# Juding the Derby



## Vicki Worthington (Jul 9, 2004)

*Judging the Derby*

As a FT judge, do you drop dogs that don't eliminate themselves in the Derby (by eliminating themselves, I mean switch, return/hunt and old fall, fail to deliver to hand, etc--the elimination faults in the standard)?

I understand that dogs get dropped in derbies that have large entries--30+, but why would anyone drop dogs that got the birds when there are 20 or less entries. Heck, I've seen it happen when there were only 10 or 12!

It is my opinion that the Derby is the most likely stake for a new-comer to enter (although the qualifying is getting a lot of action from the hunt testers these days). As a result, I try to let as many dogs continue to play as possible and still get done in the time allotted. I think the new or inexperienced guy trying to train his own dog is/can be greatly encouraged by a green ribbon at the end. The $2.00 ribbon costs the club little, costs the judges a little extra time, but could create another lifelong supporter of the sport.

What do you guys/gals who judge FTs think?


----------



## John Gassner (Sep 11, 2003)

Awwww Vicki you old softie (I mean young softie)! Actually I agree totally. But what is juding?

John


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Vicki Worthington said:


> As a FT judge, do you drop dogs that don't eliminate themselves in the Derby (by eliminating themselves, I mean switch, return/hunt and old fall, fail to deliver to hand, etc--the elimination faults in the standard)?
> 
> I understand that dogs get dropped in derbies that have large entries--30+, but why would anyone drop dogs that got the birds when there are 20 or less entries. Heck, I've seen it happen when there were only 10 or 12!


A lot of clubs charge the same for the Minor Stakes as they do for the AA , then try to jamb the Derby into a half day on Sunday with the Open Judges.

I'm for the Minor Stakes having their own Judges, and if the entries are big enough , each should have it's own panel

john


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

The practice of "carrying dogs" or "calling all dogs back" that were not picked-up to the second series was common practice when the ratio of handlers:dogs in all stakes was higher for the very reasons Vicki mentions.
At trials where there is a high ratio and time permits this is still done. The key word being TIME.
IMHO most Derby judges try to generous with callbacks but when the completion of the first and second series of a Derby is delayed because 1-2 pros have every third or fourth dog in the Open entry in addition to their 1-2 Derby dog everyone suffers.

Tim


----------



## Bob Gutermuth (Aug 8, 2004)

Vicki, you told me basically the same thing when I judged my first derby with you back in 95 and I think it is still solid advice.


----------



## Bill Watson (Jul 13, 2005)

If she hasn't changed her mind since 1995, I don't guess she is! Vickie, you're not my wife's sister are you? She seems to be of the same temperament> Bill
________
Act4sex


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

Vicki Worthington said:


> I understand that dogs get dropped in derbies that have large entries--30+, but why would anyone drop dogs that got the birds when there are 20 or less entries. Heck, I've seen it happen when there were only 10 or 12!
> 
> What do you guys/gals who judge FTs think?


Everyone gets to play as long as they get the chickens & commit no offenses that require dropping. 30 dogs is not that bad - I've seen it done in an over 40 Derby. 



Tim Carrion said:


> IMHO most Derby judges try to generous with callbacks but when the completion of the first and second series of a Derby is delayed because 1-2 pros have every third or fourth dog in the Open entry in addition to their 1-2 Derby dog everyone suffers.
> 
> Tim


I remind those individuals that they entered the dog, they have a duty to be on time............. Everyone pays the same entry fee, so everyone gets treated the same. To think it is OK to drop someones dog because there is no time, while cooling your heels waiting for some prima donna to show is BS. & that's how it is - it works if they know you mean what you say.


----------



## Juli H (Aug 27, 2007)

That is awesome Vicki,

I hope that someday, if I ever become a judge, I will have the same mentality toward young/new handlers and their dogs.

Which brings me to this question....
if not an owner/handler Q,
why not an owner/handler derby?

Juli


----------



## Josh Conrad (Jul 3, 2005)

Judged 3 derby's, haven't dropped a dog yet. All of them has either switched, pick up or handle.


----------



## greg magee (Oct 24, 2007)

I do have one expectatation, they have to get their feet wet on the water test.


----------



## Jason E. (Sep 9, 2004)

If u pick up the chickens i dont drop u .


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

When I judge a minor stake, I am there to find the best dog and to get separation between the top dogs. I will not "water down" tests for the purpose of letting dogs play, but I will carry all dogs for as long as they survive.

I have seen half of a field eliminated for going on the wrong side of a gun in a 15 dog derby, and I've seen dogs with perfect work get a JAM in a 30 dog derby because the tests were too weak and 6 dogs had perfect work. Both are criminal IMO.




SM


----------



## Cindy Read (Nov 13, 2004)

OK, lets carry this a bit further. Compare four dogs in a derby. One hooks a gun on one series but goes right to the bird. (Wind not a factor, cross wind blowing scent away.) Next series pins both marks. Small hunt on memory bird in third series. Second dog stay on correct side of the gun but hunt fliers in first series, has a big hunt on memory bird in secons series and hunts go bird in last series. Work of dogs in between was a mixed bags of hooked guns, and hunts, large and small. 

Cindy R.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

I think we need a Derby Dog "a" vs Dog "b" 

john


----------



## Cindy Read (Nov 13, 2004)

Dog A is the dog who pinned both birds in the second series.

Dog B is the dog who hunts a birds each series.

Dog c and d are the other.

Sorry, was out running my terriers. I have three adults that are rodent crazy and learned that a bigger hole can produce a bigger critter. Even my two 3 1/2 month old puppies were interested in the hole. 

The bigger hole they found housed a woodchuck. I had to leash all the adults and drag them away from the hole. Have shows coming up and didn't want anyone bit in the face. Wish I could find an area where a fox lives.

Cindy R.


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

IMO, a hooked gun means nothing. A mark is a mark is a mark. The dog that marks best wins. Although it is possible that two dogs will finish 4 series with exactly equal marks, I have never seen it. I've seen close, real close but never exactly equal, so IMO the dog that marks best wins. My criteria would be the size & scope of the dog's hunt(s) with due consideration to style & getting wet on water marks. I might resort to judging lines IF (& only if) two dogs were exactly equal - but again I have never seen two dogs having exactly equal marks over 4 series (I've heard people say it happens but I haven't seen it). 

What I have seen are judges who value lines run over marking, training over ability. I find no criteria in the rules for such views for derby dogs. And BTW, even in AA stakes I judge marking much the same.


----------



## Andy Carlson (Jan 3, 2003)

I have only judged one derby ( I will be judging another next month) but I am a firm believer in letting them play until they eliminate themselves. The derby that I judged had small entries, less than 15, but with a good set up you will get answers.

Andy


----------



## Brandoned (Aug 20, 2004)

Andy Carlson said:


> I have only judged one derby ( I will be judging another next month) but I am a firm believer in letting them play until they eliminate themselves. The derby that I judged had small entries, less than 15, but with a good set up you will get answers.
> 
> Andy


I sure hope that you were judging with a strong co-judge??


----------



## Andy Carlson (Jan 3, 2003)

Brandoned said:


> I sure hope that you were judging with a strong co-judge??


I was. Why do you ask?

Andy


----------



## Brandoned (Aug 20, 2004)

Andy Carlson said:


> I was. Why do you ask?
> 
> Andy


Just a scary thought!


----------



## Jerry and Freya (Sep 13, 2008)

No, I think Andy's thought was a good one.
Jerry


----------



## Andy Carlson (Jan 3, 2003)

Brandoned said:


> Just a scary thought!


You better keep that to yourself!!;-);-)

Andy


----------



## Paul Rainbolt (Sep 8, 2003)

greg magee said:


> I do have one expectatation, they have to get their feet wet on the water test.


If a pup runs around the water and puts his nose on the bird would you drop it? and why?


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Tulsa Slim said:


> If a pup runs around the water and puts his nose on the bird would you drop it? and why?


Moderate faults #3 and #10 speak to this, especially #10 which allows no concern for the dog's ability to mark. Do it once in a Derby, it's duly noted; do it twice, it's goodbye if you go by the rules....unless the repeat of a moderate fault doesn't become a MAJOR fault in someone's eyes....

NOTE: if the only water I have to work with is cheaty (sun or wind conditions don't allow for improvement of the running line or placement of the marks), then I judge accordingly. That situation is NOT the fault of the dog.

kg


----------



## Jim Pickering (Sep 17, 2004)

Jason E. said:


> If u pick up the chickens i dont drop u .


Yea, but you put the chickens where most dogs cannot find them.


----------



## Guest (Apr 13, 2009)

Brandoned said:


> Just a scary thought!


Way to encourage people to start judging. Nice work.


----------



## Jim Pickering (Sep 17, 2004)

Vicki Worthington said:


> As a FT judge, do you drop dogs that don't eliminate themselves in the Derby (by eliminating themselves, I mean switch, return/hunt and old fall, fail to deliver to hand, etc--the elimination faults in the standard)?
> 
> I understand that dogs get dropped in derbies that have large entries--30+, but why would anyone drop dogs that got the birds when there are 20 or less entries. Heck, I've seen it happen when there were only 10 or 12!
> 
> What do you guys/gals who judge FTs think?


