say sit, either one, ONCE on a walkup"... If you say something or blow for a total of two commands, you're out. Why? Because the judges assume your dog isn't under control, it consitutes a controlled break and that's a drop in master...
> 
> ...


Yeah Kristie probably should read the whole thing first. the point being argued here is a dog that stands up and does not move does not equal a dog that has broke, Therefore a dog that stands up does not move and is told to sit cannot be counted as a controlled break because the dog has not broke. Go back to page one a dog has to eat before it can crap, but eating is not crapping. A dog may eat in my house but it cannot crap in my house. One does not equal the other. 
It takes two to drop a dog and that is what happened in this case. I did not see it but two judges decided it was enough to drop the dog. My guess would be it was more than one sit that got it tossed. 
Three sides and a dog that stands does not equal a dog that broke regards (oh and hope you week gets better)


----------



## John Gassner (Sep 11, 2003)

I understand what Corey and others are saying here. I agree 100% with WRL. Look at the big picture here. The Senior is the perfect place to get corrections while under "trial/test" conditions. If the dog was more under control, this "experienced" handler would have entered Master. 

Where is Keith Griffith when you need him?

John


----------



## Guest (Apr 27, 2010)

badbullgator said:


> Yeah Kristie probably should read the whole thing first. the point being argued here is a dog that stands up and does not move does not equal a dog that has broke, Therefore a dog that stands up does not move and is told to sit cannot be counted as a controlled break because the dog has not broke. Go back to page one a dog has to eat before it can crap, but eating is not crapping. A dog may eat in my house but it cannot crap in my house. One does not equal the other.
> It takes two to drop a dog and that is what happened in this case. I did not see it but two judges decided it was enough to drop the dog. My guess would be it was more than one sit that got it tossed.
> Three sides and a dog that stands does not equal a dog that broke regards (oh and hope you week gets better)


I've read the whole thing and my opinion doesn't change. As the dog stands, the handler anticipates a break and says sit. Even if the dog didn't move and the handler said sit, I would still call it a controlled break -- the handler's having to command the dog to sit to prevent it from retrieving. Otherwise, why is the handler saying sit?

This is something that appears SO very open to interpretation. I wouldn't have any problem with the single sit, I would take it into account on trainability and the dog would be dropped if it happened in the other series.

I don't believe there's any right or wrong answer. I think the rules leave it pretty much open for the judge to drop of carry the dog. I think it would be a really bad reason to drop a dog if the dog did otherwise nice work. Especially at senior level...
-K


----------



## Dave Burton (Mar 22, 2006)

Kristie Wilder said:


> "is generally" leave it open to interpretation and "quickly brought under control by verbal command or whistle" covers this scenario...
> 
> It's very similar to when the judges at master say "you can blow your whistle OR say sit, either one, ONCE on a walkup"... If you say something or blow for a total of two commands, you're out. Why? Because the judges assume your dog isn't under control, it consitutes a controlled break and that's a drop in master...
> 
> ...


They say the same thing in senior,blow the whistle or say sit on walk up but not both. So are you saying if you blow whistle and dog doesn't sit and you say sit in senior this should be judged as a controlled break on a walk up? Just curious
It would be nice in OP to drop the handler for talking and call the dog back with a better handler. A friend of mine did this excat same thing in one of his first sh tests out of habit and the judge asked him if he just spoke to the dog while marks were going down. He said "NOOOOOO Why would I have done? that that's not allowed" he passed lol


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

John Gassner said:


> I understand what Corey and others are saying here. I agree 100% with WRL. Look at the big picture here. The Senior is the perfect place to get corrections while under "trial/test" conditions. If the dog was more under control, this "experienced" handler would have entered Master.
> 
> Where is Keith Griffith when you need him?
> 
> John


 
Good point where is Keith. I do disagree about corrections. Well I don;t disagree about doing them if you have to, but failing for making a "correction" should be expected. If the dog was not under control enough to run masters then maybe the dog should be trained more before entering seniors......


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

FWIW= I have never dropped a handler for talking to a dog at any level. Never had it happen (not for sure any way) in masters and have let it slide with a warning at least twice in seniors. 
Still this was not a controlled break. No way no how.


----------



## T. Mac (Feb 2, 2004)

WRL said:


> You are dropping the dog based on what? Two controlled breaks (two SIT commands after calling for the birds?)
> 
> WRL





> *
> Section 11.​*​​​​In Senior and Master Hunting Tests, a
> handler shall not hold or touch a dog to keep it steady,
> or verbally restrain a dog on line, except in extraordinary
> ...


If two sit commands on a double is not verbally restraining the dog, I don't know what is! Thus by rule can and should be scored a 0.

T. Mac


----------



## WRL (Jan 4, 2003)

T. Mac said:


> If two sit commands on a double is not verbally restraining the dog, I don't know what is! Thus by rule can and should be scored a 0.
> 
> T. Mac


That's what I thought and I agree.

Was just wanting clarification to make sure I understood exactly what you were saying.


WRL


----------



## Good Dogs (Nov 1, 2005)

"Therefore, because it ISN"T an automatic failure it IS allowed"
Wrong, IMO. If it were "allowed" it could not be grounds for failure.
It's a fault, and grounds for failure. Just cause you might get by with it, does not = "allowed."


----------



## Guest (Apr 27, 2010)

labman63 said:


> They say the same thing in senior,blow the whistle or say sit on walk up but not both. So are you saying if you blow whistle and dog doesn't sit and you say sit in senior this should be judged as a controlled break on a walk up? Just curious
> It would be nice in OP to drop the handler for talking and call the dog back with a better handler. A friend of mine did this excat same thing in one of his first sh tests out of habit and the judge asked him if he just spoke to the dog while marks were going down. He said "NOOOOOO Why would I have done? that that's not allowed" he passed lol


Yes... That is how it was explained to me and how I have perceived it. I hope to take another judging seminar in June (it's been over 3 yrs) and apprentice at some point in the fall... But maybe I can get some answers in June...


----------



## WRL (Jan 4, 2003)

Good Dogs said:


> "Therefore, because it ISN"T an automatic failure it IS allowed"
> Wrong, IMO. If it were "allowed" it could not be grounds for failure.
> It's a fault, and grounds for failure. Just cause you might get by with it, does not = "allowed."


WRONG. If it WASN"T allowed it would be grounds for failure each and every time.

WRL


----------



## Eric Johnson (Dec 23, 2004)

Corey-

Suppose the handler has learned that the dog rises and then stands for a second just before she vaults full speed. Should s/he just accept her stand, watch for her to launch, and just hope for the best? No. he would say sit as soon as she made a move to break...when she stood.

Again, you are judging what you see. The dog made a move. The handler interpreted that as a break and controlled it. How else can you judge it? The dog doesn't have to launch out into the field for the handler to call it a break and then do what he can to control it.

As a judge, it is your job to judge an uncontrolled break. The handler interprets when this is about to happen and attempts to control it before it becomes uncontrolled. When that happens in the course of the dog breaking is entirely up to the handler's discretion. 

Bet you a Coke.

Eric


----------



## Frenchy (Jul 9, 2005)

badbullgator said:


> Good point where is Keith. I do disagree about corrections. Well I don;t disagree about doing them if you have to, but failing for making a "correction" should be expected. If the dog was not under control enough to run masters then maybe the dog should be trained more before entering seniors......


That last part is really what I think is at the crux of the matter for some, and one of my biggest pet peeves.

A dog entered in a SENIOR hunt test should only need to be trained to the SENIOR level. I agree its a good training philosophy to train a dog to the level above, but on TEST day......a dog trained to the senior level that demonstrates senior level work....PASSES!


