# At a Hunting Test (Rules Violation)



## J. Walker (Feb 21, 2009)

A dog at honor in a Master was clearly about to break. He had crept up at least four or five feet. The handler, who knew darn well what he was doing, was saying "Heel," repeatedly and at a level that could be heard by the gallery more than 20 yards away, so much for speaking quietly to the dog. The bigger issue was that it was "Heel," followed by a loud snap of his fingers with the handler's arm well away from his body. It took at least a half-dozen times of that to get the dog to a point at which he could be reluctantly heeled off line. The rules are very clear on the requirement that the hands must remain "quietly at (the handler's) side." As best I could tell, not only was the handler not dropped, he wasn't even warned. A little while later, a guy was about to leave the honor with his dog that hadn't moved a muscle. When he went to put on the lead before leaving the honor position, he was immediately warned he couldn't do that. Yes, it is a violation but his dog was under perfect control the entire time. I was there to watch a friend run his dogs so I had nothing invested as to who got to the next series. I just found the inconsistency in the rules application puzzling especially as it related to the actions of the dogs.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Handlers handle, Judges judge, Dogs dog, and Galleries gallery.


----------



## 1tulip (Oct 22, 2009)

Hey... aren't we all about "having a conversation" about whatever "...ism" is in the collective high beams at the moment. The vignette seems to be a reasonable query. Just saying.


----------



## BJGatley (Dec 31, 2011)

J. Walker said:


> A dog at honor in a Master was clearly about to break. He had crept up at least four or five feet. The handler, who knew darn well what he was doing, was saying "Heel," repeatedly and at a level that could be heard by the gallery more than 20 yards away, so much for speaking quietly to the dog. The bigger issue was that it was "Heel," followed by a loud snap of his fingers with the handler's arm well away from his body. It took at least a half-dozen times of that to get the dog to a point at which he could be reluctantly heeled off line. The rules are very clear on the requirement that the hands must remain "quietly at (the handler's) side." As best I could tell, not only was the handler not dropped, he wasn't even warned. A little while later, a guy was about to leave the honor with his dog that hadn't moved a muscle. When he went to put on the lead before leaving the honor position, he was immediately warned he couldn't do that.* Yes, it is a violation* but his dog was under perfect control the entire time. I was there to watch a friend run his dogs so I had nothing invested as to who got to the next series. I just found the inconsistency in the rules application puzzling especially as it related to the actions of the dogs.



I belive what copterdoc stated holds true... JMO


----------



## Mary Lynn Metras (Jul 6, 2010)

I don't know the circumstances but it does seem from what you have told us a bit inconsistent. I think I would have asked someone like the marshall the reason if you had a question about this. To ask on the RTF after the fact can cause all sorts of comments to be produced. IMO


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

Where in the rules does it state the handler's hands must remain quietly at sides, while on honor? The rules state talking quietly, not talking loud enough to interfere with the working dog, judges or other handlers and no threatening gestures or any form of intimidation. I guess the talking and the finger snapping wasn't deemed interference by those judges. Others may have judged it differently. 

I see nothing in the rules about a handler's hands remaining quietly at the handler's side in HT, anywhere, either honor or working dog. Would be an interesting rule, considering one is holding a gun and is to shoulder the gun at the marks as they are thrown. It just says the handler of the working dog shall remain silent from the time the birds are signaled for until the judge's release. The FT rules address hands remaining quietly in close proximity to body. 

The leash on dog after it is behind the judges is pretty black and white in the rulebook. The handler at MH level was lucky to get a warning. I've seen handlers dropped for it.


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

Mary Lynn Metras said:


> I don't know the circumstances but it does seem from what you have told us a bit inconsistent. I think I would have asked someone like the marshall the reason if you had a question about this. To ask on the RTF after the fact can cause all sorts of comments to be produced. IMO


What standing do you as a non partisipant have to ask Marshall why judges did what they did. What do you expect the Marshall to do? Judges and marshals have more to do than field questions from a sometimes uninformed gallery.


