# A great debate question - remote sit



## Dave Kress (Dec 20, 2004)

The question: the judges do a remote sit/ send on a land blind 
By remote i mean the dog is put facing you some reasonable yards away- the handler walks back to a point and starts the blind. 

On the initial instruction to the dog be it silent, verbal or whatever the dog doesn't go. Say it doesn't go after several attempts and then goes thus making progress toward the blind. 

Is it cast refusals or a no-go 
Thanks in advance 
Dk


----------



## Breck (Jul 1, 2003)

FT?
Confusion only applies when sending on Marks. On Blinds No-Go on initial cast and your done if I'm not mistaken. You might get away with a recast.
I recall running set of marks and send dog too softly, dog went 10 yards and came back to mat, resent, all was good.


----------



## pagedog (Apr 27, 2009)

Most judges will allow a recast when the dog seems confused on a mark, but blinds are different.


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

It has happened to me as a handler in an Open. Dog refused the cast. No go. I tried everything... Over, back, silent over, silent back, loud over, loud back, jumped up and down and pitched a fit... The only command she took was "here". 

For whatever reason, she didn't like the setup, or I said something or cued her funny... She had done remote cast blinds before with no problem. And did them after that with no problem. 

As a judge I consider it a no go.


----------



## swliszka (Apr 17, 2011)

2008 Baldwinsville ,NY.FT Amateur 3rd Series , land/H2O remote cast blind. Allowed to sit your dog in position. Walk back to sending point about 30feet away. Cast dog to the right facing dog w/about 75 yds land entry to water W/obstructions and another 125 yds. No forward movement on initial cast your out. I lost mine that day in the water at the end. 350 mile ride home - Oh yeah. However I hunt ducks w/my dogs that way. I set them up at least that distance away so we both can mark better.


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

I think there is little choice but to call it a no go, which on blinds in HTs forces you to drop the dog. FTs allow for unusual extenuating circumstances, but it is probably going to get the dog dropped--certainly after several attempts.

It is one of those things that probably wouldn't surprise anyone if a dog or two wondered what was up and didn't go so is what you are getting out of starting the blind this way worth it?


----------



## Splash_em (Apr 23, 2009)

Cast refusal and daylight burner to add an unnecessary 45 seconds to a minute for every dog running. 

With limited resources, I don't want to tie my marshal and gunners tied up any longer than absolutely necessary.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

hand in and a verbal back from your side is no different than hand up and a verbal back from remote... 

If you make the mistake of not giving your dog a verbal along with the cast, you're likely going to end up off line even if he does go


----------



## Todd Caswell (Jun 24, 2008)

I would say No Go, thanks for playin

Not to Hyjack your thread but same set up and instead of No Going, the dog won't sit there, befor handler can get back to there mat for the send the dog gets up and leaves his mat moving toward the handler, how many chances do you allow?


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

DoubleHaul said:


> I think there is little choice but to call it a no go, which on blinds in HTs forces you to drop the dog. FTs allow for unusual extenuating circumstances, but it is probably going to get the dog dropped--certainly after several attempts.
> 
> It is one of those things that probably wouldn't surprise anyone if a dog or two wondered what was up and didn't go so is what you are getting out of starting the blind this way worth it?



Penn

I believe your interpretation is incorrect.

From the Rule Book



> I. SERIOUS FAULTS. (*Serious faults listed cover all those instances where the Standard describes conduct of the dog which in and of itself justifies elimination from the stake*. There are in the Standard three descriptions of handler misconduct justifying elimination from the stake i.e., blocking a dog’s view of a mark, throwing objects to encourage water entry and carrying exposed training equipment and other excessive restraint of the dog. While these are certainly to be enforced, they are not listed here under serious faults demonstrated by retrievers. The failure to list handler misconduct under serious faults in no way means that such misconduct is less serious or does not justify elimination from the stake.)
> 
> *16. Failure to go when sent on a blind retrieve.*


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Confusion only applies to marks

From page 33 of the Rule Book





> 30. *In marked retrieves*, if a dog, after having been sent to retrieve, (1) returns to his handler before finding the bird, with or without having been called in, except in those cases of *confusion* of the dog as to whether he was really ordered to retrieve; (2) stops his hunt; or (3) fails to pick the bird up, actually leaving it after finding it, it shall be sufficient cause, unless there exist in the opinion of the Judges valid mitigating circumstances, to justify elimination from the stake.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Yes, while the rule does say that failure to go when sent on a blind retrieve in and of itself justifies elimination from the stake : all the while several cast refusals in other circumstances do not mandate such extreme measures.
The rationale for this escapes me . I for one do not believe that there is no circumstance where a dog can be confused as to it having been sent on the initial send of a blind..

Interupted marks and poison birds are two examples......


john


----------



## Dave Kress (Dec 20, 2004)

Thanks for the replies and it appears most think that initial cast whether by your side or to the front you must go. 
I hadn't thought about the idea that ht and Ft venues may be different in the rule books. 