----------



## scott spalding (Aug 27, 2005)

It is the intent that I see as a problem. I consider a break to be a dog leaving the line with the intention of making a retriever before it has been directed. A creep is were a dog moves forward but remains under a level of control and makes no attempt to retrieve. The problem I see is the handler is masking the dogs performance by taking a safety that is not allowed. Part of a controlled break is the handlers ability to bring the dog back under control after making a attempt to retrieve the bird. If it was me I would consider the dog done for the day but keep in mind I am not a hunt test judge and lack the complete knowledge to be one.

Interesting topic and my 2 cents.
________
HAWAII MARIJUANA DISPENSARY


----------



## Golddogs (Feb 3, 2004)

Been reading this and find it interesting that so many have such hard absoulutes. Even if they have never judged a test.

Intent is all well and good, but barring some devine gift of mind reading, I need to trust that the hander knows his/her dog and I judge accordingly. I , in this case , would err on the dog/handler team. What is forgotten some times, is it is a team. And I need to trust that the human part of the team knows the dog and is responding accordingly as the thinking part of the team. In this case, the handler must be aware that the dog is breaking. I cannot put my bias ahead of the handler who knows the dog. And in fact, the dog has broken a command and thus in SENIOR, can be brought under control.

Always err on the side of the dog. If it is cronic, it will take care of itself.

Controled breaks take many forms regards.


----------



## scott spalding (Aug 27, 2005)

Golddogs said:


> Been reading this and find it interesting that so many have such hard absoulutes. Even if they have never judged a test.
> 
> Intent is all well and good, but barring some devine gift of mind reading, I need to trust that the hander knows his/her dog and I judge accordingly. I . in this case , would err on the dog/handler team. What is forgotten some times, is it is a team. And I need to trust that the human part of the team knows the dog and is responding accordingly as the thinking part of the team. In this case, the handler must be aware that the dog is breaking. I cannot put my bias ahead of the handler who knows the dog. And in fact, the dog has broken a command and thus in SENIOR, can be brought under control.
> 
> ...


The intent is very clear by say no sit the handler is making a correction for a anticipated action. The judges at that point have no idea if the dog is going to break or if the handler will have the ability to bring it under control. I appears to me the handler has made a correction for poor line manners after calling for the birds. I believe in a senior test a dog is required to be steady.
________
JUSTIN BIEBER FANS


----------



## Scott Greenwood (Mar 25, 2008)

scott spalding said:


> The intent is very clear by say no sit the handler is making a correction for a anticipated action. The judges at that point have no idea if the dog is going to break or if the handler will have the ability to bring it under control. I appears to me the handler has made a correction for poor line manners after calling for the birds. I believe in a senior test a dog is required to be steady.


I also feel the same way.

WRL, if the handler believes they have to give a verbal command to dog to restrain, they understand it may break. Judge does not know this thus in judges eye, (every judge may be different) they think it is a major fault and grounds for dropping. The judge can only judge what it sees or hears, a sit command, is a major fault in a Senior level test. If you give the judge an opportunity to judge you and your dog they will, and that includes if you give a verbal command when birds are going down.

BTW, still not a controlled break. Judges give a line that should be followed when determining a controlled break, not just lifting of haunches.


----------



## Scott Greenwood (Mar 25, 2008)

Golddogs said:


> Been reading this and find it interesting that so many have such hard absoulutes. Even if they have never judged a test.
> 
> Intent is all well and good, but barring some devine gift of mind reading, I need to trust that the hander knows his/her dog and I judge accordingly. I , in this case , would err on the dog/handler team. What is forgotten some times, is it is a team. And I need to trust that the human part of the team knows the dog and is responding accordingly as the thinking part of the team. In this case, the handler must be aware that the dog is breaking. I cannot put my bias ahead of the handler who knows the dog. And in fact, the dog has broken a command and thus in SENIOR, can be brought under control.
> 
> ...


In erring like this, you have to presume a controlled break. Wishful thinking to the absolute. If the dog/handler team is allowed to use verbal commands while birds are thrown there is no absolute way to determine a break at this level. This is why in my eyes it is scored heavier on the major fault.


----------



## tinstar (Apr 27, 2010)

WOW!!! I am AMAZED that a quick conversation with a friend could result in such an extensive dialog!!! As the handler in this incident, I need to clarify a few things. This was a _walkup_, so as the first bird went off, I quietly told my dog to sit, as is allowed. As the flyer went off, he started the "dancing feet bounce", which in my mind was the start of a break. As a young dog (15 months) that is not a habit I want him to develop. However, he didn't break, and sat back down when I quietly reminded him to sit. I was very disappointed when I was dropped, but respected the judges decision. 

Just as this has caused so much discussion, things are not always black and white, and judges are allowed a certain amount of latitude. I am also a judge, and have been playing this game about 10 years. The "grey" areas are up for interpretation depending on the circumstances, as they should be. I judged a Jr/Sr the previous weekend and had a handler come to the line with a leash on, at Senior. I warned him. He was a newbie. I am not, and I'd still do it again when I see dancing feet!


----------



## Scott Greenwood (Mar 25, 2008)

That's great Tinstar,

We always know and understand our own dogs, judges do not and this is why we get judged the way we do!


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

Put me firmly in the controlled break camp on this one.

The handler knows the dog, the judge doesn't. Some dogs creep out, take a hop or two and then they're gone giving lots and lots of warning. Others are gone in less than a blink, 0 to 60 instantly. By saying this isn't a controlled break the judges are saying they know this dog better than the handler does. 

Pretty arrongant IMO.


----------



## WRL (Jan 4, 2003)

Scott Greenwood said:


> I also feel the same way.
> 
> WRL, if the handler believes they have to give a verbal command to dog to restrain, they understand it may break. Judge does not know this thus in judges eye, (every judge may be different) they think it is a major fault and grounds for dropping. The judge can only judge what it sees or hears, a sit command, is a major fault in a Senior level test. If you give the judge an opportunity to judge you and your dog they will, and that includes if you give a verbal command when birds are going down.
> 
> BTW, still not a controlled break. Judges give a line that should be followed when determining a controlled break, not just lifting of haunches.


This isn't about the dog standing. This is about judging what the handler is telling you.

The handler is telling you by commanding his dog to SIT, that they in fact believe the dog to be breaking. Therefore, its a controlled break. 

You as a judge do not know what the "intent" is of the dog. You must judge based on what HAS occurred not what MIGHT have occurred.

WRL


----------



## WRL (Jan 4, 2003)

scott spalding said:


> The intent is very clear by say no sit the handler is making a correction for a anticipated action. The judges at that point have no idea if the dog is going to break or if the handler will have the ability to bring it under control. I appears to me the handler has made a correction for poor line manners after calling for the birds. I believe in a senior test a dog is required to be steady.


Yes Scott, in Senior a dog is required to be steady. However, a controlled break is not an automatic elimination as it would be in Master.

Yes there are "conditions" to the break (must not have interfered with another dog etc etc) but remember, a senior dog is not expected to be as "polished" as a Master dog.

WRL


----------



## Scott Greenwood (Mar 25, 2008)

WRL said:


> This isn't about the dog standing. This is about judging what the handler is telling you.
> 
> The handler is telling you by commanding his dog to SIT, that they in fact believe the dog to be breaking. Therefore, its a controlled break.
> 
> ...


You're right!!!!!!!

It's not a break!!!!!! The dog rose on its' haunches. Judges do not see it as a break so they judge it as a verbal command while birds are going down. END OF STORY.

Pretty plain to figure out!