For the sake of debate, your question prompts another question. Why should a 12 dog derby be judged differently from a 30 dog derby? Both are field trials and as such should be judges the same. Granted the purpose of any stake at any licensed or member field trial is to determine the relative merits of the dogs entered in a given stake on a given weekend. Should a small entry and weak field dictate that judges put up patty cake tests and carry all the dogs that find the birds? I am not so sure that is good for the game, but I will resist climbing up on my soap box for the moment.


----------



## Richard Halstead (Apr 20, 2005)

I have judged more minor stakes than all-age stakes. The philosophy of the derby changes from I hope I am back to I hope I am not dropped, which to me I think the derby dogs that find the birds (within reason) are back. The first series is, depending on grounds available, are wide open with the marks thrown outside the test. The second series is generally a tighter double thrown as converging marks , or in and in. I don't treat the dog harshly if it hooks a gun. Third series more open water marks. The fourth series I like water marks with birds in the water if possible. For the fourth series I like to use boat birds or shorter marks wher to get the memory bird the dog swims over the area where the dog just retrieved abird testind if the dog has the drive and mark to swim past where it just found a bird. This is where many derbies are won by not falling into an old mark.


----------



## Brandoned (Aug 20, 2004)

Melanie Foster said:


> Way to encourage people to start judging. Nice work.


Ah......... That was kind of an inside joke!!


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

> Why should a 12 dog derby be judged differently from a 30 dog derby?


Is there a standard for Derby work that should be reflected in the testing, where placements should be withheld if it cannot be met by the field ?....or as the "Book" says the relative merits of the field present is what we are looking for ?

Inquiring minds regards

john


----------



## greg magee (Oct 24, 2007)

Tulsa Slim said:


> If a pup runs around the water and puts his nose on the bird would you drop it? and why?



I don't have any issues with dropping a dog that doesn't get wet. So if your dog has a penchant for running around water you would be best served by saving your entry fee and not running under me. As far as the why part of your question, I'm not interested in watching a third land series when we are at the water part of our programming.

I wanted to add one statement. Should the situation be reversed and it was my dog that was under judgement and avoided the water. I would understand and agree that my dog was not worthy of taking up anymore of the judges valuable time and go home and train instead of complain.


----------



## Vicki Worthington (Jul 9, 2004)

Jim Pickering wrote....



> Should a small entry and weak field dictate that judges put up patty cake tests and carry all the dogs that find the birds?


I don't believe there is any "standard" that determines how difficult or simple any test should be--including the all-age. The justification for any test that seems to outpace the field has always been, "It is an [Open, Amateur, Qualfying, Derby] and [championship, national qualifications, ability to run Limiteds/Specials, or derby points] are being given out." In field trials, everything has always been relevant to the performances exhibited by the field. If you have a weak field, why put up a test that fails everyone. You're still only going to have 1 winner and 3 other placements, RJ, and, hopefully, some JAMs. Poor or below-average work won't likely place, but finishing is another issue. Every day I read about people complaining about the ever-increasing difficulty of the all-age stakes. Yet, these same people, when they judge, want to chop the numbers as quickly as possible, often not even awarding 4 placements!

I believe that cheating has its own drawbacks, but is not necessarily an elimination offence in the derby. If the dog "cheated with a purpose" and knew exactly where the birds were, isn't this an example of good marking? Since the derby is to be focused on marking--the rule book/standard actually goes so far as to say that marking is *all* important, then the trained attributes of not cheating, taking a line, seeking a small strip of cover enroute to the bird, etc. are of lesser importance in the derby. At the end of the day, the same dogs will likely win/place, and the dogs that cheated, avoided cover, failed to hold a line, etc. will be less polished than those dogs that did it all correctly. However, does that mean that those dogs who didn't place should not even finish? I think not.

I'm not advocating making tests easier, just not dropping dogs for less than mandatory elimination faults whenever possible, time and other factors considered.


----------



## John Gassner (Sep 11, 2003)

Well said Vicki!

I think the only criteria for dropping a Derby dog for not getting its feet wet, is when the bird is thrown in the water (assuming the dog doesn't use a boat to get there).;-)


John


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

Right or wrong the first thing judges (especially in minor stakes) need to know is how to tell time. You have less than a 1.5 days to judge whatever the entry of that stake happens to be.
The judging of Derby dogs as to failure, good, better,best remains the same whether there are 10 or 40 dogs. Test difficulty is determined by the quality of dogs and callbacks by those that outright fail and TIME.
Trial size and mechanics are a big part of minor stakes. There are times when you just cann't take every dog to water. So decisions are made. The rules say to be generous with callbacks and to carry any dog that "could place". 
So given the rules, time and quality of dogs you try your best and give out as many greens as you can.

Tim


----------



## Cindy Read (Nov 13, 2004)

I recall an incident where a pro was running a dog going into the water series at a derby. The dog was going to bail early and the pro elected to handle. The judge asked the pro why and the reply was I don't want a pattern to establish. The judges replied, your dog was in first place. Needless to say the owner heard the response from the judges and was quite upset. 

Vicky, excellent post. Wish I could have run under you when I had my derby dog.

Cindy R.


----------



## Vicki Worthington (Jul 9, 2004)

Tim,

I agree, Time Management, is essential to any good stake--not just the Derby. People do need to be able to tell time. Unfortunately, they only seem to be cognizant of their watch when it's AFTER some oversize test is set that takes waaaaaaaaaay too long to complete to be fair to the entire field! Good tests can be crafted from shorter marks both on land and water. I get really bored seeing dogs do the backstroke across a large expanse of water for each mark. Courage testing--maybe--if it were just a single long mark with exceptional factors, flanked by a shorter, faster retrieve(s). 

Unfortunately, many people sign up to judge a minor with the idea they will run another stake--allowing only a single day to judge the one they are officiating. For the record, I don't have a problem with entering *provided* they are willing to scratch if the stake they are judging runs over & they don't whack dogs just to get done on time to run.

Insofar as someone mentioned an O/H Derby, I don't think there is any express provision against that in the rules. In fact, Ed A, please correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't NTRC hold an O/H Derby? I seem to recall judging one for you a few years back?????

I know that my preferences won't change anyone with their own ideas already set. I only ask that you consider being more lenient in callbacks in the Derby (and maybe the Qualifying). You just never know when that $2.00 ribbon will create another crazy person like us! For Jason, who said he liked to watch a well-trained dog....so do I. I just don't think that the Derby is the place to exclusively demand trained attributes.

For those who think "behind the gun" is a serious transgression, please consider that the penalty for behind the gun *should* be that the dog can't wind the bird from there, or if he does he should have to be really far out of the area. The penalty is the hunt, not elimination.

For those who think cheating the water is an elimination fault, please consider setting a mark that cheating will put the dog in a position to not find the bird. This will remove the confusion about cheating (trained skill) vs. marking (natural skill).

Just like in any stake, the penalty for not going to the bird should be great difficulty in finding, or not finding the bird at all! The factors just get more important as the dogs move up the ladder into more advanced stakes.


----------



## Jason E. (Sep 9, 2004)

When i say a well trained dog i dont mean two down the shore. I just love watching the dogs and some are just so much well trained than others and thats where its hard to set a standard when judging.


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

Vicki Worthington said:


> ...For those who think cheating the water is an elimination fault, please consider setting a mark that cheating will put the dog in a position to not find the bird. This will remove the confusion about cheating (trained skill) vs. marking (natural skill).
> 
> Just like in any stake, the penalty for not going to the bird should be great difficulty in finding, or not finding the bird at all! The factors just get more important as the dogs move up the ladder into more advanced stakes.


While I previously indicated derby dogs should get wet on a water set-up IMO, I did not indicate it was an elimination fault (while others may think it is). I do believe support can be found within the rules for cheating water as a moderate fault. Since cheating water is usually not an issue until the 3rd series in most derbies, it would not cause me to eliminate a dog provided the dog went directly to the bird or AOF. With a well-place bird a cheat might well cause a cheating dog not to find a bird (as Vicki indicated) & thereby be eliminated for poor marking. If the cheating dog was called back & cheating occurred again in the 4th series, I believe it would give the judges an additional consideration when determining final placements.

I would also add that derby judges could try to avoid cheaty set-ups altogether so as to minimize the judgement of trained skills (as relates to lines run) while attempting to focus more strickly on judging natural marking skills as a primary criteria. This may be one and the same as a "well-place bird" but might also be an honest consideration by judges to avoid undermining training stds and natural tendancies of young dogs.


----------



## Mitch Patterson (Feb 20, 2003)

Just one old guys opinion, and no offense intended:

I think we put too much "people thought" into how dogs view the game...

Dogs don’t come out of the womb looking for gunners, they look for birds, sort of inherent. YOU (we) teach them to look for gunners. Dogs don’t come out of the womb looking to jump in the water if land is faster; you teach them and instill those trained responses. You teach them to overcome factors that may cause failure (wind, cover, water, points of land in water, scent, dumb handling errors, etc) 

Isn’t the primary idea of testing Derby dogs to see if they can mark??? Isn’t that of primary/paramount importance? Judges place factors in front of dogs and judge their response. If they overcome the factors that you lay out and show a mark without a hunt they’ve won your test. 

Hook a gun, or four, our eight – so what - it’s about the marking abilities of a Derby dog. Did they HUNT the bird and where, not how they got there. Area of the fall...

Setup water marks and the dog cheats but still stabs the bird - - - good dog, bad judge…

Two down the shore for a Derby dog??? Not a marking test, it’s a scenario to judge the TRAINED response of a dog, and you're probably not looking for the marking, which is of paramount importance. Most judges that setup two down the shore have it in their minds to toss the dogs that fail to do what THEY want them to do (swim past the gunners to the fall area) and ignore the actual mark.