Richard wanted to address the merits of such a test and thats another subject however the question was about the rules or subjectivity of judging 

Thanks all 
Dk


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

Ted Shih said:


> Penn
> 
> I believe your interpretation is incorrect.
> 
> From the Rule Book


Ted--Our interpretation is the same. I was only pointing out that the FT rules do allow for some tiny bit of leeway where the HT rules do not. Where I see this in the rule book:


> 39. A dog sent on a blind retrieve shall at once
> proceed in the general direction of the line given by the handler. A dog that fails to do so shall, *in the absence of unusual extenuating circumstances*, be eliminated from the stake.


I certainly don't know what the extenuating circumstances would be in this fact set--and doubt there would be any--but was just pointing out that there is some slight chance that a judge would be within the rules not to eliminate the dog.


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

Dave Kress said:


> Thanks for the replies and it appears most think that initial cast whether by your side or to the front you must go.
> I hadn't thought about the idea that ht and Ft venues may be different in the rule books.
> 
> Richard wanted to address the merits of such a test and thats another subject however the question was about the rules or subjectivity of judging
> ...


Dave,

You are a good and experienced judge, what is your call on what it is? A no go or cast refusal? I think that after several attempts, as you mentioned in the original post, you end up in the same place, but don't leave us hanging without giving us your thoughts.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

DoubleHaul said:


> Ted--Our interpretation is the same. I was only pointing out that the FT rules do allow for some tiny bit of leeway where the HT rules do not. Where I see this in the rule book:
> 
> I certainly don't know what the extenuating circumstances would be in this fact set--and doubt there would be any--but was just pointing out that there is some slight chance that a judge would be within the rules not to eliminate the dog.



A dog fight, a flyer loose on the grounds perhaps. But, not confusion as to whether to go or not.


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

Ted Shih said:


> A dog fight, a flyer loose on the grounds perhaps. But, not confusion as to whether to go or not.


Absolutely! I am with you. It would have to be something really freaky. Believe me, if I were ever sitting in a chair next to you, this is not something we would spend a second arguing about.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

DoubleHaul said:


> Absolutely! I am with you. It would have to be something really freaky. Believe me, if I were ever sitting in a chair next to you, this is not something we would spend a second arguing about.



Unfortunately, that sentiment does not appear to be universal.


----------



## Golddogs (Feb 3, 2004)

Dave Kress said:


> The question: the judges do a remote sit/ send on a land blind
> By remote i mean the dog is put facing you some reasonable yards away- the handler walks back to a point and starts the blind.
> 
> On the initial instruction to the dog be it silent, verbal or whatever the dog doesn't go. Say it doesn't go after several attempts and then goes thus making progress toward the blind.
> ...


 HT it is a no go. The key here is it is the initial cast and no distintion is made for an initial cast being at your side or remote.


----------



## swliszka (Apr 17, 2011)

Practice , practice , practice. Train harder than trialing. I have seen more mechanical mess-ups at Hunt Tests, too cutesy scenarios , than in your face , there it is - FT. What about remote cast no-see blinds over 15 foot dirt mounds? Trained and run many in FT Qualifying/Amateurs. Send the dog, dog goes over top, you are allowed to handle from mound top. Common in MN, ND, WI , NY , DE.


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

Hmmm Cast and doesn't go (initial send) = No Go. Blow a whistle then cast dog=cast refusal. So I'd be blowing a sit whistle before I ever attempted to cast the dog, accomplishes 2 things 1) tells the dog he's running a blind 2) Turns a possible no-go into a CR (which is not an automatic out). If I get a CR might do a toot toot toot to get the dog moving in, then recast. It's all about how one chooses to play the game .


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Hunt'EmUp said:


> Hmmm Cast and doesn't go (initial send) = No Go. Blow a whistle then cast dog=cast refusal. So I'd be blowing a sit whistle before I ever attempted to cast the dog, accomplishes 2 things 1) tells the dog he's running a blind 2) Turns a possible no-go into a CR (which is not an automatic out). If I get a CR might do a toot toot toot to get the dog moving in, then recast. It's all about how one chooses to play the game .



Blow whistle? Fine. 
Say "back" and cast -no go? Pick up your dog. 
You want to call it a cast refusal? Fine. 

But it is also a failure to go. Serious fault. Elimination. 

"Play the game" how you choose. But, when I judge, if you do this, your dog is gone.


----------



## Dave Burton (Mar 22, 2006)

On that note how do you that judge feel about a toot toot in to get dog in a better position then cast on a blind? (not remote but just a blind) I feel like you purposely did not make progress to the blind. I have done it once or twice and got away with it but it was because the dog could not see me. I have seen it done right out in the open.


----------



## Renee P. (Dec 5, 2010)

Hunt'EmUp said:


> Hmmm Cast and doesn't go (initial send) = No Go. Blow a whistle then cast dog=cast refusal. So I'd be blowing a sit whistle before I ever attempted to cast the dog, accomplishes 2 things 1) tells the dog he's running a blind 2) Turns a possible no-go into a CR (which is not an automatic out). If I get a CR might do a toot toot toot to get the dog moving in, then recast. It's all about how one chooses to play the game .