----------



## WRL (Jan 4, 2003)

Scott Greenwood said:


> I also feel the same way.
> 
> WRL, if the handler believes they have to give a verbal command to dog to restrain, they understand it may break. Judge does not know this thus in judges eye, (every judge may be different) they think it is a major fault and grounds for dropping. The judge can only judge what it sees or hears, a sit command, is a major fault in a Senior level test. If you give the judge an opportunity to judge you and your dog they will, and that includes if you give a verbal command when birds are going down.
> 
> BTW, still not a controlled break. Judges give a line that should be followed when determining a controlled break, not just lifting of haunches.


I'm not sure how many HTs you've run, but I would guess of all of the ones I have, less then 10% give a "breaking line"......

WRL


----------



## WRL (Jan 4, 2003)

Scott Greenwood said:


> You're right!!!!!!!
> 
> It's not a break!!!!!! The dog rose on its' haunches. Judges do not see it as a break so they judge it as a verbal command while birds are going down. END OF STORY.
> 
> Pretty plain to figure out!


You're not judging intent. You are judging what happened. The handler stopped the dog from breaking. Its a controlled break.

The guy even posted that was in fact what he was doing.

Pretty funny you can't see that.

WRL


----------



## Scott Greenwood (Mar 25, 2008)

WRL said:


> I'm not sure how many HTs you've run, but I would guess of all of the ones I have, less then 10% give a "breaking line"......
> 
> WRL


Every single one that I can remember have at least stated it or it has come out as a question.

I give it in the tests that I judge.


----------



## Scott Greenwood (Mar 25, 2008)

WRL said:


> You're not judging intent. You are judging what happened. The handler stopped the dog from breaking. Its a controlled break.
> 
> *The guy even posted that was in fact what he was doing.*
> Pretty funny you can't see that.
> ...


How would judges know this? All they heard was the sit!

There is no intent when the handler clearly says SIT! I can't figure out why you cannot see this!

Judges make the determination if they want to drop dog for using the words but they are clearly stated!


----------



## WRL (Jan 4, 2003)

Scott Greenwood said:


> There is no intent when the handler clearly says SIT! I can't figure out why you cannot see this!
> 
> Judges make the determination if they want to drop dog for using the words but they are clearly stated!


Well Scott, this has come to beating a dead horse with you.

Its really very simple. The handler shows the judges that he believed his dog was going to break by commanding sit to stop the dog from moving forward. It doesn't matter what the judges thought before that point(whether they thought the dog was breaking or not). The handler thought the dog was going to break. So the judges must judge on the actions of the handler (he thought the dog was breaking, therefore the dog WAS breaking). 

The handler thought the dog was breaking and commanded sit. The judges must judge it as a controlled break.

I don't know how else to explain this to you. 

WRL


----------



## Scott Greenwood (Mar 25, 2008)

WRL said:


> Well Scott, this has come to beating a dead horse with you.
> 
> Its really very simple. The handler shows the judges that he believed his dog was going to break by commanding sit to stop the dog from moving forward. It doesn't matter what the judges thought before that point(whether they thought the dog was breaking or not). The handler thought the dog was going to break. So the judges must judge on the actions of the handler (he thought the dog was breaking, therefore the dog WAS breaking).
> 
> ...


Your giving the judges way to much latitude that they can not even come close to have. They have never seen the dog run before.

No they don't! They don't see a break. OP and handler stated dog did not break. How is judge supposed to judge as controlled break when they did not see it.

They can't go off of your presumption that the dog might break can they? All they heard or saw was the the verbal command SIT. They dropped the dog/handler combo for that reason, in my opinion and theirs, it was enough to drop them that day.

BTW, if ya want to get technical, judges have no way of knowing what the word sit means to dog. Handler could have taught dog to retrieve a beer with the words sit. This is why the team was dropped, NO WORDS TO BE SPOKEN!


----------



## WRL (Jan 4, 2003)

Scott Greenwood said:


> Your giving the judges way to much latitude that they can not even come close to have. They have never seen the dog run before.
> 
> No they don't! They don't see a break. OP and handler stated dog did not break. How is judge supposed to judge as controlled break when they did not see it.
> 
> ...


Like I said, beating a dead horse.

FWIW, if you look back several pages, I already said that it would not matter which word was spoken, its still a controlled break.

WRL


----------



## Scott Greenwood (Mar 25, 2008)

WRL said:


> Like I said, beating a dead horse.
> 
> FWIW, if you look back several pages, I already said that it would not matter which word was spoken, its still a controlled break.
> 
> WRL


Well WRL,

Guess your wrong on this one. Handler stated dog never broke, original OP stated dog never broke, judges judged it as not a controlled break. Not sure what else has to be said. Handler/dog team was dropped for using the sit command while marks were thrown. Plain and simple, no controlled break involved, can't presume something that was never seen happening.


----------



## Golden Boy (Apr 3, 2009)

Judges= their call is final. POINT BLANK

Where the judge make a bad call was when he told the handler Quote;


> One judge said: "Because you're an experienced handler and you should know better than to talk to your dog during the marks."


The judge should be judging the current test and what he or she see's. 
I don't care if you're the biggest hunt test pro in the nation. The judge needs to judge the test in front of them and not anything else. Every handler should be judged as if its' their first time at the line and judged with in the rules as set forth by the AKC. Handlers should not be judge on their amount of experience. 

What the judge should have said was that you talked to your dog during the marks and that's what put you out. (Point Blank)

Note;
Judges should also never get into a debate with a handler.


----------



## tinstar (Apr 27, 2010)

Again, as the handler - I absolutely did not get in a debate with the judges. I have way too much respect for what they're doing on the line to do that. I just happened to be talking to a friend afterwords who posted this up. I have never read or used this forum until she e-mailed me that it had caused so much debate. The comment that if I was a novice she would have overlooked it but because I was experienced she could not - thats what really stung as being unfair - and that's why I felt I was dropped. 

It does seem that this has been beat to death and in all the banter back and forth my perspective is in line with Frenchy & Kristie ( THANKS!) - and as an experienced judge - the grey area is to allow the judging to be "reasonable" under the given circumstance. Way too often I see and hear judges that are looking for reasons to drop dogs (for technical faults) instead of looking for good dog work! When I judge I always give the benefit to the team and bring them back another series if there's any doubt at all that might have been misunderstood from the judges chair. If the dog work isn't there, they'll put themselves out.


----------



## Golden Boy (Apr 3, 2009)

> Again, as the handler - I absolutely did not get in a debate with the judges.


I wasn't saying you got into a debate. 
I was saying as a judge you should never get into a debate with a handler. As the test judge your call is final, don't debate the call you made. It makes you look unprofessional and undecided. 



> The comment that if I was a novice she would have overlooked it but because I was experienced she could not - thats what really stung as being unfair - and that's why I felt I was dropped.


I agree with you on the above and the judge should have never made that comment, and should have never judged you, your dog or any other team that way. I would have been PO'd at that point. Not because of being dropped but because of being judged to a different standard when this was only a hunt test not a FT.This type of judging is unfair for hunt tests. If thats the way a judge feels that judge should be judging Field Trials. Where judges opinion rules.


----------



## limiman12 (Oct 13, 2007)

badbullgator said:


> Not at all. A dog that stand up has done NOTHING wrong!! How is standing up a controlled break???
> Please, please tell me how a dog that stood up would be a controlled break?


As a judge, I would not call standing a CB, but the dog did violate the SIT command. To say that it did nothing wrong depends on what "sit" means to the handler.

the fact that the rules say a dog that is told to sit when it stands is dropped, while a dog that breaks and is then told to sit is carried, or at least that interpretation is possible, points to a flaw in the rules.....