Worried that all the dogs will do the same and you’ll have to judge a dog hooked a gun? Setup harder marks.

Judge what you see, not what you think the dog is thinking or what you think the dog has read or should know.

I agree with Vicki


----------



## Sue Kiefer (Mar 4, 2006)

Yahoo!!!!!!!!:BIG:
Thanks for your "Ol Fart Wisdom" Mitch!!
Sue


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

Mitch Patterson said:


> Just one old guys opinion, and no offense intended:
> 
> I think we put too much "people thought" into how dogs view the game...
> 
> ...


The above should be in a derby judge's affirmation form that they have to sign in agreement prior to judging a derby! WOOT! Good one Mitch!

SM


----------



## Vicki Worthington (Jul 9, 2004)

Good post, Mitch.

It's good to know that we think alike about this.

I have, and I know that you have, been victims of judges who decided they knew what the dog was thinking. Things like wind saves (from within the distinct area of the fall, or trailed to the mark (Isn't a dog supposed to use his nose & we expect them to distinguish between drag-back and fresh/"real" scent of the fall?). Why can't people just judge what they see and quit trying to interpret how the dog reasoned/hunted/found the mark?

My point is, for the Derby, the only trained attributes that a derby dog is required to possess is to be steady and deliver to hand. Elimination on trained attributes--cheating water, avoiding hazards, poor lines, etc.--is not what the derby is about. It is about judging *marking ability, only*. Do you penalize the dog that ran around the water and went straight to the bird more than a dog that takes a straight line through the water, past the bird, and hunts deep/left/right significantly before finally retrieving the bird? Taking the line and negotiating the hazards are trained attributes. Finding the bird is the marking part of the test.

Obviously in the end, the dog that takes all the good lines, negotiates all the hazards, *AND FINDS THE BIRDS WITHOUT PROTRACTED HUNTS* will be the winners and placements. That's a given, but the dogs that *FIND THE BIRDS WITH MINOR/MODERATE FAULTS* should not be eliminated.

The tests can be as hard as you like, but the callbacks should reflect marking ability, not trained abilities per se.


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

greg magee said:


> I don't have any issues with dropping a dog that doesn't get wet. So if your dog has a penchant for running around water you would be best served by saving your entry fee and not running under me. As far as the why part of your question, I'm not interested in watching a third land series when we are at the water part of our programming.
> 
> I wanted to add one statement. Should the situation be reversed and it was my dog that was under judgement and avoided the water. I would understand and agree that my dog was not worthy of taking up anymore of the judges valuable time and go home and train instead of complain.


I find it very interesting that your first response to this was that the dog needed to get their feet wet. I would have to ask why you would set up a test in a DERBY where that would be something to worry about at all?


----------



## Mark Sehon (Feb 10, 2003)

The dog with least amount of lead on the paper, after 4 series, usually will win one of my derby's.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

> It is about judging marking ability, only.


Aren't the Judges suppose to judge the Derby dog for all the NATURAL abilities and to penalize to at least some degree (less than a Qualifying dog) for faults ?

I say that they are, and that the entire Supp. Part 2 Natural Abilities 1 thru 8 as they pertain to the dogs ability to mark, are included in the judging of  Derby Dogs ability to do so.

Also of the three lists of faults, of those that are not specifically addressing handling.. which do not apply to a Derby Dog while doing it's Marks ? 

A rhetorical question, in that with the noted exceptions, they all do.

We now come to the getting their feet wet as it pertains to the "Failure to enter rough cover, water, ice, or mud" a test of the natural ability courage................... I'm of the opinion that if it is *not a cheating issue *but rather a rough cover issue, the dog should be penalizes to the extent of the infraction.Its kinda like pornography, you know it when you see it.

john


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

john fallon said:


> Its kinda like pornography, you know it when you see it.
> 
> john


I thought you were going to say something about getting wet again.


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Vicki Worthington said:


> My point is, for the Derby, the only trained attributes that a derby dog is required to possess is to be steady and deliver to hand. Elimination on trained attributes--cheating water, avoiding hazards, poor lines, etc.--is not what the derby is about. It is about judging *marking ability, only*. *Do you penalize the dog that ran around the water and went straight to the bird more than a dog that takes a straight line through the water, past the bird, and hunts deep/left/right significantly before finally retrieving the bird?* Taking the line and negotiating the hazards are trained attributes. Finding the bird is the marking part of the test.


A dog that runs the bank and a dog that hunts out of the area have both committed a moderate fault. A dog that AVOIDS water (not on a test that has significant shoreline in it, but one where the dog is looking for any way possible to avoid getting in the water) lacks in courage, which CANNOT be trained. A controlled break is a moderate fault in the Derby; will a dog with two controlled breaks in the first two series get called back to the third? Will a dog with the second controlled break in the last series get a jam? I've never seen it happen, but I wonder what folks would do...



> Obviously in the end, the dog that takes all the good lines, negotiates all the hazards, *AND FINDS THE BIRDS WITHOUT PROTRACTED HUNTS* will be the winners and placements. That's a given, but the dogs that *FIND THE BIRDS WITH MINOR/MODERATE FAULTS* should not be eliminated.


Again...minor faults aren't the issue, although a significant accumulation can result in elimination (probably not in a Derby)...BUT....an accumulation of MODERATE faults has got to seriously considered when it comes time for callbacks. I honestly don't know many judges who WANT to eliminate dogs (not anymore, anyway....), but how do you justify jamming a dog in the Derby that avoided the water twice, had a controlled break, whined on the line, and popped on a mark?



> The tests can be as hard as you like, but the callbacks should reflect marking ability, not trained abilities per se.


In the scenario I just put out, the only truly "trained" ability that was at fault was steadiness; *a* controlled break is allowed...but how do we justify calling back water avoidance, noise, and popping, which are all moderate faults, much less MULTIPLES of those faults? If they occur singularly, no problem....it's the ACCUMULATION that gives me pause.

Judging is NOT easy, ESPECIALLY in the Derby...the single hardest stake to judge, IMHO. Compassion has to be dealt out while at the same time expecting compliance. Mitch said it as well as it can be said. The biggest problem I see is when judges set up tests with ZERO idea of what to expect the dogs to do...then they find themselves in a hole and panic....and then take it out on the dogs. You can't have too many 8 point (major or minor) judges in the Derby! ;-)

JMHO, as always....

kg


----------



## Vicki Worthington (Jul 9, 2004)

> A dog that AVOIDS water (not on a test that has significant shoreline in it, but one where the dog is looking for any way possible to avoid getting in the water) lacks in courage,


If the dog finds the bird quickly and efficiently, how do you know that the dog LACKED COURAGE vs. *just took the swiftest route to the bird* (perhaps great desire, but lack of training.). 

My only point in all this, is to give the dog the benefit of the doubt on natural vs. trained ability. Since the dog can't really tell us if it is punky around or afraid of the water, we can't really know if the dog lacks "courage" -- especially if it gets there faster by land. 

The dogs that commit these minor or moderate faults will not likely place. The will always be the dogs that have that wonderful combination of natural talent plus training. There will also be those dogs that have training to a greater extent of natural abilities (and sometimes its hard to tell the difference). There is no "qualification" that gets met by giving a jam in the derby to any dog who picks up all the birds. They don't get qualified to run anything or get points toward anything, so what difference does it make to give vs. not give a jam. Essentially you are giving away nothing but encouragement. And, no, it usually doesn't make a lot of difference to a dog run by a professional, but it can make a difference to the owner. More particularly, it makes a HUGE difference to the guy who trains his own dog and wants to check out & maybe become a regular addict to field trials. But...it can make people less frustrated when the jam is meaningless except to the recipient. Perhaps it will provide the motivation to train harder, participate longer, seek additional knowledge for training better, etc.

I'm sure that anyone can find many reasons to justify dropping dogs. There are many passages in the rule book/standard that can be interpreted as sound rationale for dropping dogs. I just believe that IN THE MINOR STAKES we should be looking for reasons to keep dogs, not drop them. Everyone gets to get their head kicked in soon enough in the all-age competitions!


----------



## kip (Apr 13, 2004)

i have ran under some of you that have posted on this thread. my coment to you is you should practice what you preach! im always amazed at what i can read on here that has no relation to what actually happens in the real world of field trials.


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

kip said:


> i have ran under some of you that have posted on this thread. my coment to you is you should practice what you preach! im always amazed at what i can read on here that has no relation to what actually happens in the real world of field trials.


Sorry about that. Maybe next time you will remember to bring me more chicken salad.

SM


----------



## Chad Baker (Feb 5, 2003)

Shayne you really wanted tuna not chicken!!!!


----------



## Mark Sehon (Feb 10, 2003)

Shayne, you told me "bottels of Patron".


----------



## greg magee (Oct 24, 2007)

achiro said:


> I find it very interesting that your first response to this was that the dog needed to get their feet wet. I would have to ask why you would set up a test in a DERBY where that would be something to worry about at all?


Who said I was worried, I just judge the results.
When you have more experience Russ, you'll notice that given the opportunity, no matter how straight forward your test is. There is going to be dogs that will be inclined to stay dry.


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

greg magee said:


> Who said I was worried, I just judge the results.
> When you have more experience Russ, you'll notice that given the opportunity, no matter how straight forward your test is. There is going to be dogs that will be inclined to stay dry.