How is this fundamentally different than telling your dog "sit" before you cast them from your side?


----------



## DEN/TRU/CRU (May 29, 2007)

Dog " no goes", you go..........home. Thanks for your donation.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

labman63 said:


> On that note how do you that judge feel about a toot toot in to get dog in a better position then cast on a blind? (not remote but just a blind) I feel like you purposely did not make progress to the blind. I have done it once or twice and got away with it but it was because the dog could not see me. I have seen it done right out in the open.



The phrase "progress to the blind" is not found in the Rule Book. Some judges will drop you for a come in whistle on a blind. I will not. 

Page 54 of the Rule Book says

“In general, the performance in the test should be considered in its entirety; an occasional failure to take and hold a direction may be considered a minor fault, if offset by several other very good responses.” 

So I do not look at "progress to the blind." Instead, I look at a blind "in its entirety." A come in whistle is not a make or break deal for me.

Ted


----------



## russhardy (Jan 8, 2012)

If I ran a remote sit and started off with a sit whistle, I would just expect to get graded less then another that didn't do that - all the rest being equal (which it wouldn't be). If I hadn't trained on it ever and was worried about what my dog would do I would certainly consider using a sit whistle to start - getting graded less is not as bad as getting dropped for no going. I would figure that I would get dropped if I started with a come in whistle since that's not progress to the blind and it's also not very 'pleasing'.

I guess you could think of the sit whistle as how is that fundamentally different than telling it do something twice since it would already doing that.

I'm really curious what judges think of remote sends in a FT. I've never ran one but have certainly seen a few run in All Age stakes.


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

labman63 said:


> On that note how do you that judge feel about a toot toot in to get dog in a better position then cast on a blind? (not remote but just a blind) I feel like you purposely did not make progress to the blind. I have done it once or twice and got away with it but it was because the dog could not see me. I have seen it done right out in the open.


I judge FTs and progress to the blind isn't a FT concept. I will draw up how you ran it and if you otherwise did not fail the blind, it is no big deal--no bigger than any other specific action on the blind. It is how they all come together is important. As you know it isn't a great habit, but if it makes the difference in your being able to otherwise do a good job on the blind or, say, lose your dog, do what you have to do. It would be extremely unlikely to make a significant difference in the placements.


----------



## Dave Kress (Dec 20, 2004)

For # 23

A come in toot at a ft is a bad thing- make progress to the blind 

In the HT venue a bad habit has developed in some areas. The toot toot in is more handler error than most want. A lower score on the blind but a carry equals to a degree the blind must have been ok. 
Just my thoughts
Dk


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

russhardy said:


> If I ran a remote sit and started off with a sit whistle, I would just expect to get graded less then another that didn't do that - all the rest being equal (which it wouldn't be). If I hadn't trained on it ever and was worried about what my dog would do I would certainly consider using a sit whistle to start - getting graded less is not as bad as getting dropped for no going. I would figure that I would get dropped if I started with a come in whistle since that's not progress to the blind and it's also not very 'pleasing'.
> 
> I guess you could think of the sit whistle as how is that fundamentally different than telling it do something twice since it would already doing that.
> *
> I'm really curious what judges think of remote sends in a FT. I've never ran one but have certainly seen a few run in All Age stakes*.


if I remember correctly, they had one in the '09 Canadian National Open that our gal Nola competed in...You would have to ask FT historians like WD Connor or Dr Aycock if they have had one at a US National


----------



## Golddogs (Feb 3, 2004)

labman63 said:


> On that note how do you that judge feel about a toot toot in to get dog in a better position then cast on a blind? (not remote but just a blind) I feel like you purposely did not make progress to the blind. I have done it once or twice and got away with it but it was because the dog could not see me. I have seen it done right out in the open.


Not a fan of excessive come ins, but the idea is to be working as a team to locate the downed game, and if a quick come in is going to help us find the downed bird, use it. For me a blind is 3 sections and all parts equal the whole blind. Square em to make better progress, OK.


Now bring him/her in 10- 20 yds, different story..


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Dave Kress said:


> For # 23
> 
> A come in toot at a ft is a bad thing- make progress to the blind
> 
> ...



The phrase "progress to the blind" is not in the Rule Book. What support is there for this position?


----------



## mjh345 (Jun 17, 2006)

Ted Shih said:


> The phrase "progress to the blind" is not in the Rule Book. What support is there for this position?


Correct,It's not in the book. However depending on the situation IMHO the handler may be using come in whistle as a training aid


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

mjh345 said:


> Correct,It's not in the book. However depending on the situation IMHO the handler may be using come in whistle as a training aid


I surrender. Judge however you want. Ignore overall performance. Find all the little faults you want and drop dogs. And see how much people want to ask you to judge or run under you


----------



## DEN/TRU/CRU (May 29, 2007)

Wait a minute, the dog blows right over the bird and you stop him. He is looking at you and you give a tweet tweet and he comes to the bird. Is he not making progress to the blind???