----------



## ssmith (Jun 30, 2006)

WoW, I was not going to run my boy this spring because of breaking issues but now if
he has in your face flier I can tell him to sit because hes might break and go on to the
water and hope for the best


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

limiman12 said:


> As a judge, I would not call standing a CB, but the dog did violate the SIT command. To say that it did nothing wrong depends on what "sit" means to the handler.


 
Violated the sit command?? Seriously? Where do the rules say a dog has to stay seated? Damn you just don’t get style do you? I love a dog that stomps it feet, stands to see the birds, is rip roaring ready to go. That is a dog that loves what it is doing and is damn well ready to roll. I can’t tell you how many master dogs I have seen do exactly this. That dog has gone nowhere, never moved, just showed flat out desire. That is STYLE baby, nothing more and certainly not a break. 
Violated the sit command……..wow…..sad


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

Golden Boy said:


> Judges= their call is final. POINT BLANK
> 
> Where the judge make a bad call was when he told the handler Quote;
> The judge should be judging the current test and what he or she see's.
> ...


Actually in this case you are not quite right. Talking to the dog is a serious handler fault and in and of itself MAY be grounds to drop the dog. The penalty for this serious fault ranges up to dropping the dog so the handlers experience certainly does play a part in that decision by the judges. As I have said before, first time handler saying a word or two is a whole lot different than a pro who damn well knows better.


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

WRL said:


> Like I said, beating a dead horse.
> 
> FWIW, if you look back several pages, I already said that it would not matter which word was spoken, its still a controlled break.
> 
> WRL


 
Again. You are just wrong in your logic. For that to be true you would have to be saying that the dog standing up constituted a break, otherwise the word would not have had anything to control. If this were the case then every dog that stands up would have to be judged to have broke and that is flat out stupid. A dog that stands has not broke.


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

badbullgator said:


> Violated the sit command?? Seriously? Where do the rules say a dog has to stay seated? Damn you just don’t get style do you? I love a dog that stomps it feet, stands to see the birds, is rip roaring ready to go. That is a dog that loves what it is doing and is damn well ready to roll. I can’t tell you how many master dogs I have seen do exactly this. That dog has gone nowhere, never moved, just showed flat out desire. That is STYLE baby, nothing more and certainly not a break.
> Violated the sit command……..wow…..sad


Actually it is unsteadiness!;-)


> (1) Steadiness. Dogs on line sometimes make various
> types of movements when game is in the air (and/or
> when it is shot). These movements may be interpreted as
> efforts by the dogs to improve their view of the fall, and
> ...


----------



## limiman12 (Oct 13, 2007)

badbullgator said:


> Violated the sit command?? Seriously? Where do the rules say a dog has to stay seated? Damn you just don’t get style do you? I love a dog that stomps it feet, stands to see the birds, is rip roaring ready to go. That is a dog that loves what it is doing and is damn well ready to roll. I can’t tell you how many master dogs I have seen do exactly this. That dog has gone nowhere, never moved, just showed flat out desire. That is STYLE baby, nothing more and certainly not a break.
> Violated the sit command……..wow…..sad


I said if I were the judge, I would not call it a CB. I was suggesting that perhaps in the handlers eyes the dog DID violate the sit command. 

Trust me I LOVE what you describe as style. My dog reeks of it, but because as a young handler, I LOVED the drive in my dog I let him get away with prancing and creeping writing it off as "wow he has drive, I love it" I have news for you, a dog with loads of drive can know the sit command very well. I have seen it, and therefore my next pup, will SIT until he is sent, regardless of how much drive there is.

Reread my post, I suggested that there may be a difference between the AKC RULES standard, and what the handler's standard for SIT is. the handler himself said it himself, it is a young dog that he did not want to allow to get away for this. He saw the prancing feet as the violation of SIT. His standard for SIT is higher then the rulebook for this dog. If he had said nothing it would not be a CB, but since the handler said his standard for sit was high, chalk it to a CB and call them back. 

FWIW, if it is such a serious fault and grounds for dropping, why was he allowed to run the series? If they were going to drop him for it, he is done when he said it


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

WRL said:


> Well Scott, this has come to beating a dead horse with you.
> 
> Its really very simple. The handler shows the judges that he believed his dog was going to break by commanding sit to stop the dog from moving forward. It doesn't matter what the judges thought before that point(whether they thought the dog was breaking or not). The handler thought the dog was going to break. So the judges must judge on the actions of the handler (he thought the dog was breaking, therefore the dog WAS breaking).
> 
> ...


 
So when a dog is realigned on a mark in the wrong direction by the handler and it goes to the wrong aof and the handler lets it hunt that area because he THINKS it is in the right area the judges are supposed to judge that dog high on a mark because the handler THOUGHT his dog was doing something???????
Show me ANYTHING that says ANYWHERE that judges should judge based on what a HANDLER THINKS. 
THIS DOG NEVER BROKE AND THERE IS NO CONTROLLED BREAK WITHOUT A BREAK


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

Doug Main said:


> Actually it is unsteadiness!;-)


 
Actually no it is not. Read the rule

(1) Steadiness. Dogs on line sometimes make various
types of movements when game is in the air (and/or
when it is shot). *These movements may be interpreted as
efforts by the dogs to improve their view of the fall,* and
some occur through sheer excitement. Except for an
occasional change in position in order to better see a fall,
all such movements could be viewed as unsteadiness— 

It all depends on the situation. A dog that stands, stomps, and turns to see marks is not an unsteady dog.


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

badbullgator said:


> So when a dog is realigned on a mark in the wrong direction by the handler and it goes to the wrong aof and the handler lets it hunt that area because he THINKS it is in the right area the judges are supposed to judge that dog high on a mark because the handler THOUGHT his dog was doing something???????
> Show me ANYTHING that says ANYWHERE that judges should judge based on what a HANDLER THINKS.
> THIS DOG NEVER BROKE AND THERE IS NO CONTROLLED BREAK WITHOUT A BREAK


From the FT regulations: 


> If a dog on line creeps or jumps forward short of
> breaking as birds are shot and no effort is made by the
> handler to stop and restrain him, the Judges should not
> interpret such as a deliberate intent to retrieve, since
> ...


Are they still required reading for HT judges?


----------



## limiman12 (Oct 13, 2007)

So when you are teaching a puppy to sit, do you make it put its but on the ground or is standing ok? Do you accept a crooked sit? I am saying that a standing dog is NOT sitting. In the eyes of the handler this could be seen as a violation of the sit command. Very high personal standards true, but if you do not accept a crooked sit as a sit when trainign SIT, how would you do with a standing dog???


Again, when starting my dog eight years ago, I had LOW OB standards. running blinds he will stop and most of the time stand waiting for the cast becaus eI let him get away with it. He is a creeping monster (getting better) and breaking is always in the back of my mind (broke on last series honor over weekend). I had LOW ob standards and was using the excuse that he has "so much drive that he can't sit still" That is NOT a mistake I will make again, and one that the handler chose not to make at a test with a young dog.

Good OB is not a sign of lack of style. If it were a dog that pranced at the line and then trotted to retrieve has more or less then the dog that is a statue then goes 0-60 in two strides......


----------



## limiman12 (Oct 13, 2007)

badbullgator said:


> Actually no it is not. Read the rule
> 
> (1) Steadiness. Dogs on line sometimes make various
> types of movements when game is in the air (and/or
> ...


thought perhaps you forgot to read the rest of the rule you quoted, just to be clear, I would not JUDGE the dog to have broke, but I would not penalize a handler that did.