No **** sherlock. BUT IMHDAO unless there are no options, you shouldn't be setting up a DERBY test that rewards that inclination with a succesful retrieve at the end. If you are setting up cheaty tests that test training instead of marking in the DERBY then maybe it's not me that needs more experience.


----------



## greg magee (Oct 24, 2007)

achiro said:


> No **** sherlock. BUT IMHDAO unless there are no options, you shouldn't be setting up a DERBY test that rewards that inclination with a succesful retrieve at the end. If you are setting up cheaty tests that test training instead of marking in the DERBY then maybe it's not me that needs more experience.



I feel that your making an assumption Russ based on limited knowledge and experience. I will challenge you with this. If you can find any handler that has been under my judgement who will attest to the fact that I don't give every dog the benifit of the doubt and put up straight forward test I will genuflect before King Russell and beg for humble forgiveness.


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

greg magee said:


> I feel that your making an assumption Russ based on limited knowledge and experience. I will challenge you with this. If you can find any handler that has been under my judgement who will attest to the fact that I don't give every dog the benifit of the doubt and put up straight forward test I will genuflect before King Russell and beg for humble forgiveness.


My assumption is that you said:


greg magee said:


> I do have one expectatation, they have to get their feet wet on the water test.


and that if that is your ONE expectation then I have to question your intentions when setting up a Derby. I don't give a crap who's run under you or how well you've judged, that has no bearing on what you said. If you would like to clarify your original statement then feel free but I am not the only one that took from it that you would be willing to set up a test in which cheating was an option. 
As far as my experience, if 20 years isn't enough for you then I am sorry.


----------



## greg magee (Oct 24, 2007)

achiro said:


> My assumption is that you said:
> 
> and that if that is your ONE expectation then I have to question your intentions when setting up a Derby. I don't give a crap who's run under you or how well you've judged, that has no bearing on what you said. If you would like to clarify your original statement then feel free but I am not the only one that took from it that you would be willing to set up a test in which cheating was an option.
> As far as my experience, if 20 years isn't enough for you then I am sorry.



No need to clarify my original statement. If it's a straight forward test and they don't get wet. I'm really not interested in looking at them again. Simple as that. Lets not forget that it is a water test. If somebody else wants to reward that kind of behavior I would suggest you run under them and not me.


----------



## Jeffrey Bandel (Nov 24, 2003)

Originally Posted by greg magee 
I feel that your making an assumption Russ based on limited knowledge and experience. I will challenge you with this. If you can find any handler that has been under my judgement who will attest to the fact that I don't give every dog the benifit of the doubt and put up straight forward test I will genuflect before King Russell and beg for humble forgiveness.

I ran under you Greg and I can attest to the fact that you did not give the dogs the benefit of the doubt. The test required them to be "tall" enough to see over a bunch of high grass right at the line. You may remember chastising Jeff Telander about it on this site.


----------



## brlcon1 (Apr 24, 2006)

Good thread ! Before I ran my first derby , I asked a few very good ameater trainers , how do you know when you're ready to run a derby ?They both said the same thing; when you can reliaby do 2 down the shore , and your dog is decheated ! Very wise advice that I think still works .

Running derbies is one thing , judging them is tough ! Let the water do its job , don't need to set up super cheaty marks to find out what dogs are better markers .

There is a lot of wise dog people who posted on this thread ,KG,Mitch,Vicki, John Fallon, Grandaddy,Richard ,Tim and others.Read and listen and learn from what they say.
I know I will !


----------



## Brett M (Apr 14, 2009)

I'm finding this topic very interesting, yet informative with the different judging aspects. Yet, I have to also agree a Derby is a marking test, keep it as such.

I have a question since there are many judges on here and saw a reference made to O/H in a Derby.

Politics Question.... If a dog was run under myself being a O/H versus a Pro... with the my dog running equally as well as the Pro's, if not better. Would a higher placement be given to the Pro, for the mere fact that he/she is a Pro?

Also, would there be any discrimination or partial to age, sex, long time or known player vs newcomer?

Brett


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

As usual, these good threads morph into something else. The sport is full of those who sing one tune but, in actual practice do something entirely different. I believe it more a function of their knowledge than their desire. Many who profess to like stylish dogs own & run dogs that are exactly the opposite. They neither know how to set tests that reward good dogs with style, nor train a stylish dog, than they would be capable of recognizing style if they saw it. 



K G said:


> Judging is NOT easy, ESPECIALLY in the Derby...the single hardest stake to judge, IMHO. You can't have too many 8 point (major or minor) judges in the Derby! ;-)
> 
> JMHO, as always....
> 
> kg


I don't disagree with what your post said - other than, I do not believe you can have too much experience with young dogs when choosing judges for the Derby. Especially in their training. I see it every week when I post the competitive records of those asked to judge someone else's efforts with their dog.



Vicki Worthington said:


> My only point in all this, is to give the dog the benefit of the doubt on natural vs. trained ability. Since the dog can't really tell us if it is punky around or afraid of the water, we can't really know if the dog lacks "courage" -- especially if it gets there faster by land.
> 
> I'm sure that anyone can find many reasons to justify dropping dogs. There are many passages in the rule book/standard that can be interpreted as sound rationale for dropping dogs. I just believe that IN THE MINOR STAKES we should be looking for reasons to keep dogs, not drop them. Everyone gets to get their head kicked in soon enough in the all-age competitions!


The function of a Derby judge is to test dogs. Usually, the judges have 8 different marks they can place in a trial in 4 different combinations. As long as there are no concepts repeated, there will generally be necessary separation for placements. Unless your judging partner is someone from another planet, which also enters into the equation. 

When judging a Derby look at the ages of the entries. As Derby dogs age they have generally seen more concepts so are more comfortable with whatever they see. Tests get set accordingly with room for modification during the trial. Discussions of modifications need to be done on setup day.

At no time in the Derby should water, cover, etc be set in a manner that encourages avoidance without that being obviously the case. You are not judging what the dog is thinking, just their actions on the test placed in front of them.


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

*Great Post Marvin * the only thing I could possibly add is that some novice judges are unable to visualize a test on unfamiliar grounds and their tests show it, or they go to the other extreme and force a concept that they may have seen elsewhere and try and make it fit on grounds unsuitable for that particular type of test


----------



## Brad Overstreet (Feb 20, 2008)

Well thanks for this thread. For someone who has their first derby in 10 days I am feeling much better about it. After reading this thread I have figured out one thing. Bring your dog to the line. Let the fun begin and take what you get. Whatever I have not trained for will show up regardless. So "PLAY BALL"

I will post up in 11 days and let you all know how it goes.

Cheers,
Brad


----------



## greg magee (Oct 24, 2007)

Jeffrey Bandel said:


> Originally Posted by greg magee
> I feel that your making an assumption Russ based on limited knowledge and experience. I will challenge you with this. If you can find any handler that has been under my judgement who will attest to the fact that I don't give every dog the benifit of the doubt and put up straight forward test I will genuflect before King Russell and beg for humble forgiveness.
> 
> I ran under you Greg and I can attest to the fact that you did not give the dogs the benefit of the doubt. The test required them to be "tall" enough to see over a bunch of high grass right at the line. You may remember chastising Jeff Telander about it on this site.


If I recall Jeff's dog hammered the marks in question and ended up with a placement. Pretty hard for dogs to step on marks they didn't see. Next!


----------



## jeff t. (Jul 24, 2003)

greg magee said:


> If I recall Jeff's dog hammered the marks in question and ended up with a placement. Pretty hard for dogs to step on marks they didn't see. Next!


Since my name has been brought up specifically in this thread, I feel compelled to respond. This will be my only post on the subject.

Regarding the setup in question:
It is correct that Sinner did a nice job. It is also correct that it is hard for dogs to step on marks they don't see. ​However, Sinner did not see the short bird. She had the advantage of running nearly last and followed the scent trail to the gun stand and found the bird by using her nose.​I continue to maintain that there there are only two absolutes when evaluating the acceptability of a marking setup.
- It must be safe​- All dogs (regardless of height or time of day they run) must be able to see the gun stations and the birds​Other than those two considerations, in an all age test anything goes IMO.

Unfortunately, too often the judges fail to put their eyes down at the level of the dog when evaluating the visibility of the marking setup.


----------



## Jim Pickering (Sep 17, 2004)

Vicki, I thank you for starting this thread and thanks to all who have posted. Any discussion on judging is good and especially when the subject is derby stakes. I certainly do not agree with everyone on this subject, but respect your right to have a different opinion. So I have no intent to offend anyone with my opinions.

I have started to add my 2 cents worth several times but deleted it when it got to be 5 or 10 cents long, but maybe I can break it up into 2 cent installments. 

I only wish that Vicki, Mitch and a couple others had judged about 15 of the derby stake we ran last year. The Willie boy would have way over 100 derby points.

First 2 cent installment: Scenario and Question

I had the impression at the beginning of this thread that it was about not dropping derby dogs for minor infractions and/or cheating, but it seemed to have morphed into not penalizing dogs at all for cheating and other infractions of the rules. So to be certain that I understand that thinking I would like to describe a scenario and ask those who do not penalize cheating to reply. Let’s say you are judging and set up a single water mark 150 yards long. In order not to encourage cheating you position the mat at the near edge of the water, but there is a 100 yard swim with a “down the shore” exit and the bird another 50 yards beyond the water. 