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

There is no doubt that under the FT rules as written failure to go when initially sent on a blind is a cause for mandatory elimination....
There is no ALLOWANCE for confusion by the dog . 

My point is *not *that a judge may make an exception, it is that the rule itself is not based on the realities of dog training .
Don't tell me that a dog can not be confused, just say that the're in no allowance for an exception for the confusion under the rule as written.

john


----------



## Todd Caswell (Jun 24, 2008)

Hunt'EmUp said:


> Hmmm Cast and doesn't go (initial send) = No Go. Blow a whistle then cast dog=cast refusal. So I'd be blowing a sit whistle before I ever attempted to cast the dog, accomplishes 2 things 1) tells the dog he's running a blind 2) Turns a possible no-go into a CR (which is not an automatic out). If I get a CR might do a toot toot toot to get the dog moving in, then recast. It's all about how one chooses to play the game .



That wouldn't fly with me, sit whistle OK but if the dog doesn't go on the initial send Sorry, it's not a CR it's a No GO. Seems like your trying to avoid the test, kind of like the guy that lets his dog swim past a point with no effort to get on it and can't figure out why he got dropped when he didn't have any cast refusals. When someone chooses to play the game like that it makes callbacks easy.


----------



## mjh345 (Jun 17, 2006)

Ted Shih said:


> I surrender. Judge however you want. Ignore overall performance. Find all the little faults you want and drop dogs. And see how much people want to ask you to judge or run under you


Don't get your panties in a wad Ted, Im agreeing with you{sort of, I think} in that you should judge the overall blind
However Come in whistles aren't all created equally. If the dog stops on a whistle and in his stopping process goes out of sight into a depression then the come in whistle may be neccessary and should'nt be punished. However if the dog gives some mis casts {he is already leaking oil IMHO} at the start of the blind and is in plain sight and the handler givres him a come in whistle to break his momentum and /or pull him away from some suction, then my interpretation may be that he has quit running the blind and is now training


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

mjh345 said:


> Correct,It's not in the book. However depending on the situation IMHO the handler may be using come in whistle as a training aid


 The term "training aid" seems to be pretty liberally interpreted. I think of and judge blinds from a teamwork aspect, and all things being equal, I judge the dogs relative to each other. What does _training aid_ mean? How is a quick "toot-toot" sit and cast any different than sweating a dog on a point before a cast, or the standard two sits on a point before being casted off? Blinds are all about controlling our dog in situations contrived by judges to be as out of control as possible. I don't think a quick come-in whistle and cast is the same as loosing a dog and having to call him back in sight in order to cast, but like I said, it's all relative.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

john fallon said:


> There is no doubt that under the FT rules as written failure to go when initially sent on a blind is a cause for mandatory elimination....
> There is no ALLOWANCE for confusion by the dog .
> 
> My point is *not *that a judge may make an exception, it is that the rule itself is not based on the realities of dog training .
> ...


I totally agree, I personally think this is a stupid rule that takes judgement out of the hands of the judges. I would like to see the rule redone to more closely follow the marking send rule.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

If used in the rules, the term "training aid" would be discribing an object not an action...
A moot point since it is not
john

BTW the whistle is the ONLY training equiment that may be used while under judgement


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Dave Kress said:


> The question: the judges do a remote sit/ send on a land blind
> By remote i mean the dog is put facing you some reasonable yards away- the handler walks back to a point and starts the blind.
> 
> On the initial instruction to the dog be it silent, verbal or whatever the dog doesn't go. Say it doesn't go after several attempts and then goes thus making progress toward the blind.
> ...


OK, devils advocate here, understanding the way the rule is written in field trials, lets change the OP scenario slightly. Lets say the handler sat his or her dog in a front facing position, walked back that reasonable distance, stood there looking at the dog and gave a silent back arm cast. The dog sat still without moving, the handler then quickly repeated the cast with a verbal "back" and the dog took off, completing the blind in good fashion. How would other FT judges interpret that relative to the way the rule is written?


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

john fallon said:


> My point is *not *that a judge may make an exception, it is that the rule itself is not based on the realities of dog training .
> Don't tell me that a dog can not be confused, just say that the're in no allowance for an exception for the confusion under the rule as written.


I agree with you. I have seen many times when the dog was confused when sent on a blind. Happens all the time with a different handler with a different cadence, for example. It is a very harsh rule and it is one of two that I always wonder the history behind (the other being throwing objects to encourage water entry--I suspect that this was once done so a rule against it was made).


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

John Robinson said:


> OK, devils advocate here, understanding the way the rule is written in field trials, lets change the OP scenario slightly. Lets say the handler sat his or her dog in a front facing position, walked back that reasonable distance, stood there looking at the dog and gave a silent back arm cast. The dog sat still without moving, the handler then quickly repeated the cast with a verbal "back" and the dog took off, completing the blind in good fashion. How would other FT judges interpret that relative to the way the rule is written?