----------



## limiman12 (Oct 13, 2007)

badbullgator said:


> So when a dog is realigned on a mark in the wrong direction by the handler and it goes to the wrong aof and the handler lets it hunt that area because he THINKS it is in the right area the judges are supposed to judge that dog high on a mark because the handler THOUGHT his dog was doing something???????
> Show me ANYTHING that says ANYWHERE that judges should judge based on what a HANDLER THINKS.
> THIS DOG NEVER BROKE AND THERE IS NO CONTROLLED BREAK WITHOUT A BREAK


wow talk about apples and oranges....... are you seriously using this as an arguement. You are comparing a handler erroniously sending a dog to the werong area with a handler having exceptionally high personal OB standards


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

limiman12 said:


> I said if I were the judge, I would not call it a CB. I was suggesting that perhaps in the handlers eyes the dog DID violate the sit command.
> 
> Trust me I LOVE what you describe as style. My dog reeks of it, but because as a young handler, I LOVED the drive in my dog I let him get away with prancing and creeping writing it off as "wow he has drive, I love it" I have news for you, a dog with loads of drive can know the sit command very well. I have seen it, and therefore my next pup, will SIT until he is sent, regardless of how much drive there is.
> 
> ...


Ok I can agree with you for the most part. I have picked up many dogs for problems I will not put up with, however, in those circumstances that is a “me” issue and not a judging issue. If I want to make a correction to a dog in a test I fully expect to suffer the consequences of making that correction which in most cases will result in being dropped. If I have a dog that has a breaking or creeping issue I am going to stop him but more importantly I am not going to reward him by letting him run the marks. Train during training and if you have to during a test expect to be judged accordingly. 
As far as why let the dog run with a serious fault…are you talking about this series or letting it run the next? In this case it would have run that series because of the times I have had this happen, which are very few, I have had to confer with my co-judge to see if it really happened? It does not take long to have a double go down and in fairness since the penalty can be anything from a warning to a drop you have to release the dog to do the work, no harm in that. Now if the handler yelled “NO” (and I am not talking about dropping someone for saying the “magic” no word) or was very obvious in the infraction I would not release the dog. I always try to give the dog/handler the benefit of the doubt.


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

Doug Main said:


> From the FT regulations:
> 
> 
> Are they still required reading for HT judges?
> ...


 
FT rules, however, as stated by the OP this dog did not creep or jump or even move forward, it was standing beside the handler "dancing". If a dog is creeping or jumps forward I have no problem assuming the handler believed it was going to break. A dog standing still is not a dog breaking.


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

limiman12 said:


> wow talk about apples and oranges....... are you seriously using this as an arguement. You are comparing a handler erroniously sending a dog to the werong area with a handler having exceptionally high personal OB standards


 
 No I am saying I am not a mind reader so I cannot judge what a handler is thinking. Was the handler thinking his dog had an OB issue or was he thinking it was going to break? How the heck do I know? All I can judge is what the dog did. In this case the dog stood up and the handler said SIT. The dog did not break IMO and the handler talked to the dog. You point out exactly what I am getting at. I judge the dog standing as unsteady at worst, but in this case not even that. WRL and others are saying it has to be a controlled break because the handler said something to it. That is simply not correct, the handler did say something to it but was it because he was unhappy with the dogs obedience or because he though it was going to break? I have no way of knowing so I judge the dog who did nothing more than stand.


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

> iolated the sit command?? Seriously? Where do the rules say a dog has to stay seated? Damn you just don’t get style do you? I love a dog that stomps it feet, stands to see the birds, is rip roaring ready to go. That is a dog that loves what it is doing and is damn well ready to roll. I can’t tell you how many master dogs I have seen do exactly this. That dog has gone nowhere, never moved, just showed flat out desire. That is STYLE baby, nothing more and certainly not a break.
> Violated the sit command……..wow…..sad/QUOTE]
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

badbullgator said:


> No I am saying I am not a mind reader so I cannot judge what a handler is thinking. Was the handler thinking his dog had an OB issue or was he thinking it was going to break? How the heck do I know? All I can judge is what the dog did. In this case the dog stood up and the handler said SIT. The dog did not break IMO and the handler talked to the dog. You point out exactly what I am getting at. I judge the dog standing as unsteady at worst, but in this case not even that. WRL and others are saying it has to be a controlled break because the handler said something to it. That is simply not correct, the handler did say something to it but was it because he was unhappy with the dogs obedience or because he though it was going to break? I have no way of knowing so I judge the dog who did nothing more than stand.


Breaking *IS* an obedience issue!!!!

IMO There is still some judgment required by the judges. That is why it is judging vs score keeping. 

It defies logic to think that "talking" to a dog that has broken, is somehow better than the same "talking" to keep the dog from breaking. 

That is why having dog knowledge is important to judging!!


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

Doug Main said:


> Breaking *IS* an obedience issue!!!!
> 
> IMO There is still some judgment required by the judges. That is why it is judging vs score keeping.
> 
> ...


Really? Duh... you just don't get it. READ it again with all your dog knowledge....telling a dog to sit is not stopping a dog from breaking in every circumstance, in many it is just telling a dog to sit nothing more, nothing less. Please show me, with all your dog knowledge that I lack, where I ever said one is better than the other. What I said is that talking to a dog, in this case telling it to sit, is nothing more than talking to the dog as far as judging goes because nobody other than the handler can know what THEY were THINKING. This may well have been a case of the dog was going to break *OR* just maybe a case of telling the dog to sit. Judges are not mind readers they judge dogs using their knowledge of dogs.....not by reading the mind of the handler. Dog stands up and is told to sit how do YOU, with all your dog knowledge, know that dog is going to break and that the handler is not just telling to to sit?


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

With all the talk that the handler was experienced (which IMHO is wrong to point out) the handler knows better than to talk to the dog when the guns go off. I sincerely doubt the "sit" was from a lapse of the rules, but the knowledge that the dog had butt up and was the type that would break. I would call it controlled break and I think most judges know that's why it was said. That the handler knew his dog and anticipated breaking. I know dogs like that-they don't creep, they break.


----------



## jeff t. (Jul 24, 2003)

If a formerly sitting dog initiates a break, and the handler wants to stop it the instant it begins, what body position would the dog be in at that instant? 

Would that instant be detectable by a person standing behing the dog?

Exactly when does the break begin? 

In Senior, isn't the handler allowed to stop the break at that instant?


----------



## Doc E (Jan 3, 2003)

badbullgator said:


> Right call. No talking once you call for the birds.


IMO, this was the correct response - right off the bat.



.


----------



## Scott Greenwood (Mar 25, 2008)

badbullgator said:


> Again. You are just wrong in your logic. For that to be true you would have to be saying that the dog standing up constituted a break, otherwise the word would not have had anything to control. If this were the case then every dog that stands up would have to be judged to have broke and that is flat out stupid. A dog that stands has not broke.


X2, bbg, as I read everyone of your responses I can see how we would clearly get along!


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

Scott Greenwood said:


> X2, bbg, as I read everyone of your responses I can see how we would clearly get along!