On release Dog A takes leaps into the water and takes an almost straight line to the mark and retrieves it with no hunt. Dog B’s first step is 90 degrees off line to avoid the water. This dog runs around the pond covering 300 yards in getting to the bird but retrieves it with no hunt. Are you folks really saying that you think the work of these two dogs is equal? If not, where do you draw the line?

Let’s spice it up a bit and say that dog A again takes a fairly straight line, missed the bird a few feet up wind and has a small hunt in the AOF before coming up with the bird. Again dog B avoids the water, disturbs a lot of ground unnecessarily but has no hunt. Did dog B have the better work?

End first Installment.


----------



## Jim Pickering (Sep 17, 2004)

Second 2 cent installment: Interpretation of the rules

Another thread has appeared where I can post this installment so I will skip it here.

Third 2 cent installment: Are ribbons to encourage new folks a good thing?


Vicki Worthington said:


> I think the new or inexperienced guy trying to train his own dog is/can be greatly encouraged by a green ribbon at the end. The $2.00 ribbon costs the club little, costs the judges a little extra time, but could create another lifelong supporter of the sport.


For the record when judging derby stakes I have not problem carrying dogs to the extent that time will allow. I have judged 4 derby stakes this year (Because I begged off last year to run my own derby dog.) and to the best of my recollection I agreed with my co-judge to drop just one dog. In that case my co-judge wanted the drop the dog after the second test given the dog had hunted four marks and had a lengthy pop but I called the dog back for two more marks then agreed to drop the dog when the work did not improve. Likewise I have no problem dropping dogs with terrible work or if time is an issue, and if I have any influence time will allow for a BIG water test with which to test courage and perseverance.

However, when we add carrying as many dogs as time will allow to allowing dogs to demonstrate a total lack of abilities acquired through training by cheating I have to question if we are actually doing the person or the dog any favors. I certainly doubt that this will encourage new folks to staying the game long term.

I can tell you from personal experience and I suspect most good pros and amateur trainers will concur that there are few way to ruin a dog faster than to take it to a few derby stakes and let it cheat. You may get by letting the dog cheat at in one derby stake, maybe two, but it will take very few trials allowing the dog to cheat before you have a trial wise dog that is toast as a trial dog. If some of you have had a different experience in training and handling your derby dogs let’s here about it.

Sorry folks but I think the mentality of pay the entry and get a ribbon is better suited for other venues.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

> Let’s spice it up a bit and say that dog A again takes a fairly straight line, missed the bird a few feet up wind and has a small hunt in the AOF before coming up with the bird. Again dog B avoids the water, disturbs a lot of ground unnecessarily but has no hunt. Did dog B have the better work?


Even if dog "B" entered the water and swam on a fairly straight line. the Book tells us not to "appreciably" out score "A"'s work............so given the work of "B" was so deficient in other areas... NO dog "B" did not have better work on that Mark, but we must keep in mind that we must judge the egregiousness of the deficiencies on their own merit, when deciding the amount of penalty to assess for the faults.

john


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Marvin S said:


> I don't disagree with what your post said - other than, I do not believe you can have too much experience with young dogs when choosing judges for the Derby. Especially in their training. I see it every week when I post the competitive records of those asked to judge someone else's efforts with their dog.


At the risk of taking this discussion to a level seen far too many times before on this site, someone having a "competitive record" with a dog does NOT necessarily mean they are (or would be) a competent judge in that stake.

kg


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

john fallon said:


> Even if dog "B" entered the water and swam on a fairly straight line. the Book tells us not to "appreciably" out score "A"'s work............so given the work of "B" was so deficient in other areas... NO dog "B" did not have better work on that Mark, but we must keep in mind that we must judge the egregiousness of the deficiencies on their own merit, when deciding the amount of penalty to assess for the faults.
> 
> john


What Book?



K G said:


> At the risk of taking this discussion to a level seen far too many times before on this site, someone having a "competitive record" with a dog does NOT necessarily mean they are (or would be) a competent judge in that stake.
> 
> kg


The word used was "dogs", meaning plural.


----------



## Vicki Worthington (Jul 9, 2004)

> At the risk of taking this discussion to a level seen far too many times before on this site, someone having a "competitive record" with a dog does NOT necessarily mean they are (or would be) a competent judge in that stake.


Is that directed at me?


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

> What Book?


What Book? 

Field Trial Rules and Standard Procedures for Retrievers of course.

I'm surprised that one such as yourself would not have recognized this and had to ask.:razz: 
Look in the Supp under Natural Abilities where it says "Ability to mark does not necessarily imply pinpointing........."

john


----------



## Vicki Worthington (Jul 9, 2004)

We are getting some really stirring discussion here (not that it hasn't been done before). I don't think there is any "right" or "wrong" answer, but there are differences of interpretation.


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Marvin S said:


> The word used was "dogs", meaning plural.


You also said "I see it every week when I post the competitive records of those asked to judge someone else's efforts with their *dog*."

But in deference to you, Marv, let me rephrase: At the risk of taking this discussion to a level seen far too many times before on this site, someone having a "competitive record" with dog*s* does NOT necessarily mean they are (or would be) a competent judge in that stake. 



Vicki Worthington said:


> Is that directed at me?


In no way _whatsoever_.

kg


----------



## Vicki Worthington (Jul 9, 2004)

I have to agree with Keith here...There are lots of folks who are judging--some are even 8-point judges who have NEVER set up a test in training, have never learned the difference between a training test and a field trial test, and have absolutely no idea "why dogs react the way they do". They have well-trained dogs and compete successfully.


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

There are also folks with multiple placements with multiple dogs in multiple stakes that I wouldn't run under if you paid my entry fee and trip expenses....

My point is that just because one appears to be statistically able to handle a dog to a placement in a stake does NOT mean that the person would make a better judge than a person who does NOT have the same level of trial success in that stake.

I'll take someone who is a student of the sport, who has YEARS of experience setting up tests with some of the greatest judges who ever sat in the chair, who has had success setting up tests at all levels (regardless of their success at that level of testing), over someone who simply has experience "placing" a dog in stakes as a handler.

Success as a handler will not necessarily make that person "successful" as a judge regards,

kg


----------



## kip (Apr 13, 2004)

K G said:


> There are also folks with multiple placements with multiple dogs in multiple stakes that I wouldn't run under if you paid my entry fee and trip expenses....
> 
> My point is that just because one appears to be statistically able to handle a dog to a placement in a stake does NOT mean that the person would make a better judge than a person who does NOT have the same level of trial success in that stake.
> 
> ...


not according to marv!


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

kip said:


> not according to marv!


How well I know that, Kippy.... ;-)

kg


----------



## Vicki Worthington (Jul 9, 2004)

Jim, I'll try to answer, from my own perspective, your questions as best I can.

I would NOT drop the dog that ran around the water.

Your dog would be considered to have a better overall performance, but not necessarily a better "mark" since both dogs obviously knew exactly where the bird(s) was/were.

My discussion originated because of the observations I've had for quite awhile that dogs were eliminated from the competition that should, IMO, be allowed to continue to run--not necessarily place.

Be "rewarding" individuals with a finish/JAM that got all the birds, but not in such manner that they would receive a placement, I feel that encouragement is offered to those contestants to continue to work and strive for better performances. Sure, they may ruin a dog for all-age work, but if they get so discouraged that they just give up and quit, what difference will it make. I'd like to think that the finish(s) may help them to seek more training knowledge and do better with the dog for the next trial or even do better with the next dog they get/train.

When I started, my first competitive dog was at the Derby level. I made every mistake you could make as a handler. I handled poorly, let the dog learn all kinds of bad habits too. But guess what...that dog was my first AFC. I buckled down & made the effort to learn how to do things better, correctly...how to have success. If I'd gotten thrown out of every trial because I couldn't place, I might not have continued for the 20+ years that I have.

It is fortunate, but also unfortunate for our expectations, that our training methods (speaking of the sport as a whole) have gotten so advanced, and our dogs have responded to all that we have asked of them, to the point that too many people expect them to be robots & compete as if they are on a remote control. Any deviation from the absolute perfect line or a hunt is considered elimination now. Dogs are not robots; they do not perform like wind-up toys. They make mistakes--some big, which will get them eliminated in all-age, some small which should be judged, not eliminated. The difference is what some consider big and small.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

john fallon said:


> Even if dog "B" entered the water and swam on a fairly straight line. the Book tells us not to "appreciably" out score "A"'s work............so given the work of "B" was so deficient in other areas... NO dog "B" did not have better work on that Mark, but we must keep in mind that we must judge the egregiousness of the deficiencies on their own merit, when deciding the amount of penalty to assess for the faults.
> 
> john


 OK, it's my second day so I'm going to jump in here with my 2-10 cents.

The reality is that to be successful in derbies today your dog does need to be trained to not cheat regardless of whether its right or not. I personally don't like it when a judge sets up a real cheating test, (not Mr. Pikering's scenario where a dog has to go 90 degrees off line to get the bird, but maybe 10 deg with an inviting shore to run around and pick up a bird that has no marking value other than to see which dog is willing to put training before his desire to get the bird the quickest way. It seems this really affects the hard drivers the most.