I would still call it failure to go when sent.


----------



## Mark Littlejohn (Jun 16, 2006)

I think a lot of people here are splitting hairs. I've seen a remote send in an AA stake and IMHO the intent is the same as a no-seeum blind; the judges want the dog handled from start to finish in an eye-pleasing manner. Odds are, no one will line such a blind without nose to the ground (which wouldn't be eye-pleasing).
Its not to test whether the dog will go or no-go from not being sent as "normal".


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

DoubleHaul said:


> I would still call it failure to go when sent.


Ok since it's winter and I'm home stuck in the snow instead of down south training my dog, I'll take part in one of these, esoteric-fine-point-hypotheticals. If a judge was inclined because this dog's overall blind was spectacular, and from the obvious fact the dog wasn't afraid to go, could you interpret the situation as being the dog wasn't "sent" until the handler raised his hand _and_ voiced the back command? I know that would be my argument to you if you were my co-judge in this situation.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

John Robinson said:


> OK, devils advocate here, understanding the way the rule is written in field trials, lets change the OP scenario slightly. Lets say the handler sat his or her dog in a front facing position, walked back that reasonable distance, stood there looking at the dog and gave a silent back arm cast. The dog sat still without moving, the handler then quickly repeated the cast with a verbal "back" and the dog took off, completing the blind in good fashion. How would other FT judges interpret that relative to the way the rule is written?



Perhaps. But only if the handler did nothing additional.... but immediately complete the delayed virbal back cast with no recast(?)

john


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

John Robinson said:


> Ok since it's winter and I'm home stuck in the snow instead of down south training my dog, I'll take part in one of these, esoteric-fine-point-hypotheticals. If a judge was inclined because this dog's overall blind was spectacular, and from the obvious fact the dog wasn't afraid to go, could you interpret the situation as being the dog wasn't "sent" until the handler raised his hand _and_ voiced the back command? I know that would be my argument to you if you were my co-judge in this situation.


We could discuss it. Maybe it would come down to how it worked. If it was an arm up, immediately followed by the cast and the arm up, you might convince me (especially as I am not looking to drop dogs, especially if they do a good job) But if it was arm up, crickets, then after nothing happened arm up with voice, it would be tougher. These hypos are sort of fun but my guess is if we saw the same thing we would not have a debate when doing callbacks.


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

No-GO's are a spirit of the rules decision, The rule was designed for those dogs that have no interest in going, or those with their tails so far under their bums that they have to be conned into it by sending them multiple times. It was not designed as a trick to catch good dogs who want to go and go hard, but who might not hear a command, or the handler says the command in the wrong way, or a dog momentarily doesn't understand what a handler would like them to do, nor understand why a handler would send them on a blind and not tell them where they should be going. This is why we have judges to interpret these rules, use them in their proper place, not as a catch all to drop dogs. If everything was black and white, we wouldn't need judges.


----------



## swliszka (Apr 17, 2011)

It appears some of you are beating the rules to death. How many of you have trained your dogs to do this. How many of you have been faced with running this in a field trial. I have which is why I offered the previous advice. Further when you get the initial instructions from the judges after the test dog(s) I suggest you ask some of these questions. I for instance stand @ the handler station blow my whistle w/a chirp , extend my arm in an over position and send the dog w/a verbal over. My two best dogs did this in all situations unless they were a having a bad day. They had no confusion because they were trained. Further , you might ask the judges after the test dog is a single whistle blast allowable w/o penalties ? If they say yes than you go w/a verbal (in my case) over and they go. This response is not to be rude but I almost want to take all of you out to a field and show you. Surely there are others who train their dogs this way and have run this in FT?


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

swliszka said:


> It appears some of you are beating the rules to death. How many of you have trained your dogs to do this. How many of you have been faced with running this in a field trial. I have which is why I offered the previous advice. Further when you get the initial instructions from the judges after the test dog(s) I suggest you ask some of these questions. I for instance stand @ the handler station blow my whistle w/a chirp , extend my arm in an over position and send the dog w/a verbal over. My two best dogs did this in all situations unless they were a having a bad day. They had no confusion because they were trained. Further , you might ask the judges after the test dog is a single whistle blast allowable w/o penalties ? If they say yes than you go w/a verbal (in my case) over and they go. This response is not to be rude but I almost want to take all of you out to a field and show you. * Surely there are others who train their dogs this way and have run this in FT?*


Yes that is the way Clint teaches it, except with a back or angled back not an over.....but good point about asking the judge if a single whistle is acceptable


----------



## Sundown49 aka Otey B (Jan 3, 2003)

Splash_em said:


> Cast refusal and daylight burner to add an unnecessary 45 seconds to a minute for every dog running.
> 
> With limited resources, I don't want to tie my marshal and gunners tied up any longer than absolutely necessary.