 
Thanks.....and damn even Doc agrees with me.......

this is what I hope is my last post on this thread, the horse is falling apart it is so dead


----------



## just me (Feb 17, 2010)

just because i love throwing extremes into debates... for those of you who say the judge must assume the handler knew the dog was going to break and commanded sit making it a controled break..if a dogs left ear twitches on the line and the handler says sit...is it talking to the dog or a controled break???? maybe the handler knows that if the left ear twitches the dog will break and is stiopping it before it happens?

ed samples 
(yes i really am that nuts)


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

just me said:


> just because i love throwing extremes into debates... for those of you who say the judge must assume the handler knew the dog was going to break and commanded sit making it a controled break..if a dogs left ear twitches on the line and the handler says sit...is it talking to the dog or a controled break???? maybe the handler knows that if the left ear twitches the dog will break and is stiopping it before it happens?
> 
> ed samples
> (yes i really am that nuts)


 
EXACTLY.......

really this might be my last post on this


----------



## brandywinelabs (May 21, 2008)

OMG!
Controlled break! Absolutely.
Are we trying to find a reason to drop dogs?
The talking on the marks rule, IMHO, is to prevent helping the dogs find the stations and birds in the air. They should do that themselves. 
This is one time I wish I knew who some of the handles belonged to.
Is this like avoidance training?


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

Hi Guys,
This is why I like a mat. Yet many hunt test folk are so very against the mat. And in a walk-up a mat is impractical. The hunt test substitute is a conversation with the co-judge and the establishment of a “creep line” This is very practical even with the walk up. You instruct everybody that when the working team passes ____ the test starts and if the dog ranges out to ___ it has broken. A simple heel of boot scuff in the dirt or a small piece of tree branch laid on the ground is all it takes. I feel it is more fair to the working team and easier from a judging standpoint. Inside that tree branch bounce around all you like, heck do back flips. If you think that will help the dog mark. Outside of that tree branch is “off the mat”. Time to see if you actually can control that break.
To the situation described in this particular case, standing is not going forward. But sometimes a $75 training session is needed, with any dog.

.


----------



## Juli H (Aug 27, 2007)

If you are a judge I don't think it is appropriate to 'assume' a handler knows what his dog is 'about' to do.... ie the ear twitch, the whine, the dropped head, etc etc... what if it's some behavior the handler sees on the way to the line? or in the holding blind? if the dog was breaking during the last group training session? etc etc etc.

I've seen many dogs get up off their butt that are very steady watch for birds ..I've seen dogs that were solid as a rock until all of a sudden the hair trigger was pulled... should a handler 'know' their dog? yes, of course..but the judges shouldn't infer that the handler does or does not know their dog. MHO Nor should the 'experience' of the handler come into play. If someone is running senior and it is their first time - odds are they ran jr's and know the rules (or should know the rules, ignorance is no excuse). If they are dropped because they held onto the lead, touched their dog, talked to their dog, released their dog before it was time, pointed out the guns, etc etc etc, that is all part of the learning curve as a new handler and I don't imagine they would completely run away from the hunt test game....I would certainly hope not. 

Juli


----------



## Codatango (Aug 2, 2009)

Everyone look back at post #131 by Scott Spaulding. Here is the point he made that I am referring to:

"The problem I see is *the handler is masking the dogs performance by taking a safety* that is not allowed. Part of a controlled break is the handlers ability to bring the dog back under control after making a attempt to retrieve the bird. If it was me I would consider the dog done for the day but keep in mind I am not a hunt test judge and lack the complete knowledge to be one."

I also heard about the similar situation at Corning and debated for a few moments with someone on the phone about whether the judges can legally call this a controlled break or not.

A dog that breaks 'usually' ends up marking poorly. It all depends on which bird they break on. By saying the illegal "sit", the handler is avoiding the potential mess of calling the dog back, realigning, and maybe having to handle on a mark. 

If a dog breaks after the first bird, that's the worst scenario: 

1. Is he sitting and watching after being stopped while the 2nd bird goes down? If so, then he has to turn his back on the test while he returns to the line, possibly losing his orientation to the falls.

2. Is he returning to the handler at that moment with his back to the bird (or partially looking)? 

Even after both birds go down, there is going to be re-heeling, which in itself CAN be a mess, with even MORE points off for lack of obedience!

What if we were talking about a Derby here? Still a double going down! Imagine the terrific advantage that handler would have by not messing up the dog's marking by giving a quiet "sit"! 

Judges have to judge what they see and *not intent*. 
Handler spoke after calling for the birds - (and I hate to say it, because I have been there)
INFRACTION FOR DQ.

Debbie Tandoc
San Jose, CA


----------



## jeff t. (Jul 24, 2003)

just me said:


> just because i love throwing extremes into debates... for those of you who say the judge must assume the handler knew the dog was going to break and commanded sit making it a controled break..if a dogs left ear twitches on the line and the handler says sit...is it talking to the dog or a controled break???? maybe the handler knows that if the left ear twitches the dog will break and is stiopping it before it happens?


 
Seems plausible to me


----------



## Codatango (Aug 2, 2009)

RATS, forgot to bring up one more thing!

Will someone please contact the AKC Rep about this question? I have to pack for the Fallon test this weekend (leaving tomorrow), so no time! 

Maybe there will be a rep at my test and or someone can ask a rep at their test this weekend. 

I think we need to get a "for sure" answer, so people reading these posts will know what they can and can't do.

Debbie Tandoc


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

Codatango said:


> RATS, forgot to bring up one more thing!
> 
> Will someone please contact the AKC Rep about this question? I have to pack for the Fallon test this weekend (leaving tomorrow), so no time!
> 
> ...


 
You will never get a for sure answer. None of us saw this happen and each situation is different. In some cases it may be a controlled break and in others it is talking to the dog and if you ask 4 reps you will get four differnt answers. similar but different because this is open for interpretation


----------



## Dave B. (Jan 9, 2004)

Interesting issue. Certainly has been a ton written on it. Here's a little more, not that anyone needs one more opinion on the subject.

I wouldn't criticize these judges--they were there, we weren't, and they have the discretion under the rules to drop the dog. There's nothing more obnoxious than internet criticism of judges from all of us who didn't witness the situation. I've been there and don't like it. So it was their call and they had the right to make it. Thanks to them for spending their time judging.

Having said that, there's always discretion and judgment in interpreting and applying the rules. I can't speak to this situation, but hypothetically, I wouldn't drop such a dog. I'd ding it for trainability--similar to a controlled break--I don't care if you want to define it as a controlled break or not. People have made very well reasoned arguments pro and con as to whether this is a controlled break or not. They are interesting to read, but ultimately inconclusive and unnecessary, imo.

I don't think you have to reach a definite conclusion on the controlled break issue. The rules do not say you must drop the dog for this infraction, so I think the judges have to consider the situation and apply their judgment under the rules. To me, that's what judging is about. 

I would apply a common sense test which to me means that saying sit shouldn't be penalized more than actually having the dog go ahead and break and then bringing it back under control. If a controlled break is allowed in SH, then saying sit should be as well. As a judge I choose not to interpret a rule to reach an absurd result. That's where the judgment and discretion part come in for me. Others disagree, I understand, but that's where I come down.

And, on a related topic, someone, many posts earlier, said there's no controlled break in JH. I was recently at a seminar and the AKC rep said--certainly there can be. Which also makes sense to me.

Just my 2 cents on an interesting, but maybe a little overheated discussion.

Thanks
Dave B.


----------



## Doc E (Jan 3, 2003)

badbullgator said:


> Thanks.....and damn even Doc agrees with me.......


That probably means that we're both wrong............... hee haa hee haa



.


----------



## Doc E (Jan 3, 2003)

Dave B. said:


> The rules do not say you must drop the dog for this infraction,
> Dave B.


But they do say that you cannot talk to your dog (or use a whistle) between the time you call for birds and the time you send the dog.



.


----------



## Frenchy (Jul 9, 2005)

Okay BBG and Scott, we may never see eye to eye on this issue, but answer me this one question. Do you believe a handler telling his dog to sit while the birds are going down during a Senior test is serious enough fault to warrant a non qualifying score in most instances? I won’t even hold you to saying you’d always fail a dog and handler for the infraction.