----------



## fishduck (Jun 5, 2008)

Thomas D said:


> What standing do you as a non partisipant have to ask Marshall why judges did what they did. What do you expect the Marshall to do? Judges and marshals have more to do than field questions from a sometimes uninformed gallery.


Amen! This deserves to be repeated!!!!!!!


----------



## Final Flight Retrievers (Jan 23, 2010)

J. Walker said:


> A dog at honor in a Master was clearly about to break. He had crept up at least four or five feet. The handler, who knew darn well what he was doing, was saying "Heel," repeatedly and at a level that could be heard by the gallery more than 20 yards away, so much for speaking quietly to the dog. The bigger issue was that it was "Heel," followed by a loud snap of his fingers with the handler's arm well away from his body. It took at least a half-dozen times of that to get the dog to a point at which he could be reluctantly heeled off line. The rules are very clear on the requirement that the hands must remain "quietly at (the handler's) side." As best I could tell, not only was the handler not dropped, he wasn't even warned. A little while later, a guy was about to leave the honor with his dog that hadn't moved a muscle. When he went to put on the lead before leaving the honor position, he was immediately warned he couldn't do that. Yes, it is a violation but his dog was under perfect control the entire time. I was there to watch a friend run his dogs so I had nothing invested as to who got to the next series. I just found the inconsistency in the rules application puzzling especially as it related to the actions of the dogs.


Whats your point ??? 

other than to throw a set of judges under-the-bus.!!!!

#mondaymorningjudging


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

It's a hunt test. One dog passing that should not have passed does not keep any other dog from passing. It doesn't make sense to me to worry/critique/discuss how a set of judges judged someone else's dog. Now if it were a field trial, where one dog is judged against another, maybe it becomes an issue.

On the other hand if you feel that your dog was judged unfairly or not in accordance with the rules, ask the Marshall to verify they have the correct dog. After that if you feel these judges don't know what they are doing, don't run under them again. -and hope they aren't " professional judges", who judge every other test in your circuit.


----------



## BMay (Mar 3, 2003)

You gotta do what you gotta do to get to the next series. Copterdoc is correct! Perhaps, just perhaps (I wasn't there)but after releasing the working dog the judges told the honor dog handler to re-heel their dog before releasing it from the honor. A note on my judging sheet regarding the creep is noted. Next series.....


----------



## Mary Lynn Metras (Jul 6, 2010)

Thomas D said:


> What standing do you as a non partisipant have to ask Marshall why judges did what they did. What do you expect the Marshall to do? Judges and marshals have more to do than field questions from a sometimes uninformed gallery.


None I suppose but if I had a concern I would ask anyway as everyone is reasonably helpful. I say reasonably.  Just me however and IMO from the uninformed gallery


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

That's kinda my point. Why should it be your concern what someone's else's do does in a hunt test? Judges owe the owner or handler an explanation at the conclusion of the test. What is the Marshall going to tell you? Capt jack had a good comment.


----------



## TN_LAB (Jul 26, 2008)

Folks seek clarification on rule interpretations all the time (seems I recall a lengthy discussion recently about controlled breaks). 

I often chalk this sort of stuff up to human error. Judges have to look at a lot of stuff, and sometimes they miss stuff & sometimes they see things differently and have different opinions about what happened. 

Ever see the TV show Brain Games? Tons of neat stuff on there about how folks can't see stuff that's right in front of their eyes when they are busy doing something else.


----------



## jacduck (Aug 17, 2011)

Your options as I see them. 

1st read the rule book and understand it.

2nd put your butt out there, jump through all the hoops and judge. That would solve all the problems with judges for sure.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Brings back memories of the thread debating when creeping becomes breaking......ah the infamous creep lines.....

/Paul


----------



## budsdad (Jan 28, 2008)

OK. So I will admit that I don't know the the first thing about hunt test rules so I have a different question and hope I am not way off base. Why was the handler saying heel instead of sit? Sit was the command he broke. Please ignore if inappropriate.


----------



## BJGatley (Dec 31, 2011)

TN_LAB said:


> Folks seek clarification on rule interpretations all the time (seems I recall a lengthy discussion recently about controlled breaks).
> 
> I often chalk this sort of stuff up to human error. Judges have to look at a lot of stuff, and sometimes they miss stuff & sometimes they see things differently and have different opinions about what happened.
> 
> ...