To me it is a judge trying to be in total control regardless of the unnecessary BS.
I would have a SERIOUS discussion on this before it was included in test. Just another reason I don't want to judge MASTER.


----------



## labguy (Jan 17, 2006)

John Robinson said:


> OK, devils advocate here, understanding the way the rule is written in field trials, lets change the OP scenario slightly. Lets say the handler sat his or her dog in a front facing position, walked back that reasonable distance, stood there looking at the dog and gave a silent back arm cast. The dog sat still without moving, the handler then quickly repeated the cast with a verbal "back" and the dog took off, completing the blind in good fashion. How would other FT judges interpret that relative to the way the rule is written?


OK, I'm bored too so I'll bite.

Who is to say that the handler in this scenario wanted his dog to move with the silent cast? Maybe he trains his dogs that way.


I train with an old time FT'er that gives the cast with no voice, holds his arm up and waits 4 or 5 seconds and then gives a verbal. His dogs are trained that way and he has some of the best blind running dogs I've seen.


In the scenario described you must give the benefit of the doubt to the handler.


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

swliszka said:


> It appears some of you are beating the rules to death. How many of you have trained your dogs to do this. How many of you have been faced with running this in a field trial. I have which is why I offered the previous advice. Further when you get the initial instructions from the judges after the test dog(s) I suggest you ask some of these questions. I for instance stand @ the handler station blow my whistle w/a chirp , extend my arm in an over position and send the dog w/a verbal over. My two best dogs did this in all situations unless they were a having a bad day. They had no confusion because they were trained. Further , you might ask the judges after the test dog is a single whistle blast allowable w/o penalties ? If they say yes than you go w/a verbal (in my case) over and they go. This response is not to be rude but I almost want to take all of you out to a field and show you. Surely there are others who train their dogs this way and have run this in FT?


I trained on it regularly and hunted my dog extensively. The dog I talked about in the earlier post who refused to go was the same dog... She died at 8 years old as an FC AFC with 96.5 all age points... But, she was still just a dog. And on the occasion I wrote about, she flat out refused to go. Don't know what it was she didn't like. I sent her the same way I did her whole career without issue before and after... But on that day, it was sorry Charlie. Rules had nothing to do with it.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

John Robinson said:


> Ok since it's winter and I'm home stuck in the snow instead of down south training my dog, I'll take part in one of these, esoteric-fine-point-hypotheticals. If a judge was inclined because this dog's overall blind was spectacular, and from the obvious fact the dog wasn't afraid to go, could you interpret the situation as being the dog wasn't "sent" until the handler raised his hand _and_ voiced the back command? I know that would be my argument to you if you were my co-judge in this situation.


If you choose to be unconventional, don't be surprised if your unconventional means bite you in the butt. If you are going to cast this way, it would be wise to tell the judges that is what you are doing. In the absence of any other information, as a judge I would view this as a failure to go when sent. Mandatory elimination. Like Penn, I think this is an interesting hypothetical, but in the real world, most judges would drop this dog.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Hunt'EmUp said:


> No-GO's are a spirit of the rules decision, The rule was designed for those dogs that have no interest in going, or those with their tails so far under their bums that they have to be conned into it by sending them multiple times. It was not designed as a trick to catch good dogs who want to go and go hard, but who might not hear a command, or the handler says the command in the wrong way, or a dog momentarily doesn't understand what a handler would like them to do, nor understand why a handler would send them on a blind and not tell them where they should be going. This is why we have judges to interpret these rules, use them in their proper place, not as a catch all to drop dogs. If everything was black and white, we wouldn't need judges.



I disagree. The rule book is clear. This area is very black and white. Confusion is an excuse on marks. Confusion is irrelevant on blinds.

No go on blind, elimination. Period


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

swliszka said:


> It appears some of you are beating the rules to death. How many of you have trained your dogs to do this. How many of you have been faced with running this in a field trial. I have which is why I offered the previous advice. Further when you get the initial instructions from the judges after the test dog(s) I suggest you ask some of these questions. I for instance stand @ the handler station blow my whistle w/a chirp , extend my arm in an over position and send the dog w/a verbal over. My two best dogs did this in all situations unless they were a having a bad day. They had no confusion because they were trained. Further , you might ask the judges after the test dog is a single whistle blast allowable w/o penalties ? If they say yes than you go w/a verbal (in my case) over and they go. This response is not to be rude but I almost want to take all of you out to a field and show you. Surely there are others who train their dogs this way and have run this in FT?