I, like others, contend that there is plenty of latitude within the rules to allow this dog and handler to continue to play. I won’t go so far as to say they are going to pass, but I’m not willing to say they have failed for this single infraction either. The following is what I believe has been eluded to thus far, but here it is as it reads in the rules and regulations….

------------------------------------------------------------------------
_From Chapter 5
Part II - Evaluation and Scoring of a Dog's Abilities

The evaluation of a dog's abilities can never be precise; it is not an exact science. However, the primary purpose of a Retriever is to get the birds to hand as quickly as possible in a pleasing, obedient manner; whether a dog accomplishes its primary purpose is determined by its possession of a unique set of both natural abilities, and abilities acquired through training. Part III of these Guidelines is a discussion of the natural and acquired abilities of Retrievers.

….snip…

A zero means that the dog did not perform minimally. For example, it would be difficult to assign a score other than zero in Perseverance when a Senior or Master dog failed to enter water after having been ordered to do so several times.

A zero score is very different from a "nonscore." A zero is computed into the dog's average for that ability while a non-score is not. The zero indicates that the dog had an opportunity to exhibit an ability, but failed to do so. The non-score says that such an opportunity did not present itself. An "X" should be entered on the scoresheet for non-scores

When both Judges grade a dog zero on the same ability, the dog can no longer receive a Qualifying score. Keep in mind that moderate to serious faults in an ability will often become more apparent through the series of tests. In questionable instances, give the dog the benefit of the doubt.

….Snip….

A Judge's responsibility is to determine, through the evaluation of abilities, whether or not a dog possesses sufficient abilities to be entitled to official AKC recognition of those abilities in the form of Junior Hunter, Senior Hunter or Master Hunter titles.

…snip…

Part III - The Abilities of Retrievers

IV. The final attribute to be evaluated by Judges is Trainability, that includes those abilities dogs acquire through training (steadiness, control, response and delivery). While not to be underestimated, acquired abilities must be viewed in a different perspective, being of somewhat lesser importance than natural abilities even though a Master Hunter must exhibit all that is desirable in a finished Retriever. The level that acquired abilities are developed will vary in different Test categories; for example, a reasonable degree of steadiness and general obedience are the requirements in the Junior Hunting Test. A greater degree of steadiness and some degree of the other qualities are expected in the Senior Hunting Test. There shall be expectation of full refinement in acquired attributes in Master Hunting Tests.


Classification of Faults

Classification of the many faults which may be exhibited by retrievers during the course of a hunting test shall be primarily in terms of generalizations. In the lists which follow, various infractions are cataloged as I. Serious Faults, II. Moderate Faults and III. Minor Faults. Each fault should be considered as a single occurrence, and only to an average degree. However, such infraction may be so minor in degree that it scarcely merits the indicated penalty. Conversely, the degree of a given instance of infraction may be of sufficient gravity to merit a much more severe penalty that is suggested - even to the point of elimination from the stake. Also, in each of these three general categories, all of the faults listed should not be given equal weight, since they are not of equal gravity or importance.

Repetition of a fault, particularly time after time, indicates a "weakness" or a bad habit, and justifies much more penalty than in an isolated occurrence of this fault. The same holds true when there is a combination of different faults. The listing of individual faults within each category has not been made in the order of their seriousness. A Judge may be thoroughly justified in moderating a penalty or even in failing to impose one, if, in his or her opinion, there have been extenuating circumstances to justify such action.

The faults included in this classification are limited to those which are observed most often at retriever Hunting Tests. Others may occur, such as the repeated failure to exercise gun safety, and this classification may serve as a helpful guide on such occasions in determining the relative importance of such unusual offenses._

---------------------------------------------------------------------


For the judge that is willing to zero out a dog/handler for saying “sit” while birds in the air, have you as a judge fulfilled your obligation to determine through the evaluation of abilities whether or not the DOG possesses sufficient abilities to be called a senior hunter.

Can you as a judge say with certainty that the DOG did not perform minimally in trainability/obedience and warrants a “0” without question, and the dog does not deserve the benefit of the doubt?

Given that the rules allow for even “serious” faults to be viewed as minor in the degree that it scarcely merits the indicated penalty, wouldn’t it be more prudent to allow the dog to continue on to see if such faults manifest itself to the degree that failure is warranted?


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

Codatango said:


> Everyone look back at post #131 by Scott Spaulding. Here is the point he made that I am referring to:
> 
> "The problem I see is *the handler is masking the dogs performance by taking a safety* that is not allowed. Part of a controlled break is the handlers ability to bring the dog back under control after making a attempt to retrieve the bird. If it was me I would consider the dog done for the day but keep in mind I am not a hunt test judge and lack the complete knowledge to be one."
> 
> ...


Quietly telling the dog to sit while the birds are going down in any test or minor stake that allows for a controlled break is treated by me as a controlled break.

No matter how you argue it, I cannot justify a penalty being more severe than a controlled break. It just is not nearly as disruptive to the testing as a controlled break. With a controlled break not only has the dog broken, but you must also violate the rule about talking to the dog before being released in order to stop it.

Nobody is saying to ignore it. A controlled break is a major deduct in my book. Just not an automatic DQ.


----------



## Scott Greenwood (Mar 25, 2008)

I do not know Frenchy........I'd have to be there on the spot to make a decision like that. I've been in situations where I made a handler error that should have probably dropped me. I was allowed to continue under those judges, I was lucky and willing to bet if it was another set I would have been dropped.

It is up to the discretion of judges, not the handler, handler uses the verbal command and opens himself up for a major fault, which to these judges was enough to drop them.


----------



## Frenchy (Jul 9, 2005)

Fair enough.....

Its a great topic of discussion, but ultimately its only the decision of two people on any given sunday.


----------



## HarryWilliams (Jan 17, 2005)

BBG, Looks like you dug a bunker and are making a stand 'till the death. At least you have some company in there with you. 

I'd be interested in your answer to Jeff's question? Cause that's the telling part in my opinion.



jeff t. said:


> Exactly when does the break begin?


Can a dog sit and stand at the same time? Can a dog that is sitting break without standing? If I control the dog at first movement with a whistle would that be controlling a stand or controlling a break? Or do you considered that talking to my dog? HPW


----------



## fetch (Sep 23, 2003)

Codatango said:


> Will someone please contact the AKC Rep about this question? <snip>
> I think we need to get a "for sure" answer, so people reading these posts will know what they can and can't do.


It is not useful to get interpretations on questions like these from the field reps, as they differ. If you get a view from one rep you can't rely on it. The AKC should make that decision back at Performance Events. In fact I now think it is worth a written clarification in the rulebook. I am impressed by the bandwidth this has generated, so it clearly is not clear (no matter who thinks it's clear or how many times they post in defense of their view). Some of the top minds on this list have weighed in on this one.

Here is a partial tally so far on the "votes." I will put up a complete one later. (This is counting one vote per poster, not per post, so no extra votes for "intensely held views" vs. moderate emotional state, LOL).

The Controlled Break view is out in front but the other view has a significant following too. It clearly is not a clear area.