That's just pure mean... but you are right.


----------



## Nate_C (Dec 14, 2008)

budsdad said:


> OK. So I will admit that I don't know the the first thing about hunt test rules so I have a different question and hope I am not way off base. Why was the handler saying heel instead of sit? Sit was the command he broke. Please ignore if inappropriate.


Depends on the dog and how you have trained him. I would guess he was saying heel in an attempt to get the dog to return to him some. It might have been better to say sit. The dog was not going to return to heel, no way. Maybe sit would get a better response and at least stopped the dogs progress away from him. but again, depends on the dog.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

budsdad said:


> OK. So I will admit that I don't know the the first thing about hunt test rules so I have a different question and hope I am not way off base. Why was the handler saying heel instead of sit? Sit was the command he broke. Please ignore if inappropriate.


From reading the OP, I'm still not sure when this happened. From a dog handling standpoint, you are correct, during the creep you would say sit, then after the working dog was released the judges would probably tell you to heel your dog or just release you from the honor. The OP talks about the handler having great difficulty bringing his dog back to heel then leaving, if this was after he was released and it wasn't interfering with the working dog, that part could be ignored by the judges.

If the honor handler said sit, heel or anything while the birds were going down and before he was released by the judges, the dog should have been dropped, but like somebody said, judges aren't perfect. On the other hand, if the dog crept, but didn't break, and the handler kept his mouth shut until the judge instructed him, the rest could easily have been ignored.


----------



## fishduck (Jun 5, 2008)

By rule talking "quietly" to the honor dog is allowed at AKC hunt tests. Not allowed at field trials. Learned that one the hard way!!!!!


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

Its ALL ABOUT THE BASE!!!! Bout the BASE,, No TREBLE!


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

fishduck said:


> By rule talking "quietly" to the honor dog is allowed at AKC hunt tests. Not allowed at field trials. Learned that one the hard way!!!!!


You mean you didn't get a warning?


----------



## fishduck (Jun 5, 2008)

Thomas D said:


> You mean you didn't get a warning?


Just a quick trip home.. DAH strikes again!


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

fishduck said:


> Just a quick trip home.. DAH strikes again!


Was that the same judges that judged me out for being 3' off line on the blind after stepping on three marks in the 1st?


----------



## fishduck (Jun 5, 2008)

No. I learned that lesson earlier. Dog was bleeding anyway & probably didn't deserve a callback but my "sit" made the decision easier.


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

fishduck said:


> No. I learned that lesson earlier. Dog was bleeding anyway & probably didn't deserve a callback but my "sit" made the decision easier.


That's normally interpreted as a controlled break - not an eliminating fault in the Q.


----------



## RookieTrainer (Mar 11, 2011)

fishduck said:


> By rule talking "quietly" to the honor dog is allowed at AKC hunt tests. Not allowed at field trials. Learned that one the hard way!!!!!


As you know in my case, this is a good rule to be able to use. I am also probably exploring the outer limits of "quietly" at times.


----------



## Bubba (Jan 3, 2003)

captainjack said:


> Was that the same judges that judged me out for being 3' off line on the blind after stepping on three marks in the 1st?


Suspecting DOA. Dropped on attitude.

Just speculating regards

Bubba


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

Bubba said:


> Suspecting DOA. Dropped on attitude.
> 
> Just speculating regards
> 
> Bubba


You'd be wrong. These judges were very clear in their reasoning. 15 yards left of true line but in a cover strip 6" higher than surrounding cover is good, 3' right of line but not in the cover strip gets dropped. It was one of those "must hits" that some judges have. Just part of the game. As you likely can tell, I don't agree with these, nor would I ever drop a dog because the handler in a Qual said 'sit' while the marks are going down.