Most experienced handlers start the remote cast with a whistle. Most experienced judges do not even make note of a whistle at the beginning of a remote cast blind. But, it never hurts to ask the judge.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

mjh345 said:


> Don't get your panties in a wad Ted, Im agreeing with you{sort of, I think} in that you should judge the overall blind
> However Come in whistles aren't all created equally. If the dog stops on a whistle and in his stopping process goes out of sight into a depression then the come in whistle may be neccessary and should'nt be punished. However if the dog gives some mis casts {he is already leaking oil IMHO} at the start of the blind and is in plain sight and the handler givres him a come in whistle to break his momentum and /or pull him away from some suction, then my interpretation may be that he has quit running the blind and is now training



Why bother trying to figure out if it is training or not? If you sweat a dog on a point, that is a training technique. It is also good handling. If you use a second whistle on a point to emphasize to the dog what you want, that is a training technique. It is also good handling. If you cast soft up close, that is a training technique. It is also good handling. If you blast a dog out when it is about to switch with a loud nasty verbal, that is a training technique. It is also good handling.

There are only a few mandatory reasons for elimination on a blind
- Failure to go
- Failure to return with a bird
- Returning with the wrong bird (poison bird)

Other than that you get called back - or dropped - based on
- How good you performed on the blind relative to other dogs
- How good your cumulative work was compared to other dogs

Not on whether 
- You started a remote cast blind with a whistle
- You used a come in whistle


----------



## swliszka (Apr 17, 2011)

"You used a come in whistle" You can be penalized or dropped by some current 8 point+ judges on blinds by using what I call a suck-in whistle where the dog makes lateral movement versus forward movement. I will not run under either of them again. 67 dog amateur w/six dogs called back to 4th series water blind. Only places 1-4 awarded - No reserve jam , No jam.


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

Hunt'EmUp said:


> No-GO's are a spirit of the rules decision, The rule was designed for those dogs that have no interest in going, or those with their tails so far under their bums that they have to be conned into it by sending them multiple times. It was not designed as a trick to catch good dogs who want to go and go hard, but who might not hear a command, or the handler says the command in the wrong way, or a dog momentarily doesn't understand what a handler would like them to do, nor understand why a handler would send them on a blind and not tell them where they should be going. This is why we have judges to interpret these rules, use them in their proper place, not as a catch all to drop dogs. If everything was black and white, we wouldn't need judges.


Actually, I think No-Gos are as letter of the rule as it gets. I am not sure why the rule is the way it is--and mentioned earlier that it I was interested in how it came about--but it is pretty clear that, from a rules perspective, the dog cannot be confused as to whether sent on blinds. Of course, we have all seen dogs that were confused. I have dropped dogs that were confused and have had a dog dropped that was confused (just got him after being washed off a pro's truck and my cadence was not what he was used to). I think it is unfortunate that it is so black and white, but as a judge I think I am supposed to use the rules as they are not as I wish them to be.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

DoubleHaul said:


> Actually, I think No-Gos are as letter of the rule as it gets. I am not sure why the rule is the way it is--and mentioned earlier that it I was interested in how it came about--but it is pretty clear that,* from a rules perspective, the dog cannot be confused as to whether sent on blinds*. Of course, we have all seen dogs that were confused. I have dropped dogs that were confused and have had a dog dropped that was confused (just got him after being washed off a pro's truck and my cadence was not what he was used to). I think it is unfortunate that it is so black and white, but as a judge I think I am supposed to use the rules as they are not as I wish them to be.



I think it is more accurate to say that "on marks, confusion may serve as an excuse for failure to go when sent." 
In contrast, "on blinds, there is no excuse for failure to go when sent"

A dog may be confused on a blind and fail to go, but its confusion is irrelevant.
From a rules perspective, when considering a failure to go when sent on a blind, we simply don't care if the dog was confused or not.

Ted


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Ted Shih said:


> I think it is more accurate to say that "on marks, confusion may serve as an excuse for failure to go when sent."
> In contrast, "on blinds, there is no excuse for failure to go when sent"
> 
> *A dog may be confused on a blind and fail to go, but its confusion is irrelevant.*
> ...


That is the way it's written. Most handlers know that. It sucks when it happens, but it is black and white and one of those areas where the judges have no discretion no matter how sympathetic they are.


----------



## canuckkiller (Apr 16, 2009)

Unless extenuating/mitigating circumstances.


----------



## Mark Littlejohn (Jun 16, 2006)

Sadly, not all judges understand this rule. I've witnessed 2 incidents (separate Quals) where a dog failed to go on a blind and was not dropped. No extenuating circumstances, the dog just didn't go on the first "back". In both cases those dogs placed. I've subsequently asked around and have encountered people who suggest that "well, its only a qual, you can be more lenient".


----------



## canuckkiller (Apr 16, 2009)

AND THE OPEN A YEAR AGO IN TEXAS, DOG PLACED FIRST -

Connor


----------



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

I am not going to name names, but I saw this exact scenario first hand as I was the stakes chair of the open a number of years ago at my local club. Very reputable and experienced judges set up the water blind with a poison bird thrown 90 degrees off line from the line to the blind, then handler turned dog nearly 180 degrees away from the poison bird fall and walked about ten steps away. Dog was left sitting on the edge of the road that runs along the water. Literally the dog was within one leap from being in the water. Handlers walk away and the first cast to the blind is an over into the water. Judges instructions included that once the dog got past the small island (about 20 yards) the handler could move up to where the dog had just left from to better navigate the running of the blind. 