Lets say you have a very good marking dog with a lot of style and you have nailed all six birds in the first three series, then you come up against a real cheaty test in the fourth. Your dog picks up the flyer clean but starts to cheat on that last bird. A good handler who is thinking about the big picture in his dog's development is forced to pick up here, even if he thought the judges wouldn't penelize him for the cheat, he can't let the habit start to develop of getting trial wise. It would have been much more satisfying to run a test where the dog had to swim and maybe cave into shore and get lost or swim across the pond and have a little up and out to dig out a well placed bird. To me that dog shows, courage and marking ability.

Like I said the reality today is that you will see cheating test in derbies and even if you don't think these judges won't drop you for cheating, a green ribbon isn't worth the bad habits it's going to creat long term. Your dog either needs to be trained to not cheat or you need to be prepared to pick up even if you think you're winning the trial.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

John Robinson said:


> *Like I said the reality today is that you will see cheating test in derbies and even if you don't think these judges won't drop you for cheating, a green ribbon isn't worth the bad habits it's going to creat long term.* Your dog either needs to be trained to not cheat or you need to be prepared to pick up even if you think you're winning the trial.


For this very reason, I am on record saying that the rule change that now requires that a dog that is handled, for whatever the reason, be eliminated is one of the worst rule changes in the history of the sport.

Extenuating circumstances regards.

john


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Would you expound on those "extenuating circumstances" that you think should make handling on a mark in the Derby allowable, John?

kg


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

Marvin S said:


> I don't disagree with what your post said - other than, I do not believe you can have too much experience with young dogs when choosing judges for the Derby. Especially in their training. I see it every week when I post the competitive records of those asked to judge someone else's efforts with their dog.


 



K G said:


> You also said "I see it every week when I post the competitive records of those asked to judge someone else's efforts with their *dog*."
> 
> But in deference to you, Marv, let me rephrase: At the risk of taking this discussion to a level seen far too many times before on this site, someone having a "competitive record" with dog*s* does NOT necessarily mean they are (or would be) a competent judge in that stake. kg


In deference to you, I have reposted my entire statement on the subject. As an Owner, Trainer, Handler I have trained many dogS throughout the years & competed in the Derby with them, with varying success. At no time did I take more than one dog to the line to place under judgment.



Vicki Worthington said:


> I have to agree with Keith here...There are lots of folks who are judging--some are even 8-point judges who have NEVER set up a test in training, have never learned the difference between a training test and a field trial test, and have absolutely no idea "why dogs react the way they do". They have well-trained dogs and compete successfully.


They also are generally too busy to have a Derby record as someone else handles that for them. Being an 8 Pointer with AA dogs does not make one knowledgable about judging a Derby. "Experience with dogs in the field is considered an attribute by those who founded this sport."





K G said:


> My point is that just because one appears to be statistically able to handle a dog to a placement in a stake does NOT mean that the person would make a better judge than a person who does NOT have the same level of trial success in that stake.
> 
> I'll take someone who is a student of the sport, who has YEARS of experience setting up tests with some of the greatest judges who ever sat in the chair, who has had success setting up tests at all levels (regardless of their success at that level of testing), over someone who simply has experience "placing" a dog in stakes as a handler.
> 
> ...


I've read your points many times & respectfully disagree with what you say. The odds of someone "with experience with dogs in the field" being a better judge are too high to discount that factor. 



kip said:


> not according to marv!


If I ever meet you, I'll be glad to take the time to explain to you what my website says. People in this sport whom I respect applaud the effort, so you are a fairly lonely voice in the wilderness, along with those whose Ox is getting gored.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

K G said:


> Would you expound on those "extenuating circumstances" that you think should make handling on a mark in the Derby allowable, John?
> 
> kg


I think we should let the Judges in the chair that day be able to decide that. 

A preemptive " get in that water "handle for an obvious *up front *cheat would be one that I myself might consider. 

Anywhere else a handle should be able to be judged as it plays against the rest of the field who either have or have not. 

A handle for attempting to leave the area of the fall after a protracted hunt within that area might play, whereas a handle to the _Area _of a dog that is lost probably would not.

This topic needs a thread of its own regards.

jon


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Marvin S said:


> They also are generally too busy to have a Derby record as someone else handles that for them. Being an 8 Pointer with AA dogs does not make one knowledgable about judging a Derby. "Experience with dogs in the field is considered an attribute by those who founded this sport."


And again, "experience with dogs in the field" is not necessarily represented by one's record as a _handler_ nor does it reflect their ability (or lack thereof) to setup appropriate and effective tests, evaluate dog work, and score the work accordingly.




> I've read your points many times & respectfully disagree with what you say. The odds of someone "with experience with dogs in the field" being a better judge are too high to discount that factor.


That we agree to disagree is probably best, based on our history. As for the odds, I don't bet, but I'd like to know where you get your "too high to discount" theory, other than your own _opinion_.....

kg


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

K G said:


> That we agree to disagree is probably best, based on our history. As for the odds, I don't bet, but I'd like to know where you get your "too high to discount" theory, other than your own _opinion_.....
> kg


The "too high to discount" theory comes from years of experience in all facets of dog work, listening to others & being observant.

That you choose to continue this is a little surprising, but then again you HAVE to take the position you do based on your competitive record.  ------- But if you insist I'll gladly post it, otherwise "silence is best".


----------



## helencalif (Feb 2, 2004)

Tim Carrion said:


> IMHO most Derby judges try to generous with callbacks but when the completion of the first and second series of a Derby is delayed because 1-2 pros have every third or fourth dog in the Open entry in addition to their 1-2 Derby dog everyone suffers.
> 
> Tim


I agree. Pros tend to stay at the Open then run their Derby dogs 1) when they want to, or 2) dead last. For the first Derby series, this can cause delays and havoc with the time if the Derby has to wait for a pro with a lot of dogs in the Open to squeeze in running their Derby dogs. 

One solution for the first day (start day) is to schedule the Open and the Derby on Friday with staggered start times. Start the DERBY first (at least an hour prior to Open) to get the pro-handled Derby dogs out of the way. Then the pros can go to the Open -- providing, of course, that the club doesn't have the Open judges also judging the Derby.

Generally speaking, clubs on the West Coast do not have Open judges judging the Derby. Most west coast clubs have the Qual and the Derby judged by the same judges. Trials are 3 days starting on Friday with either the Derby or the Qual. starting Friday morning. Out here the Qual usually has more entries than Derby. 

A Derby of 20 dogs or less can be finished in one day providing the judges don't set up time wasting series or they don't change their mind about the tests they plan to run. At the most, a 20-dog Derby might carry over to a next day. If Derby starts at 8 a.m. on Friday, it can be over by mid-morning or noon on Saturday,which means 1-1/2 days for Derby. Qual also then gets 1-1/2 days to run.

If a larger Qual starts Friday morning at 8 -- if it starts near on time -- it is also usually over by noon or 1 p.m. on Sat. so the Derby will get almost 1-1/2 days to run. 

Marshals have to be on their toes to keep the holding blinds full and these stakes running without delays. However, not much they can do (except complain a lot) to get the pros and the sandbaggers to the Derby. 

I like to see Derby judges let the Derby dogs eliminate themselves; the hammer can always be dropped down hard on the last series.


----------



## Mickey Strandberg (Mar 11, 2009)

Hi guys. My first post! I agree totally with Vicki. Why bother having a derby or qual if you won 't a) give them good hard fair tests, b) be EXTREMELY lenient in your callbacks, and c) get GOOD qualified judges. If they are hard fair tests, the cream always rises to the top and you should be able to call back all completions (especially in a derby). I've judged many all-age trials, but my favorite is minor stakes. I love to challenge them and then call back everyone who got the chicken. I also strive to be friendly, supportive and hope they enjoy their trial experience. I've had handlers cry because they jammed for the first time in a licensed trial....and I'm sure most of us have long forgotten how that felt. (Once it was even a guy.....well, sort of.)

Sometimes it feels like for every one good judge, there are two or three lousy ones. And by lousy I mean having little empathy for the handlers or dogs; not having enough experience, knowledge or desire to set up good tests; want to "hurry up and get it done"; don't have the patience to see, if necessary, a derby dog make two long swims; and on and on. Come on, folks, it's a MINOR stake!

See? When any of you get to be as old as me, you can say whatever you like and not give a rat's patoey what anyone thinks! 

,


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Marvin S said:


> The "too high to discount" theory comes from years of experience in all facets of dog work, listening to others & being observant.
> 
> That you choose to continue this is a little surprising, but then again you HAVE to take the position you do based on your competitive record.  ------- But if you insist I'll gladly post it, otherwise "silence is best".


If you think you intimidate me, Marvin, think again (as if THAT would make a difference). You threatened this action to someone here privately several months ago. You do what you need to do, Marvin....and so will I.

It has never seemed to bother clubs that have asked me to judge both the Qual and Derby that I've not placed a dog in either stake. If folks didn't think I was competent, they wouldn't ask me to judge. If I didn't love dogs and the sport of field trials and hunting tests, and didn't think I was COMPETENT enough to judge them, I wouldn't accept assignments. My first Qual assignment was in 1985; my most recent one was last April. I think 23 years in the chair gives me a _tad_ of credibility; apparently, there are a few other folks that agree.  

Now....remind me again if you would....WHEN was the last time you judged ANY stake? And WHEN is the next time you're scheduled to judge? It's been almost SIX YEARS since you judged a minor stake and almost TEN YEARS since you judged an All-Age stake....and you have ZERO pending judging assignments according to the AKC. There's a _reason_ for that, Marv....and all the handling and placement stats on the _planet_ won't make up WHY you don't get asked to judge! ;-)

There's something unctuous about that, Marvin....patently....but that apparently causes you no concern. _Pity_.....