----------



## fishduck (Jun 5, 2008)

This particular instance wasn't really that bad. Dog was bleeding badly from a gorilla hunt on the retired gun. Went to the honor & quietly told my dog to sit as the flyer went off. Habit from Master but a controlled break in the Q. May or may not have been the straw that broke the camels back but I haven't spoken on the honor again.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

Rainmaker said:


> Where in the rules does it state the handler's hands must remain quietly at sides, while on honor? The rules state talking quietly, not talking loud enough to interfere with the working dog, judges or other handlers and no threatening gestures or any form of intimidation. I guess the talking and the finger snapping wasn't deemed interference by those judges. Others may have judged it differently.
> 
> I see nothing in the rules about a handler's hands remaining quietly at the handler's side in HT, anywhere, either honor or working dog. Would be an interesting rule, considering one is holding a gun and is to shoulder the gun at the marks as they are thrown. It just says the handler of the working dog shall remain silent from the time the birds are signaled for until the judge's release. The FT rules address hands remaining quietly in close proximity to body.
> 
> The leash on dog after it is behind the judges is pretty black and white in the rulebook. The handler at MH level was lucky to get a warning. I've seen handlers dropped for it.


As Kim said ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Figuring out whether or not he interfered with the working dog would be pretty easy by looking at the working dog for reaction. If there was none... then judge accordingly. As long as the working dog remained focused on his marks the honor handler was more or less telling him to sit LOL


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

captainjack said:


> That's normally interpreted as a controlled break - not an eliminating fault in the Q.


Here is mine. My retired dog is a creeper. We were double staked in a Q and an Am and every single series that day the judges gave me the "Re-heel your dog". Last series of the Q, and we were definitely in the thick of it. Birds go down, dog crept, I re-heel said dog, release him and he smacks the marks. As the judge handed me a green ribbon he said "too bad about that controlled break, you would have had a big piece of this one". I thought to myself "what controlled break?" and then it hit me--they did not tell me to re-heel the dog on the last series. I did it out of habit before they gave me my number.


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

DarrinGreene said:


> As Kim said ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> Figuring out whether or not he interfered with the working dog would be pretty easy by looking at the working dog for reaction. If there was none... then judge accordingly. As long as the working dog remained focused on his marks the honor handler was more or less telling him to sit LOL


What does the working dog do to allow you to make that decision? What if the working dog looks at the creeper? So are you saying handler and dog can do anything short of what you (standing behind the dog) thinks is interference? I think that's just an easy way out of not tossing the honor dog.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

Thomas D said:


> What does the working dog do to allow you to make that decision? What if the working dog looks at the creeper? So are you saying handler and dog can do anything short of what you (standing behind the dog) thinks is interference? I think that's just an easy way out of not tossing the honor dog.


If working dog never breaks his focus on the marks and doesn't move his butt off the ground, then obviously he wasn't interfered with. I know judging is subjective and I admit I only did two assignments before life got in the way but...

I like things I can explain in black and white. 

I don't know if I would have passed a dog that crept like that on honor. Really, imagine that crap in the blind during a good shoot? I'm not sure I would classify that a master hunter. That said, didn't see it so looking for the obvious...


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

I was just wondering how you could make that determination sitting behind the dog. Since a dog has approx 250 degrees of peripheral vision they really don't have to move their head. I would bet working dog saw creeper. How much it affected it's work, who knows. While we might think we know how a dog is reacting, not many of us really do. I would always err on the side of the working dog.how many times have you heard a judge say "he didn't see that one"? I just want to tell them to shut the h--- up and judge the mark and not play dog whisperer.

Just my .02


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

Thomas D said:


> I was just wondering how you could make that determination sitting behind the dog. Since a dog has approx 250 degrees of peripheral vision they really don't have to move their head. I would bet working dog saw creeper. How much it affected it's work, who knows. While we might think we know how a dog is reacting, not many of us really do. I would always err on the side of the working dog.how many times have you heard a judge say "he didn't see that one"? I just want to tell them to shut the h--- up and judge the mark and not play dog whisperer.
> 
> Just my .02


Yea got ya Tom, you're right... might not see it. That's why judges judge I guess... like I said, based on the description I might not have passed the honor dog. I was trying to figure out the rationale the judges might have been using in passing him.