Saw a number of dogs not move a muscle on the initial cast. In fact the dog that went on to win was being handled by one of our most well-known professionals, and at the time of this trial, the dog was one of the top in the sport, and when I say top of the sport, I mean national finalist, high point dog of the year contender. That dog in particular had at least four casts to even move. Handler resorted to giving the dog an angle back rather than an over after the initial three or four attempts at getting the over into the water.

I was disappointed to see so many dogs not take the initial cast, and even more disappointed when dogs that had not moved got called back, even win. I asked the judges about it following the series and the response was they needed to judge the dogs for more than just how they took the initial cast and how they handled the middle of the blind and the end of the blind. That since so many of the dogs had given no-go's the judges determined to just overlook that situation. To the credit of all the handlers, they all stuck with it and made the judges judge rather than pick up their dog after the initial refusal. The blind became a "survival blind" rather than a series where you could impress with style and skill and talent. If you picked up the bird you got back to the fourth it seemed, any way you got it picked up. 

It may have been an out of the ordinary design for a water blind and perhaps not such a good choice for the trial, but the disregard for the rules was inexcusable in my mind.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Is this a poor rule?

john


----------



## Breck (Jul 1, 2003)

It is a pointless rule. When you consider the send as a cast it's no different than casts out in the field dog may refuse or not go in direction cast or not hold cast for long. How many times at a trial do you hear, over, Over, OVER? None of those errors are cause for elimination in and of themselves so how is a little bauk on line any different. Why was the original paragraph entered into the rule book? Way back when there were nasty things permitted on blinds so..........


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

I see it as a judges trick using the rules to make up for a poorly thought out blind. yes the dog should go. however the possibility of a dog lining the blind should be available in a well thought out blind and who trains a dog to take a 400 yard over? There is judging according to the rules and then there is abusing the rules...

/Paul


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Over a course of twenty years I have run exactly four remote send blinds in field trials, all four were the Amateur stake, three of the four were water blinds. Other than casting drills with young dogs I never train on a remote send. Over those four trials, I had an issue with one dog getting him to sit and stay there as I tried to walk back to the line, he eventually did sit well enough for me to get back and cast him. Though I had other issues you have with running a normal, difficult, all-age blind, I never had an issue getting a good initial cast.

I think the point of the OP's question comes down to; is that first "cast" from a remote location exactly the same as "sending" from the line as per the rules? In the OP's hypothetical it took numerous cast to get the dog to move, I can see that being problematic, but it seems to me that if you set up one of these remote blinds, you are adding a greater degree of possible confusion into the picture that is unnecessary. Someone posted a story of judges having to call back and place a dog that really was confused, but was otherwise perfect throughout the trial. That led to controversy as the gallery debated how a "no-go" on a blind could even be called back, let alone place.

Note to self, don't set up a remote send blind, and if your co-judge really-really wants one, discuss this thread in length.

John


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

John Robinson said:


> Over a course of twenty years I have run exactly four remote send blinds in field trials, all four were the Amateur stake, three of the four were water blinds. Other than casting drills with young dogs I never train on a remote send. Over those four trials, I had an issue with one dog getting him to sit and stay there as I tried to walk back to the line, he eventually did sit well enough for me to get back and cast him. Though I had other issues you have with running a normal, difficult, all-age blind, I never had an issue getting a good initial cast.
> 
> I think the point of the OP's question comes down to; is that first "cast" from a remote location exactly the same as "sending" from the line as per the rules? In the OP's hypothetical it took numerous cast to get the dog to move, I can see that being problematic, but it seems to me that if you set up one of these remote blinds, you are adding a greater degree of possible confusion into the picture that is unnecessary. Someone posted a story of judges having to call back and place a dog that really was confused, but was otherwise perfect throughout the trial. That led to controversy as the gallery debated how a "no-go" on a blind could even be called back, let alone place.
> 
> ...



I don't like remote casts, just a matter of taste. I don't like judges that arbitrarily restrict the handlers movement on a blind. Again, a matter of taste. 

But, I don't understand all the uproar about dropping a dog that refuses to go on a remote cast. We work on remote casts in the yard. We work on remote casts in tune up drills. We run remote casts in field trials. It's hard to argue that the remote cast does not increase the degree of difficulty. And if faced with the right situation, I might well use one, despite my reservations

Ted


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

john fallon said:


> Is this a poor rule?
> 
> john


I believe it is. There might be some rational that I haven't thought of, but I really think that if you give judges the latitude to consider "confusion as to being sent" on marks, the same should apply to blinds. 

I personally have dropped dogs that in my heart I believed were confused as to being sent. I have also been dropped as a handler after doing a good job on a very difficult water blind, as the judges conferred on swim back, that my two "backs" (he balked on the first, the second back was repeated one second later), constituted a no-go and their hands were tied. I didn't argue as I knew that was the case.


----------