Keith Griffith
AKC judges #Z4148


----------



## Vicki Worthington (Jul 9, 2004)

Mickey,

Thanks for the vote of confidence. Coming from someone of your experience, I take your affirmation as highly complimentary. Glad you chimed in!

John,

The derby is not a training session, it is a testing session. For years and years, dogs were routinely eliminated from the Derby for handling--well before it became a mandatory elimination rule. If the dog won't do the test on its own, handling is just...well...TRAINING!

Marvin,

At the risk of incurring your proseful ire, *A good handler does not a good judge make in many cases*. I know lots of people with FCs, FC-AFCs, Derby Points, and QAA earners who *know how to handle in a field trial, but not in training*. They've NEVER set up a test in training--wouldn't know how. But they set up a training test they saw at their pro's facility when they judge, and have absolutely no idea why something works--just that it eliminates dogs. However, I agree the judges should be people who have to face up to their peers week in and week out when they do something like I just described. People who no longer run have little to worry about if they don't do their jobs properly when they judge. Human nature being what it is, there is no absolute impartiality. There's always the thought that a person didn't get treated fairly running under ?, so why should I treat ? fairly now--given the chance they are gone!

Keith, 

I like your idea about you and Marvin agreeing to disagree. Neither of you will EVER change the other's mind.


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Vicki Worthington said:


> John,
> 
> The derby is not a training session, it is a testing session. For years and years, dogs were routinely eliminated from the Derby for handling--well before it became a mandatory elimination rule. If the dog won't do the test on its own, handling is just...well...TRAINING!


Agreed.



> Marvin,
> 
> At the risk of incurring your proseful ire, *A good handler does not a good judge make in many cases*. I know lots of people with FCs, FC-AFCs, Derby Points, and QAA earners who *know how to handle in a field trial, but not in training*. They've NEVER set up a test in training--wouldn't know how. But they set up a training test they saw at their pro's facility when they judge, and have absolutely no idea why something works--just that it eliminates dogs.


Well stated.



> *However, I agree the judges should be people who have to face up to their peers week in and week out when they do something like I just described. People who no longer run have little to worry about if they don't do their jobs properly when they judge. Human nature being what it is, there is no absolute impartiality. There's always the thought that a person didn't get treated fairly running under ?, so why should I treat ? fairly now--given the chance they are gone! *


Vicki, are you telling me you believe this? That this is where we are with the state of field trial judging now? Are you saying you can't be impartial when you judge?





> Keith,
> 
> I like your idea about you and Marvin agreeing to disagree. Neither of you will EVER change the other's mind.


I have no desire to change his mind. I will, however, continue to call into question his method (as you did above) of _quantifying_ who is _qualified_ to judge and who is not. It is a DEEPLY flawed method fraught with imperfection, prejudice, and inaccuracy. 

kg


----------



## Vicki Worthington (Jul 9, 2004)

> Vicki, are you telling me you believe this? That this is where we are with the state of field trial judging now? Are you saying you can't be impartial when you judge?


Nope, I'm not saying that at all. I have observed what _I believe_ to have evidenced this at times. That doesn't mean my interpretation was correct, but that it was my observation.


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Vicki Worthington said:


> Nope, I'm not saying that at all. I have observed what _I believe_ to have evidenced this at times. That doesn't mean my interpretation was correct, but that it was my observation.


So help me understand what _this_ means:



> Human nature being what it is, there is no absolute impartiality.


That _sounds_ all-inclusive.

kg


----------



## Vicki Worthington (Jul 9, 2004)

Keith, everyone has biases. You expressed several regarding issues with the Derby. Another expressed a bias toward getting feet wet. We all have them--likes and dislikes. Its part of the human equation. To state that you (not your personally, but in the generic vernacular) have none makes one think that purple coolaid may be part of their RDA.

If someone felt injured enough, they could be biased against the person commiting the injury to go for the glass half empty rather than half full when a callback could go either way. If you haven't experienced it on one end or the other, brother you need to run more. Its out there. I even had a person judging a trial (who shall remain unnamed) make a statement to me that he/she didn't get anything when they ran under me at an earlier trial! Think I didn't know where I stood in that stake?


----------



## Barry (Dec 11, 2007)

Vicki Worthington said:


> Mickey,
> 
> Thanks for the vote of confidence. Coming from someone of your experience, I take your affirmation as highly complimentary. Glad you chimed in!
> 
> ...


These two guys are great. The only two on the planet that see I to I and disagree. Go figure. It's like one is always trying to antagonize the other till one goes off, and the other sits back and grins.


----------



## chjohnson622 (Jan 9, 2009)

Wow I just finished reading all 10 pages and would like to say something. I feel the test should be fair to the dogs do not try and trick them with cheating test and drop them for it (well he was not in the water and the dog only be 5 ft off line at 100 yards) to me thats not right. But I can not see allowing all dogs to finish just because they pick up the bird. What I'm trying to say I think the last series should only be the top 5 or 6 dogs. Out of these you get your placing and JAMs (if all dogs finish the test)

As far as giving all dogs (the entire field) a JAM if they complete the test I think has good intentions but I would be afraid it would water down the award.

IMO the JAM is for a dog that just almost placed but just missed it.


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Vicki Worthington said:


> Keith, everyone has biases. You expressed several regarding issues with the Derby. Another expressed a bias toward getting feet wet. We all have them--likes and dislikes. Its part of the human equation. To state that you (not your personally, but in the generic vernacular) have none makes one think that purple coolaid may be part of their RDA.


The issues I have with the Derby have to do with a dog's performance, with no regard whatsoever for my feelings about the dog's handler. That performance judgement is based on my interpretation of the guidance given by the rules/standing recommendations. I judge what I see; if the test doesn't give me/us what I/we need, we can't blame that on the dog. I tried to be fairly clear on that in my first post on this thread. I know what I like and don't like, but those likes and dislikes are guided by the direction provided by the rules/standing recommendations.



> If someone felt injured enough, they could be biased against the person commiting the injury to go for the glass half empty rather than half full when a callback could go either way. If you haven't experienced it on one end or the other, brother you need to run more. Its out there. I even had a person judging a trial (who shall remain unnamed) make a statement to me that he/she didn't get anything when they ran under me at an earlier trial! Think I didn't know where I stood in that stake?


If I haven't experienced it, I need to run _more_??? 'Cause God _knows_ that's the sort of prejudice I want to make _sure_ I experience before my life running dogs is over.... I think that comes with knowing who you're running under. Anyone who doesn't judge because they're afraid of this sort of retribution should give SERIOUS thought to giving up judging, as should anyone who seeks to give this sort of retribution as a result of how they finished in a field trial stake. 

As for whoever made the comment about getting nothing when they ran under you at a trial, that's just one more for the "do not run under" list. Tough call, but at least you won't waste anymore money running under them.

kg


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Vicki Worthington said:


> John,
> 
> The derby is not a training session, it is a testing session. *For years and years, dogs were routinely eliminated from the Derby for handling*--well before it became a mandatory elimination rule. *If the dog won't do the test on its own, handling is just...well...TRAINING!*


The old days are long gone and for the most part the Judging of the other stakes reflect this......so should the Derby 


As for handling being training in the Derby.With the exception of the cheaty Mark example, the same could be said for any of the other stakes. One could substitute "Q"., Amat, or Open for the Derby in your statement and be just as accurate.
I for one see no reason that the Derby handle should be treated any differently than any other handle.
I know that you know that a handle is not a handle is not a handle, as a matter of fact we are instructed to the contrary when told, among other things, that a quick handle is preferable to some hunts.

I saw a Pro win the Open at a Trial with the only dog to have handled on a particularly difficult Mark. That dog was the only dog to get that bird without an ugggggly hunt. On the Flip side I've not even got a JAM when doing likewise on a tough bird on a water quad, The dog that got 3rd hunted till it ran out of places to hunt, not getting to the AOF until it literally ran out of other places to hunt on the site .

Which set of Judges were correct. 

john


----------



## Kent S (Nov 27, 2006)

What about a dog that picks up all the birds, has a little bit of a hunt on the memory bird in the second series. Has a 20-30 second hunt on the memory bird in the water series and backsides the memory bird in the fourth and final series. Also, is the only dog that picks up all the birds in the final series that didnt switch and didnt get a ribbon. 15 dogs went to the final series, 3 switched on the memory bird and were out leaving 12 dogs. The dog above had a good trial without any major faults but didn't JAM. There were 8 ribbons given for JAMs. First derby for the dog at 14 months and for the handler.


----------



## Vicki Worthington (Jul 9, 2004)

I've never carried, let alone placed a dog that handled in the derby! Ever--even before the rule came about.


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

Vicki Worthington said:


> Marvin,
> 
> At the risk of incurring your proseful ire, *A good handler does not a good judge make in many cases*. I know lots of people with FCs, FC-AFCs, Derby Points, and QAA earners who *know how to handle in a field trial, but not in training*. They've NEVER set up a test in training--wouldn't know how. But they set up a training test they saw at their pro's facility when they judge, and have absolutely no idea why something works--just that it eliminates dogs. However, I agree the judges should be people who have to face up to their peers week in and week out when they do something like I just described. People who no longer run have little to worry about if they don't do their jobs properly when they judge. Human nature being what it is, there is no absolute impartiality.