----------



## Good Dogs (Nov 1, 2005)

DoubleHaul said:


> Here is mine. My retired dog is a creeper. We were double staked in a Q and an Am and every single series that day the judges gave me the "Re-heel your dog". Last series of the Q, and we were definitely in the thick of it. Birds go down, dog crept, I re-heel said dog, release him and he smacks the marks. As the judge handed me a green ribbon he said "too bad about that controlled break, you would have had a big piece of this one". I thought to myself "what controlled break?" and then it hit me--they did not tell me to re-heel the dog on the last series. I did it out of habit before they gave me my number.


Ouch. Betcha that's a mistake you'll not repeat. 
But as for the gallery judge in the OP, what you see from the gallery may not be what you see from the line. Observe, take notes, but don't depend on what you thought you saw when it comes to running your own dog. Things look a lot different up there.


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

> I was just wondering how you could make that determination sitting behind the dog. Since a dog has approx 250 degrees of peripheral vision they really don't have to move their head. I would bet working dog saw creeper. How much it affected it's work, who knows. While we might think we know how a dog is reacting, not many of us really do. I would always err on the side of the working dog.how many times have you heard a judge say "he didn't see that one"? I just want to tell them to shut the h--- up and judge the mark and not play dog whisperer.
> 
> Just my .02


Dogs do have steep peripheral vision, however when an object is presented in the peripheral of the dog and if the dog acknowledges it ,,it will shift its focus even momentarily to the object in the peripheral. It's just the way dogs are. if a dog see's and registers a bird in its peripheral it will shift its focus to it. Dogs that step on birds that they couldn't have seen because they weren't focused on it and because they didn't shift their focus on it even monetarily is the result from the training they get. Very simple to prove.
dog can shift focus ,via vision,audio,and scent

When a dog is focused on an object and an out side stimulus or object is presented ,,,,if the dog does not bend an ear toward the stimulus or shift his eyes toward the object or stimulus or try to detect scent wafting from the object or stimulus presented then the dog is to be considered focused on the task at hand.

Pete


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

Maybe at the far reaches of the peripheral you're right. However for a judge to make these determinations from 5 yds behind the dog is guesswork. I still think dogs can mark very well within certain limits without moving their head at all.
If my dog is at heel and I'm looking down at his eyes as the birds go off I can tell what he probably saw and didn't see without moving his head. Eyes move yes but not head. I think most dogs are that way and yes they squire that talent thru training but it's still there. At least that's been my experience.


----------



## Pam Spears (Feb 25, 2010)

After reading the comments, I went back to read the original post again. Not having been there, this is all conjecture, however: it can be assumed, since you state that the handler knew what he was doing, that he was doing his darndest to keep his dog under control in that situation. "Sit" might not be working, "heel" obviously was barely working, and the snap might have been the only thing that kept the honor dog from breaking completely. You can second guess these things ad infinitum, but there is very little time at the line to make anything but a snap decision (pun intended!) Usually one of the judges is keeping an eye on the honor dog while the other is observing the working dog. If the judge chose not to fail or warn the honor dog, it's his decision, or perhaps something else got his attention and he simply didn't notice. Either way, it's done, they're human, they do the best they can to put on a fair test (usually, lol.) If you had a question about it, I suppose you could have approached the judges afterwards and asked, as a matter of curiosity. As for the incident where the handler put his leash on at the line, that's a common occurrence, usually the result of a nervous or new handler who is so relieved to have lived through the test that they forget to leave the line before they put on the leash. I've done that one myself, lol.


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

> Maybe at the far reaches of the peripheral you're right. However for a judge to make these determinations from 5 yds behind the dog is guesswork. I still think dogs can mark very well within certain limits without moving their head at all.
> If my dog is at heel and I'm looking down at his eyes as the birds go off I can tell what he probably saw and didn't see without moving his head. Eyes move yes but not head. I think most dogs are that way and yes they squire that talent thru training but it's still there. At least that's been my experience.