Yes it's a controlled break = 22 people think this

No it's not a controlled break = 13 people think this

Cannot tell conclusion from post or post talked of other aspects = 14 people

fetch


----------



## Juli H (Aug 27, 2007)

Directly from the AKC rules - emphasis mine (italic and underlined words and phrases)

Steadiness – dogs on line sometimes make various types of movement when game is in the air (and/or when it is shot). These types of movements may be interpreted as efforts by the dogs to improve their view of the fall, and some occur as sheer excitement. Except for an occasional change in position, in order to better see a fall, all such movements _could_ be viewed as _unsteadiness _



a controlled break is generally _when a dog *leaves *to retrieve before being sent, but is quickly brought under control by verbal command or whistle and returns to the handler._
Creeping is generally considered as _leaving the handler on a tentative yet excited basis, _short of leaving completely to retrieve the bird, or waiting to be sent to retrieve. General unsteadiness, short of breaking
It is generally understood that a break occurs when a dog makes a movement that, in the opinion of the judges, indicates a _*deliberate attempt* to retrieve without having been ordered to do so and cannot be brought under the control of the handler._
I still believe the handler was rightly dq'd for speaking to the dog before the dog 'broke' ..the handler was 'correcting' a steadiness issue..which is NOT the same as breaking or creeping.

Juli


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

HarryWilliams said:


> BBG, Looks like you dug a bunker and are making a stand 'till the death.........? HPW


if he is just making a stand, did he break or is he still on the mat, on the good side of the creep line?;-)


----------



## RF2 (May 6, 2008)

The rules state that the judges shall agree on what will be a controlled break in Junior and Senior tests. The rules also define a break as:

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

Leaves a lot of room for interpretation with respect to movement by a dog; enough to give the benefit of the doubt to the dog/handler team. Bottom line is it is up to the judges. As a handler, if the judges do not communicate this information in the handlers meeting, ask.

IMO, it was a controlled break and I would inform the handler after they ran the series.


----------



## Frenchy (Jul 9, 2005)

Juli, 

I think you are a too hung up on the definition of "break". In your above reference quotes did you notice every one of them starts with "generally". The definitions themself are not absolutes, but generalities. In my mind its moot whether you want to call it a controlled break or not. The infraction of speaking to your dog by saying a single "sit" does not warrant an instant DQ. 

As a judge I haven't seen enough. I haven't fullfilled my primary responsibilites as a judge and adequately evaluated the dogs abilities. I'm making note of the infraction, but I'm going to CONTINUE to judge that dog.


----------



## Bud Bass (Dec 22, 2007)

Gray area, depends on the judge, could go either way. Should have asked the other judge if he agreed 100%, to drop a dog, both judges have to agree. Move on to the next test and try to improve and learn from what could happen in a test depending on what judges you have and their experience and attitude. I've heard of worse things coming from judges. Bud


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

> if a dogs left ear twitches on the line and the handler says sit...is it talking to the dog or a controled break????


It doesn't matter what the sign is, it's the fact that the handler felt they needed the use of a word to stop an act they felt that was in motion. There are dogs that rock, jump, paw like they are going to break to a person that doesn't know them, and they are totally solid. The judges job is to judge what happens, not what they think will happen.


----------



## Guest (Apr 27, 2010)

Juli H said:


> Directly from the AKC rules - emphasis mine (italic and underlined words and phrases)
> 
> Steadiness – dogs on line sometimes make various types of movement when game is in the air (and/or when it is shot). These types of movements may be interpreted as efforts by the dogs to improve their view of the fall, and some occur as sheer excitement. Except for an occasional change in position, in order to better see a fall, all such movements _could_ be viewed as _unsteadiness _
> 
> ...


You need to emphasize the word GENERALLY and make it larger and bolder than you're other emphasis.


----------



## Juli H (Aug 27, 2007)

websters definition of generally : in disregard of specific instances and with regard to an overall picture.



I guess in my eyes, the overall picture of a dog breaking is that he *has LEFT the line with intent to retrieve.*

not at all the same as a dog that is 'itching to go'.

if creeping is not breaking, how can unsteadiness be breaking? (per the rules above)

Juli


----------



## Juli H (Aug 27, 2007)

if breaking is 'generally a deliberate attempt to retrieve' ... how does that apply to a dog that is 'dancing on line'? there is no forward movement..no creeping, even....

obviously the judges felt the overall picture was of a dog that had not broke.

Juli


----------



## Steve Hester (Apr 14, 2005)

Juli and BBG have it right. "Playing" with the words in the rules doesn't change that. Not being able to talk to your dog is a stupid rule anyway. But the rules are the rules.


----------



## fetch (Sep 23, 2003)

Frenchy said:


> I have no problem with the way the judges ruled. They had the pencil that day, and were well within their bounds to DQ the dog. I'm mearly arguing the point that while it CAN be grounds for a DQ that it doesn't have to be.
> 
> I'm not commenting and any one specific instance or any one dog. I've attempted to keep this as a general argument while still adressing the original posters question.


I think this is a good point. And this is the spirit in which the question was asked. No question who had the pencil that day and the ones with the pencil get the say that day. However, our sport has a rulebook and a lot of written content, including rules, principles, guidelines, as well as spirit, tone and philosophy. Also the AKC has seminars to go over this stuff. The book does not say that judges can do whatever they want. 

Judges sometimes make bad calls. A few years ago I had the judge of a stake that weekend come up to me and apologize for DQ'g a dog of mine 10 years earlier. He explained exactly why he thought he'd made a bad call that day, and said he had always felt bad about it. I did not raise this, him raising it was something he did on his own. Actually, I had long since forgotten who the judge was (although I still remembered what happened). I was astonished to have him talk to me about it after all those years. I was also ginormously impressed with that judge's wisdom, perspective, and strength of character to have stored that incident and raised it as a mea culpa after so long a time. WOW.

It is fair game, IMO, and improves the sport, to discuss judging calls on a forum. 

Twice I have been in the position tinstar (the handler here) was in, and I did what tinstar did and for the same reason. Both times as it happened, I was being judged by judges who thought it was a controlled break and, because it was Senior, my dog was brought back for the next series but with a lowered trainability score, of course.

In one of the cases, I could hear the less experienced judge immediately whisper to her co-judge something like, "that handler is out, she said Sit to her dog!" I could hear the experienced judge calming her down and mumbling "no it's a controlled break. We'll talk about it later." 

In the other case nothing was said, but when I came to the line in the next series one looked up and said, "you know you had a controlled break in the last series, don't you." I thought this was so I would understand they had seen what happened and weren't letting it go. I wasn't getting a free ride under inattentive judges; it had been noted and my dog's trainability score affected by it.

fetch


----------



## Juli H (Aug 27, 2007)

Steve Hester said:


> Not being able to talk to your dog is a stupid rule anyway. But the rules are the rules.


I agree with the talking part, up until masters...I think jr sr handlers should be allowed to quietly talk to their dogs while birds are thrown....I think a master level dog should be able to sit w/out the reminder(s). LOL

Juli


----------



## Frenchy (Jul 9, 2005)

Steve Hester said:


> Juli and BBG have it right. "Playing" with the words in the rules doesn't change that. Not being able to talk to your dog is a stupid rule anyway. But the rules are the rules.


But the rules are the rules...and the rules don't dictate a disqualifying penalty.


----------



## Steve Hester (Apr 14, 2005)

That's your opinion of the rules Frenchy.


----------



## troy schwab (Mar 9, 2010)

Frenchy said:


> But the rules are the rules...and the rules don't dictate a disqualifying penalty.


But it IS stated as a serious handler fault, with grounds for disqualifying, does it not? LOL (whipping the hindquarters off this mule!!!!)


----------



## Juli H (Aug 27, 2007)

troy schwab said:


> But it IS stated as a serious handler fault, with grounds for disqualifying, does it not? LOL (whipping the hindquarters off this mule!!!!)


 
Rainmaker did post another part of the rules which made it appear so on the 'controlled break with a twist' thread...

I think I would never want to be a judge for AKC.

Juli


----------



## troy schwab (Mar 9, 2010)

Me neither Juli!!!!!


----------