You will never risk anything as long as you are civil in your presentation. 

I don't believe I have ever posted that a good handler makes a good judge, just implied that they have at least graced the line under trial conditions. They at least know what level of work is required to earn a placing in an AA or Derby stake. The database is set up so I can note those people who have someone else do their training & most others can figure that out.

TBS - you were at the trial where I came up with the inspiration to do the website. You had judged the other stake & tried to input to the pair of bookholders what you thought they needed to do. They managed to decimate a fine group of Derby dogs with their idiocy. Having judged with one of them I should have known better & just stayed home. I just thought the other to be more experienced because the club had paid to fly him there, which was a really bad call on my part.

Apparently, some feel there is value in what is posted to about the tune of 1K+ hits a month (our community is small) & the occasional e-mail which says they understand why some individuals should not stand behind the dog with a book. When some one lines up with all Zero's behind their name except for their judging points, that has to say something. 




> Keith,
> 
> I like your idea about you and Marvin agreeing to disagree. Neither of you will EVER change the other's mind.


Keith is not hard to tweak & place in his banty rooster posture.  

I enjoy raising Keith's BP as that is probably as close to getting exercise as he will get, as he hires the training work out. I'm really helping him stay fit. :BIG:


----------



## JKL (Oct 19, 2007)

Marvin S said:


> TBS - you were at the trial where I came up with the inspiration to do the website. You had judged the other stake & tried to input to the pair of bookholders what you thought they needed to do. They managed to decimate a fine group of Derby dogs with their idiocy. Having judged with one of them I should have known better & just stayed home. I just thought the other to be more experienced because the club had paid to fly him there, which was a really bad call on my part.


I believe that to be Dave Sniegowski, you know him dont you Vicki!


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Marvin S said:


> Keith is not hard to tweak & place in his banty rooster posture.
> 
> I enjoy raising Keith's BP as that is probably as close to getting exercise as he will get, as he hires the training work out. I'm really helping him stay fit.


You keep thinking that, Marv. That you did not re-address ANY of the points I brought up in my last post to you tells me where the REAL "tweaking" occurred!

Have a nice evening! ;-)

kg


----------



## Jim Pickering (Sep 17, 2004)

Vicki Worthington said:


> Jim, I'll try to answer, from my own perspective, your questions as best I can.


Thaks for your reply. At the risk of interrupting the seperate Marvin & Keith dicussion I would like to continue with the original subject. Excuse me fellows.



> I would NOT drop the dog that ran around the water.


Nor would I if time and logistics were not issues. Maybe we are not as far apart as I though.



> Your dog would be considered to have a better overall performance, but not necessarily a better "mark" since both dogs obviously knew exactly where the bird(s) was/were.


There was no my dog or your dog in the scenario; just dog A and dog B. But if you are saying that both had equal marks, but dog A had the better overall performance then I am in agreement. Two for two; we are on a roll. 



> My discussion originated because of the observations I've had for quite awhile that dogs were eliminated from the competition that should, IMO, be allowed to continue to run--not necessarily place.


In a perfect world you and I would carry as many dogs as find the marks without committing a mandatory elimination fault. However, the judges’ primary job is to find the best dogs entered that weekend within the time allowed. Time allowed has more parts than minutes on a clock. Many clubs are limited on grounds, help, and/or funds. If the FTC asks the derby judges to make every effort to finish a derby in one day, I am of the opinion that the judges should try to accommodate that request by sticking to their primary job and leaving the encouraging new guys to the club some other weekend.

Even if time and its other moving parts are not issues, based on the derby dogs we ran against last year and the derby dogs I have judged this year, you are not going to separate the best dogs if there is not sufficent meat, difficulty in the tests to eliminate the less prepared dogs. Seperation is just not possible if the tests are weak enough for the average dog to complete.

Did you not complain about 3 series derby stakes on this or another thead? Let me put a spin on a 3 test derby for discussion. My approach to judging derby stakes had been to put up a first test that was wide open as Richard described, fairly short marks with birds shot/thrown out of the test to try and let every dog get through the first test and get back to the second series. In doing this have I not reduced the derby effectively to 3 series in which to seperate the remaining dogs. I am just asking, but is this approach not penalizing the better dogs for the sake of encouraging the new guys?




> Be "rewarding" individuals with a finish/JAM that got all the birds, but not in such manner that they would receive a placement, I feel that encouragement is offered to those contestants to continue to work and strive for better performances. Sure, they may ruin a dog for all-age work, but if they get so discouraged that they just give up and quit, what difference will it make. I'd like to think that the finish(s) may help them to seek more training knowledge and do better with the dog for the next trial or even do better with the next dog they get/train.


To the best of my memory I have never withheld a JAM from a dog that finished a derby I judged because I will have done my best to make the dog earn the ribbon. However, I am not at all sure doing so does these folks any favors for reasons already stated previously.



> When I started, my first competitive dog was at the Derby level. I made every mistake you could make as a handler. I handled poorly, let the dog learn all kinds of bad habits too. But guess what...that dog was my first AFC. I buckled down & made the effort to learn how to do things better, correctly...how to have success. If I'd gotten thrown out of every trial because I couldn't place, I might not have continued for the 20+ years that I have.


Was that first dog by chance AFC ESPRIT HARDBALL? I ask this next queston only to gain a better understanding of your opnions, but did you do all the training on this dog yourself? It appears that you are now using pros to train your dogs so I wonder if that was the case with this one 20 years ago. There is a BIG difference between a handler leaning from his/her mistakes at a trial and a dog learning from its mistakes. There is a bigger difference between the dog going home with its amateur owner who must attempting to fix the problems induced at the trial and the dog going with a pro to be fixed during the next week. If you did in fact train your frist dog yourself to the AFC title my hat is off to you, but that makes it all the more difficult to understand your position as respect carring dogs.

Again thanks for the discussion!!


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

K G said:


> That you did not re-address ANY of the points I brought up in my last post to you tells me where the REAL "tweaking" occurred! kg


Originality would have been worthy of a specific reply, redundancy not so much. ;-)


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Marvin S said:


> Originality would have been worthy of a specific reply, redundancy not so much. ;-)


The truth can set one free, Marv....one just has to decide to embrace it.:razz:

Let us allow the folks with more important things to say on this thread to do so. Please, Mr. Pickering, do continue....and don't forget to include a judge's education of new handlers on the running line as to the do's and don'ts of running a Derby dog.

kg


----------



## Vicki Worthington (Jul 9, 2004)

Jim, I will try to respond to your questions/comments as best I can. This darned system keeps telling me I'm not logged in & I've logged in 3 times now only to be unable to post! Perhaps the moderators have locked me out & done me a favor????

First, AFC Esprit Hardball "Pitch" _was_ my first bona fide field trial dog. I purchased him from a professional trainer just out of basics. He had never run a field trial and *was not* remotely ready to run a derby. I trained him all spring/summer with a group of amateurs that I trained with on a daily basis. I made lots of training mistakes and lots of handling mistakes. At that time I only used a professional in the winter—from about January to mid-March. Unfortunately, now that I'm in Chicago, my job requires longer hours and an unfriendly schedule for training dogs. Couple that with the fact that training areas are at least an hour drive from home and training becomes pretty impossible to do on any regular basis. Just cause I use a pro now doesn't mean I don't know how to do it! 

Second, this whole post was prompted by observations I've made over several years, at lots of trials, and in various areas of the country! It does not advocate doing "easy" tests so that everyone can play. Most anyone who knows me and has run under me knows I have the same response as Tina Turner—I don't do easy! What I am concerned about is that the Derby has become more interested in producing tests that do not represent good, pure marking tests. Tests that reveal the dogs that are the best natural markers. Rather, they rely on training concepts—tests designed to elicit a correction in training—to select the winner. 

Put up the hard tests, sure. Just ensure they are marking tests. Tests that dogs must actually mark the bird and go to a place that they would not *naturally* want to go. Make it difficult as you like to "get there" but not by means of training issues, like cheating. Don't judge a mark by the line taken, but rather by the expeditious manner in which the bird is retrieved. The dogs WILL separate themselves. The cream will rise to the top, but the "cream" on these tests just may not be the dog that has lots of derby points in his resume if he got them by being trained to take lines, to know where to go because he's been so schooled about tight lines and where he's already been. 

My concerns about the derby stem not from hard tests and eliminations, but rather from eliminations for a hunt, a behind the gun route to the bird, a cheat from a dog that knows where the bird is & goes straight there. Will these dogs place? Not likely, but should they finish—YES.

Limitations on grounds may constrain the tests, but shouldn't alter the judging criteria. Let them fail themselves. Put up the hardest tests—marking tests that is—the grounds allow & judge what you get. Don't just seek to eliminate. There will be some, but hopefully fewer eliminations for "minor to moderate" infractions.

Lastly, it doesn't matter who is running the dog or who trained the dog. The Derby should continue to be about marking, not advanced training. Just because pro-trained, and some amateur-trained dogs _have_ advanced training shouldn't preclude other good markers just because they don't have the benefit of that advanced training—YET.

I don't like to nag dogs to death over every minor or moderate infraction cited in the rule book. Rather, my drawing generally disclose those issues, and I do make note of such things as sticky on a bird, noisy, creeping, poor line manners etc. Hopefully, I'm NEVER going to have to decide a Derby winner be whether he committed one or two minor faults, but rather on good separation on how he found the birds.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Vicki Worthington said:


> s.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------