That is correct. for the most part but even with birds in close proximity a dog will momentarily shift focus on the other bird which is quite obvious if your watching the dog. ,because a new stimulus has been presented into the context in which the dog has interest( birds being thrown out in front) and its body language has to change when a dog recognizes when an object is presented and acknowledged. A dog can move it's eyes without moving it's head. The fact remains that when a dog moves it;s eyes off of 1 object to another it has changed it's focus. So when a dog locks on a white coat it is focused on the white coat ,,when the bird is thrown the dog may shift focus on the bird without moving its head just it's eyes,,,however the dog will give obvious signs that it just switched focus on the bird (unless of coarse the dog really hates being up at the line in which case he really doesn't want to see what's in front of him.) and this is often visible from behind the dog. This falls in the category of reading a dog,,, So a dog can see a bird thrown on 2 gun stations without moving it's head but those gun stations need to be close enough together that the particular dog doesn't need to move its head.Just his eyes 

Pete


----------



## HoHum's Retrievers (Mar 22, 2007)

To the original post...You describe two separate situations. The warning issued about the early releash of the dog is an objective rule and easily enforced and applied. A perfectly understandable mistake that happens often and I would say, here in my circuit is often issued a warning. No big deal, hopefully the warning was administered in a constructive and polite manner to help a nervous handler out for future reference.

The situation with the creepy dog. Sounds like you take issue is that the judges didn't immediately fail or give warning to the honor dog. I am not sure of that creepy honor dog passed the series and went on that day, or failed the test. 

There may be a few different things happening. 

First, as a judge, the honor may have clearly failed the test. As already stated, one of the two judges is probably keeping an eye on the honor dog and the other judge watching the working dog and the birds going down. The two judges most likely have already discussed how far they will allow a dog to creep and stay in and all of that. Experienced judges will already have discussed that prior to the start of the test and have come to an agreement with their co-judge how far is too far. Myself as a judge, I am going to give the working dog every chance I can to a fair test and if I feel the honor dog interfered and is clearly out, I would call for a "no-bird" and have the honor dog go on leash. However, that being said, if the working dog is focused and appearing to not be interfered with I am going to let things roll. With the size of Master stakes nowadays, every "no-bird" takes nearly as long to deal with as a dog completing the test. In the interest of keeping the test moving, I am going to try to keep things going. Once the birds are down and both dogs are released, the judges' attention turns to the working dog most likely and the judges are probably not, and probably shouldn't, take time to speak with the honor dog handler to let them know they were out, or failed or hanging on by the skin of their teeth. And even once I release the working dog to make his retrieves, it may become apparent by the work that that creepy honor dog did impact their performance. There is nothing in the rules that say the judges can't decide to bring that dog back for a rerun. Some dogs see what we don't think they can see. Perhaps that working dog was focused on the honor dog even though he looked focused on the marks. I will try to give the benefit of the doubt to the dog.

And as for the honoring handler doing everything in his power to keep his dog under control, even though in your view it was failing. That handler may also know how much time a "no-bird" takes and is trying to keep his dog steady enough to allow for the test to continue. Plus, no one wants their dog to full on break. He may already realize they are done for the day, but maybe he can get some corrections in at the line by not allowing his dog to fully break for the birds, he can keep the test moving for everyone involved and do his best to not interfere with the working dog.


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

After the dog is released and in the field working how can you determine its poor performance was caused by the creeper or just poor performance?
I say either call a no bird due to interference or give the WD their number and judge it. No do overs. We shouldn't be applying or not applying rules based on the time it might take for a no bird.

But that's just me.


----------



## kennel maiden (Jun 11, 2012)

So, much simpler in the UK. They'd both just be eliminated! LOL


----------



## TN_LAB (Jul 26, 2008)

kennel maiden said:


> So, much simpler in the UK. They'd both just be eliminated! LOL


I read the OP as an issue of puzzling enforcement of the rules.


----------



## J. Walker (Feb 21, 2009)

TN_LAB said:


> I read the OP as an issue of puzzling enforcement of the rules.


Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner! That was the issue, no more no less.


----------



## TN_LAB (Jul 26, 2008)

J. Walker said:


> Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner! That was the issue, no more no less.



You figured out why and spotted King Kong...right? 

The only judging I've done is at the club/picnic tests, and even that can be stressful/intense/interesting/testy/no-fun/hard/challenging, etc.


----------

